Doctors asking if you own a gun

[cb1000rider]

Inflammatory to this group anyway... I'm surprised that it wasn't posed as fact! Thanks for recognizing it for what it is.


VMI77,
I've got to admit, you've got some valid cases. Personally, I'm not against using medical history (such as MD diagnosis of mental disorders) for allow/disallow purchase of firearms. I already deal with that for other licenses. I know I'm in the minority.

You're right that medical history could be used to harass. Using it would be political suicide, but you certainly could leak it and the damage would be done. You've got a valid concern there.... Just remember that it's "equal" on both sides of the political isle - that is, one party has no more or no less interest in gathering that information. As long as both sides have it or don't have it, they're equal. I'm concerned about the government getting other information - but not particularly my medical history... Maybe it's just me..

[1wise1]

[quote="cb1000rider"]Inflammatory to this group anyway... I'm surprised that it wasn't posed as fact! Thanks for recognizing it for what it is.

The trouble, like the devil, always rests in the details. The WND article is fact based. It is a fact physician practices are being offered several hundred thousand dollars for purchasing computerized records systems. It is a fact that beginning in 2015 physician practices will be penalized 1 percent per year for failure to use these computerized systems. It is a fact that after time up to 95 percent of Medicare reimbursements to practices will be withheld as a penalty for not converting to an electronic system. The leap, so far, is federal government access to these systems holding sensitive and private information. We citizens must "trust" that the IRS which is tasked with administering the ACA will not access or misuse our information.

And that, I would posit, is the inflammatory nature of the article.

[cb1000rider]

The trouble, like the devil, always rests in the details. The WND article is fact based. It is a fact physician practices are being offered several hundred thousand dollars for purchasing computerized records systems. It is a fact that beginning in 2015 physician practices will be penalized 1 percent per year for failure to use these computerized systems. It is a fact that after time up to 95 percent of Medicare reimbursements to practices will be withheld as a penalty for not converting to an electronic system. The leap, so far, is federal government access to these systems holding sensitive and private information. We citizens must "trust" that the IRS which is tasked with administering the ACA will not access or misuse our information.

The requiring computerized records is fact. Penalties are fact.
Two leaps:
1) That the government has access to these systems. There is nothing that says the systems have to be cloud based or are anything more than local records in electronic form. I agree that if it's online, it is at risk. You can ask Iraq about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

2) That the government is requiring these types of questions on forms. The companies providing this software - the free market that makes money on it - may very well default to very generic questions that could apply across practice. That's how I'd write it - questions common to most practice types. That is, I can see a question about firearms ownership in a pediatric office. It's not exactly compelling proof that the government is requiring that doctors ask, collect, or provide this data to the government. Again, I think this is a bit tin-foil-hat because it's so much easier to get this information from electronic receipts. You guys buying 100% cash and person to person are probable safe. None of you on this board are safe at all.

I think we all want lower heath care costs. Paper systems don't do much to facilitate medical records, medical payments, or billing. Sure, it could be a conspiracy to track all the gun owners, but I think it's more likely a bit of a stick that's being poked at an industry that is very slow to change.

[VMI77]

Inflammatory to this group anyway... I'm surprised that it wasn't posed as fact! Thanks for recognizing it for what it is.


VMI77,
I've got to admit, you've got some valid cases. Personally, I'm not against using medical history (such as MD diagnosis of mental disorders) for allow/disallow purchase of firearms. I already deal with that for other licenses. I know I'm in the minority.

You're right that medical history could be used to harass. Using it would be political suicide, but you certainly could leak it and the damage would be done. You've got a valid concern there.... Just remember that it's "equal" on both sides of the political isle - that is, one party has no more or no less interest in gathering that information. As long as both sides have it or don't have it, they're equal. I'm concerned about the government getting other information - but not particularly my medical history... Maybe it's just me..

I'm not a party guy. I've loathed the Republican party establishment since I was in high school. I like a few outsiders in the Party, and I've liked some of the outsiders in the Democratic Party over the years. At this point the Republican Party is worse than useless as it represents nothing but self-interest and has completely abandoned what little principle it has ever stood for. And really, it's not equal on both sides of the aisle. For one thing, the Repugs have proven time after time that they are absolutely gutless. For another thing, as the "shutdown" demonstrated, via the conduct of the NPS, the bureaucracy is mostly under the control of the Democrats, and beholden to the Democratic party. Also, it's not the parties one needs to fear, it's the alphabet agencies, like the NSA, that pretty much do what they want.

Knowledge is power. Secret knowledge is leveraged power. I hesitate to call the those power mad psychopaths in Congress "representatives," so I'll call them "lawmakers." The real danger of this information lies less in how it may be used against me as an individual, but how it may be used to influence law and policies when it is used to control "lawmakers," judges, military brass, and governors. I'm really not all that worried about the data the NSA is collecting on me, for example, but how the data they're collecting on those with political and economic power is being used to influence law and policy.

I have to disagree about the diagnosis of mental disorders. A doctor should not unilaterally have the power to deny someone a Constitutional right. The only way anyone should be stripped of their right to bear arms is by a full hearing in a court of law. And if the government loses it should have to pay the costs of the defendant whose rights it was trying to strip.

[cb1000rider]

I have to disagree about the diagnosis of mental disorders. A doctor should not unilaterally have the power to deny someone a Constitutional right. The only way anyone should be stripped of their right to bear arms is by a full hearing in a court of law. And if the government loses it should have to pay the costs of the defendant whose rights it was trying to strip.

Give that power to one or perhaps a series of doctors and we'll have fewer gun deaths at the cost of constitutional rights. Fewer gun deaths could lead to the re-granting of the rights that we're already guaranteed.

Think we have a 2nd amendment right? Try carrying a shotgun through the neighborhood and see what happens. Also, we're going to have to compromise. Two sides that pick "their way" and are unwilling to make any compromise around the edges are doomed to gridlock and lack of progress. Choosing lack of progress can certainly be strategic, but if we really want change, some compromise is necessary. And discussion with people that we don't agree with is necessary too.

I guess I'm saying that we've already lost the constitutional right. Demonstrations don't work. Legislation seems to work - you've got to explicitly define what is OK. I'd trade the possibility that a doctor could take away my right to purchase a new gun (not my right to own one) for a little more carry flexibility in terms of what I can realistically carry.

Is this any different than what is already being asked for on the background check when purchasing one? I believe there is a question about being treated for a mental health condition.

BTW, I'm surprised to see you criticize the Republican party... I don't disagree with most of your points, I'm just a little surprised.

[rotor]

1. This topic has been beaten to death
2. The right to own a firearm predates the constitution. We would still be doing "hail to the king" without firearms.
3. You don't compromise on a "right". You don't accept loss of something guaranteed by the constitution.
4. Same as 1

[cb1000rider]

Rotor, unexercised rights are eroded. It's unfortunate that we need to work to retain those rights, but that's the reality of the current situation.

[VMI77]

I have to disagree about the diagnosis of mental disorders. A doctor should not unilaterally have the power to deny someone a Constitutional right. The only way anyone should be stripped of their right to bear arms is by a full hearing in a court of law. And if the government loses it should have to pay the costs of the defendant whose rights it was trying to strip.

Give that power to one or perhaps a series of doctors and we'll have fewer gun deaths at the cost of constitutional rights. Fewer gun deaths could lead to the re-granting of the rights that we're already guaranteed.

Think we have a 2nd amendment right? Try carrying a shotgun through the neighborhood and see what happens. Also, we're going to have to compromise. Two sides that pick "their way" and are unwilling to make any compromise around the edges are doomed to gridlock and lack of progress. Choosing lack of progress can certainly be strategic, but if we really want change, some compromise is necessary. And discussion with people that we don't agree with is necessary too.

I guess I'm saying that we've already lost the constitutional right. Demonstrations don't work. Legislation seems to work - you've got to explicitly define what is OK. I'd trade the possibility that a doctor could take away my right to purchase a new gun (not my right to own one) for a little more carry flexibility in terms of what I can realistically carry.

Is this any different than what is already being asked for on the background check when purchasing one? I believe there is a question about being treated for a mental health condition.

BTW, I'm surprised to see you criticize the Republican party... I don't disagree with most of your points, I'm just a little surprised.

I haven't had much taste for the Republican party since the party establishment tried to sink Goldwater and Reagan. But at least back then the establishment made some concessions to its base. Now the establishment RINOs are in-your-face antithetical to the principles the Party has supposedly represented. Insane McCain, McRomneycare, lyin' Ryan, give me a break. What it amounts to now is nothing more than a bunch of old psychopaths and sociopaths willing to do anything to keep themselves in power and their recent display over the shutdown was absolutely revolting. I'm for defunding it and only supporting those candidates who are willing to stand on principle and represent their base.

You know what they say though, all politics are local. In that sense, and in your optimistic sense that something can be achieved through legislation, our only hope is the House, where there still are a few sensible Democrats and enough sensible Republicans to at least block some of the bad stuff. The Senate is a complete loss. We've got these RINO's eating their own young in order to keep their decrepit hands grasping the rungs of power. We've got the most corrupt administration in the history of the United States in power and the Senate Republicans, and some of the house, have done nothing but cower before The One, obfuscate, and participate in political theater --thereby surrendering all moral authority. Some want to retain their power at any cost, some are afraid to be called names by the Dems and their MSM water carriers; only a handful represent the people that elected them. And what a truly pathetic spectacle it is to see those afraid of being labeled racists and Tea Partiers tuck their tails between their legs and whimper while being called seditionists, traitors, and terrorists.

I have to disagree with you about compromise and background checks. Compromise is no longer possible because as you allude to yourself, we've already given so much away that "compromise" can only mean concession. To the libs compromise means letting them have their way. The only thing they ever offer in return is letting us keep what little piece of the cake we have left for a little longer.

On background checks...I can't see anyway the anti-gun people are going to let someone who is prohibited from buying a new gun keep the ones they already have. It's much more likely that they'll come take YOUR guns when your spouse, or other family member living in your home, is prohibited from buying guns. I agree we don't have a right to keep and bear arms....what we have is temporary permission, in some parts of the country, to keep and bear arms. I agree that demonstrations don't work....they're nothing more than political theater promoting the illusion that politicians care what the electorate thinks. It helps keep people docile to let them believe they have any role in this so called "democracy." Voting doesn't work anymore either, at the national level. Voting, for now, can still influence what happens at the local level --at least if you don't live somewhere where voting has been marginalized by one faction or the other (note, I don't say side, or Party here, but faction, as in which particular group or family is vying for more power within the criminal enterprise).

I don't share your optimism. We're locked on course on a path that only leads into the abyss, and the psychos running the show are putting the pedal to the metal. The current system cannot be changed enough to avert catastrophe, and even if it could, there is no will to do it, either from the majority of the population or our rulers. The only thing we can do is be the best people we can be and prepare ourselves and our families for what is coming. But while the outcome is pretty certain, the timing is not. How long can this debt system continue? No one knows or can predict when the system will implode. Could be ten years from now, or even longer, or it could be just about anytime, depending on unpredictable events.

[VMI77]

1. This topic has been beaten to death
2. The right to own a firearm predates the constitution. We would still be doing "hail to the king" without firearms.
3. You don't compromise on a "right". You don't accept loss of something guaranteed by the constitution.
4. Same as 1

It would perhaps be more accurate to say that our right to keep and bear arms is not recognized by many levels of government, and only begrudgingly recognized, subject to arbitrary limitation, by the Feds. Yeah, we have the right, but you can fully exercise that right only if you're willing to die or go to prison.

[cb1000rider]

I have to disagree with you about compromise and background checks. Compromise is no longer possible because as you allude to yourself, we've already given so much away that "compromise" can only mean concession. To the libs compromise means letting them have their way. The only thing they ever offer in return is letting us keep what little piece of the cake we have left for a little longer.

Compromise is compromise. I'm not talking about concession. It means both sides get something that they want. Or perhaps that both sides walk away defeated. I'm not sure what we've already given away, but I certainly recognize the state of the 2nd amendment. It's not so much about what is or isn't on the books as it is about what isn't practical anymore. And yea, I'd suggest compromising on one thing to gain another.

On background checks...I can't see anyway the anti-gun people are going to let someone who is prohibited from buying a new gun keep the ones they already have. It's much more likely that they'll come take YOUR guns when your spouse, or other family member living in your home, is prohibited from buying guns. I agree we don't have a right to keep and bear arms....what we have is temporary permission, in some parts of the country, to keep and bear arms. I agree that demonstrations don't work....they're nothing more than political theater promoting the illusion that politicians care what the electorate thinks. It helps keep people docile to let them believe they have any role in this so called "democracy." Voting doesn't work anymore either, at the national level. Voting, for now, can still influence what happens at the local level --at least if you don't live somewhere where voting has been marginalized by one faction or the other (note, I don't say side, or Party here, but faction, as in which particular group or family is vying for more power within the criminal enterprise).

Baby steps. Thinking about this there is perhaps a some ground that you and I can agree on. My tin-foil hat isn't big enough to think that they'll try and take guns away. It is big enough to thing that in addition to preventing the purchase of a new one, they might remove your right to carry or possess one.

I look at it in another sense: The government might take my license to fly away, but I can still own airplanes. They don't even inhibit my ability to buy another, which is a bit strange.

I don't share your optimism. We're locked on course on a path that only leads into the abyss, and the psychos running the show are putting the pedal to the metal. The current system cannot be changed enough to avert catastrophe, and even if it could, there is no will to do it, either from the majority of the population or our rulers. The only thing we can do is be the best people we can be and prepare ourselves and our families for what is coming. But while the outcome is pretty certain, the timing is not. How long can this debt system continue? No one knows or can predict when the system will implode. Could be ten years from now, or even longer, or it could be just about anytime, depending on unpredictable events.

I hear you there. If debt continues to mount, eventually something will break... That I certainly agree with. We're responsible for this public-pandering political system where we vote for people who will decrease our taxes and increase our benefits. I just hope that something breaks that is big enough to garner enough attention without the entire thing falling apart.