*****
Not so. From the PACA [Obamacare law]:
LIMITATION ON DETERMINATION OF PREMIUM RATES OR ELIGIBILITY FOR HEALTH INSURANCE.
A premium rate may not be increased, health insurance coverage may not be denied, and a discount, rebate, or reward offered for participation in a wellness program may not be reduced or withheld under any health benefit plan issued pursuant to or in accordance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act on the basis of, or on reliance upon—
(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or
(B) the lawful use or storage of a firearm or ammunition.
Yes, but that doesn’t mean that the risk to health is not greater due to violence in the home where a child is being taught to use a fire arm, even though too young to use a firearm.
That would be an increased health risk due to likely violence, not due to the ownership of a firearm or ammunition.
There is no way this clause you have cited would be a stop gap to assessing a greater health risk and thus a greater premium, or denial of service, due to potential violence in the home.
You need to read how the Nazis did it in Germany, where such protections as you cite were easily circumvented by other derivative catchment.