|
|
"16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes. "Originally Posted by kssooner
How is that a slippery slope? Doctors aren't prohibited from asking you about your tax returns or your Meemaw's Cadillac, either. Non-issue.
Yep. After actually getting past the headline that is the case. As I said before though, funny we thought that could have been true.
My Walgreens pharmacy got robbed the other night. The pharmacist on duty got a call from someone saying if he didn't put all the oxy in a bag he'd kill everyone in there. The pharmacist moved over into a corner and put his hand in his pocket. The caller told him to get his hand out of his pocket. He ended up putting all the bottle in a bag and some guy took them from the drive thru.
I bet that was pretty chilling for the pharmacist.
The call is coming from INSIDE THE HOUSE!
Asking about it isn't the problem. Trying to convince folks to answer for their own good with the intent of providing info to other groups without consent is an issue IMO.
Have you checked the children lately?
Mine was sold to them too
Doctors aren't required to ask. Doctors aren't required to report to anyone. If asking about guns in the house falls within the scope of medical ****essment, it's probably a HIPAA violation for a doctor to share that information. Doctors were already allowed to ask about guns in the house. This is, literally, not a change in the law whatsoever.
Deep breaths everyone. Deep breaths.
Not yet . . .
Dog and pony show time . . .
WASHINGTON — Three days after six teachers and 20 students were killed by a rampaging gunman at a Connecticut elementary school, an 8-year-old Maryland boy pulled out a sheet of paper and wrote President Barack Obama, asking for “some changes in the laws with guns.”
“It’s a free country but I recommend there needs (to) be a limit with guns,” Grant Fritz said in the Dec. 17 letter. “Please don’t let people own machine guns or other powerful guns like that.”
Can someone please explain why everyone is freaking out? Bush passes the patriot act infringing on privacy and he's awesome. Obama wants better background checks for people buying guns and he's the devil? I'm very middle of the road and can honestly say I didn't vote for either so don't make any ****umptions. I'm just really looking for rational people to explain the problems. Is it what these orders might be interpreted as?
The following users like this post: OUMallen
Don't you remember San Fran Nan with the group of kids and the little black kid at BHO's elbow for the BHOCare ceremony? He's got the best of both worlds. All the "letter writers" as well as all the dead kids. It's a win win.
This. The Patriot Act is far more egregious than the piddling gun restrictions being proposed.
I don't think anyone is "freaking out" over background checks. I think the general sentiment here is that many of the listed items will be a money sink not accomplishing anything.. and most of the freak out is that he wants to push an ****ault weapons ban and magazine limit through congress.
Oh.. and Bush was terrible and the patriot act is insane.
That is creepy as ****. Hope that never happens to me.
Well I think it's unlikely that they'll strike another Walgreens, so you should be fine.
I agree with all of this!! Less than 350 people were killed by a rifle last year. While 1700 people were killed by knives last year! I just dont get why people think rifles are the problem. During the last "****ault rifle bans" over 17,000 people were killed a year by guns. Last year, over 8000.
*Capitol
We're a sound bite society. ARs are scary looking. Why would anyone need anything in their house that's this scary looking??? Why oh why oh why??
Ex post facto still can't be done by the Congress. I don't know how XOs count.
Exactly . . .
that is the exact reason that it is stupid for it to be included on this list and require the cost of even one of the stupid pen's that was required to sign one letter of his dumb name!
2 users like nekkedJ_bird's post: DRminimega67, OUMallen
Don't know yet. Feinstein's bill, I believe, would make any bans retroactive. I don't see anyway that will happen but that won't stop people like her trying to make criminals out of us for owning a scary looking gun and a magazine she doesn't like.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
as someone said earlier. The devil is in the details.
they are wanting electronic medical records to be portable. So, if I put it in the record that you have a gun, then someone will have access to that information.
If gun ownership is now part of someone's health(which is bull****), then telling someone else that patient has a gun in their home would be a HIPAA violation, as I see it. If the gun is related to the injury and you are talking to the police, then I don't see it as a violation.
That has to do with states. The other has to do with doctors. Two different things. And again, the laws literally aren't chaning! Doctors can ALREADY ASK THESE THINGS.
LOUD NOISES!
That really wasn't my complaint or the point of any of my posts about this . . . my point is that I think there could be some doctors using this as leverage against patients. I want unbiased care based on my medical condition.
This video is very surprising . . . Denny's kicks out gun-toting cops . . .
Like others on here I contacted Senator Coburn about this issue . . . part of his response is below.
Improving the information exchange would be a great place to start IMO.There are many factors which should be examined carefully when considering preventive measures to ensure similar situations do not occur again. While a firearm was used to execute this heinous act, focusing on the weapon alone overlooks other key facts including the mental health of the killer. As a physician, I believe our nation could do more to ensure those with mental illnesses that are a threat to themselves and others have access to treatment and are prevented from accessing firearms. To this end, officials at every level of government must examine our laws and policies aimed at ensuring those who are prohibited from attaining firearms, including the seriously mentally ill, are identified and prevented from accessing firearms. Currently, persons who have been adjudicated as a “mental defective” are supposed to be included in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Index, which is used by firearm sellers to determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to purchase firearms. In 2007, Congress passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act (P.L. 110-180) which established incentives for state, local, and tribal governments to increase the compliance of states reporting seriously mentally ill persons to the NICS system. However, a July 2012 Government Accountability Office (GAO) study found that these incentives have not been implemented, and the law has not achieved the intended purpose of improving the reporting rates of mental health records by states. As of October 2011, only 12 states had made substantial improvement in reporting, while almost half of the states, including Oklahoma, had barely made any progress in this area.[1] While states have primacy in passing laws and establishing policies on how to submit records to the NICS index, Congress should review, and amend if necessary, the recently passed NICS Improvement Act to ensure that it achieves it intended purpose of properly identifying and preventing access to firearms for those who are prohibited from it.
You're right they can ask these things but they can't document the answers. But this what Obama wants to remove so that doctors can ask and then document who owns guns.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...e-legislation/
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...+Government%29
When Obama signed his 23 Executive Orders this morning, #16 was to clarify that Obamacare "does not prohibit doctors [from] asking patients about guns in their homes." Yet it must be understood that even if they ask these questions, they can't compile their answers into a list which they then p**** on to the government.
This prohibition comes courtesy of Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).
When Obamacare was being debated in the Senate in 2010, Reid inserted an amendment that forbids the government from using doctors to compile information for a gun registry.
In fact, the amendment makes it clear that Obamacare cannot be construed to authorize doctors to collect "information relating to the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition."
Therefore, even if doctors take today's 16th Executive Order to heart and ask their patients about guns, the answers cannot be used to form some type of gun registry database.
So...in the Affordable Healthcare Act doctors can ask about guns in home but can't document the fact...to help control gun violence the new gun EO wants doctors to ask about guns in the household but can't document the fact that the question was asked or answered...
Quality **** here...two big thumbs up!
2 users like pphilfran's post: bushmaster06, Tundra
Sounds like our state agencies, hospitals and schools with illegals.
hahahah, OK, so, the federal government is going to enlist doctors...medical doctors....to create a gun registry?You're right they can ask these things but they can't document the answers. But this what Obama wants to remove so that doctors can ask and then document who owns guns.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...e-legislation/
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Have you MET any doctors? Most simply won't do this. Most won't answer the doctor's question. Most don't go to the doctor hardly ever. Even if the WORST case happens, and doctors somehow feel obligated not only to ask this medically irrelevant question, but also to document it, and then report it to the federal government, you still don't have to answer.
I mean, come on guys.
You seem to believe that none of this can happen. Did you also think that nobody could ever fly planes into our buildings, that our government would never do something like the patriot act, the NDAA, build server farms to store everything possible about us?
Why even make it a bullet point? 22 wasn't enough? (bullet point is probably unacceptable... MS Powerpoint will need an immediate update)
We are getting required to document and report all sorts of stuff or risk getting reimbursements cut. I wouldn't be surprised to have to report drugs, guns, etc at some point in time. So, I wouldn't say doctors wont do things. They may have to or at least go thru the motions.
The following users like this post: oucub23
Also Mallen, why does the CDC need to study gun violence? Last time i checked a gun was not a disease. Seems like an opportunity to declare guns a public health hazard.
Could you see a point in the future that our government declares a gun a public health hazard and further restricts our ability to buy guns and/or keep guns if we have kids in our home?
It is a gun pandemic....
Would not be surprised to see that used.
It has to start somewhere. Like in boxing. Short jabs that seemingly do no harm but they add up and make it easier to deliver the deciding blow.
Funny. If the CDC wants to study something how about the disease holding the gun?
The CDC is going to study the effect of violence in media on shooters isn't it?
Funny...this is also the reason most people actually buy hem...
I think that part of the point is that he is using an EO to specifically remove limits that he didn't want placed into the law. From what I understand, the prohibition from collecting and disclosing information about gun ownership was not in the proposed law and BO didn't want it there. Now he is just EOing that part away. Which is not OK.
The second point is not about right now. Piss too many people off by going from "you can't collect/disclose" straight to "you must". Baby steps, first you make it ok do do it but not manditory, then you make it mandatory a year later or whatever.
Personally I dont think the EOs amount to much if they dont get new law through the congress. And I dont think they are going to get more than universal background checks through. The 94 gun ban is probably helping right now, because the gun grabbers can't even look at that time and say "look how well it worked!"
Logic would say yes. Since logic doesn't exist in Washington, I wouldn't hold my breath.
The following users like this post: oucub23
Socialist gradualism they attack the right and depict its supporters as evil until they curtail and eliminate the right.
Yeah! DHS is getting involved in gun control.
DHS to 'Expand and Formalize Coordination' on Gun Control Efforts
Janet Napolitano, head of the Department of Homeland Security, released a statement Wednesday saying she is "proud to support" the Obama administration's efforts to "combat gun violence in our country." Here's more from Napolitano's statement:
In the aftermath of the tragic Newtown shooting, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), together with the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the FBI have worked to identify measures that could be taken to reduce the risk of m**** casualty shootings. In the coming days, DHS will expand and formalize coordination of ongoing efforts intended to prevent future m**** casualty shootings, improve preparedness, and to strengthen security and resilience in schools and other potential targets. DHS will work with partners at all levels of government, to address five critical areas intended to reduce the risk of m**** casualty shootings in the United States: Prevention, Protection, Response, Education, and Research/Evaluation. DHS will also work with law enforcement to refresh, expand and prioritize the implementation of nationwide public awareness efforts such as the “If You See Something, Say Something™” campaign. This is a critical issue that requires immediate attention and I look forward to supporting the President and this Administration as we move ahead.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ts_696127.html
HURT: Gun edicts put personal liberty under fire
http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/20...ty-under-fire/
To be honest they are doing the right thing by going after the "problem" in multiple paths....
If I were to have to control a quality or waste problem in a manufacturing facility I would take a bunch of different angles...production, QA, training, enginieering, and IT would all be involved and would have specific tasks and duties...Obama is actually doing the right thing...
"Problem"
Knee jerk reactions to restrict our rights isn't the right thing to do. Blaming and banning a gun and a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds isn't the right thing to do. Using kids for props and fear mongering to further an agenda isn't the right thing to do.
Will some of the others things help, maybe but how much our liberties will we have to surrender in the process?
The following users like this post: Lake_Bum
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
