PDA

View Full Version : Electronic Medical Records and Guns


OHOD
10-25-2009, 11:08 PM
As usual, I was riding home on the motorcycle after a long day of teaching, when my mind began to wonder about electronic medical records and the government.

Remember when the politicians were pushing electronic medical records in regards to a nationalized health system? The experts were saying that everyone would have an electronic medical record in order for hospitals and EMTs to provide fast and efficient health care.

If this were to happen and an individual was treated for depression, then would there be a risk of said depression causing a flag on a background check when buying a firearm?

The justification for this process would be that we don't want unstable people having guns. Then they use mass murderers as an example of how the system could prevent lunatics killing school children.

In essence, any psych disorder on an electronic medical record would flag a background check to prevent the firearm sale.

What do you think? Could this happen?

Gray Peterson
10-25-2009, 11:20 PM
In Washington State (not sure about California), only those who are declared mentally incompetent by a judge or committed into a mental institution, by a judge. Point being is, it's by a judge, as a judicial act, and a court order, not a medical record.

SmokinMr2
10-25-2009, 11:24 PM
yes.

OHOD
10-25-2009, 11:25 PM
In Washington State (not sure about California), only those who are declared mentally incompetent by a judge or committed into a mental institution, by a judge. Point being is, it's by a judge, as a judicial act, and a court order, not a medical record.

I learn something new everyday. Thanks for the reality check.
Silly me.

Joanne

POLICESTATE
10-25-2009, 11:32 PM
Regardless of how things might pan out in the future, I wouldn't visit any shrinks or therapists for anything. I don't need someone who knows absolutely nothing about me making professional OPINIONS about my state of mind or anything else.

OlderThanDirt
10-25-2009, 11:57 PM
I'm never depressed and don't share anything nonessential with medical personnel.

Dr. Peter Venkman
10-26-2009, 12:01 AM
Focus on the road please. Thank you.

K5Cruiser
10-26-2009, 12:25 AM
Of the health care facilities that do have electronic medical records, many of them are not from the same vendor. Many of the systems do not communicate with each other, therefore the idea that everyone has your medical record available at their finger tips is not reality.

With all the restrictions that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) places on medical providers, I don't see this becoming a reality any time soon as any health care provider will need your written consent, prior to obtaining or accessing your health history from another provider.

bwiese
10-26-2009, 12:25 AM
You should not worry about receiving therapy unless you're possibly seeking high political office, gonna be in charge of nuclear missiles, or gonna be a CEO of a big corp (even then it's prob OK). If it's needed it's needed.

Unless you're adjudicated mentally defective, counseling etc. does not generally affect gunrights - with exception of disclosing threats, etc.

yellowfin
10-26-2009, 1:03 AM
Prescription medications related to such are visible on medical records for safety reasons. Something this brings up is the dangerous element of the anti gun political complex having a foothold in the psychology community. I've noticed a distinct and disturbing bias in that field as my wife went through grad school that is probably subsidized by Joyce and could be put to ill use much more than it already has.

Gray Peterson
10-26-2009, 2:45 AM
Prescription medications related to such are visible on medical records for safety reasons. Something this brings up is the dangerous element of the anti gun political complex having a foothold in the psychology community. I've noticed a distinct and disturbing bias in that field as my wife went through grad school that is probably subsidized by Joyce and could be put to ill use much more than it already has.

To what end?

GrizzlyGuy
10-26-2009, 7:24 AM
In essence, any psych disorder on an electronic medical record would flag a background check to prevent the firearm sale.

What do you think? Could this happen?

In the future I believe this could happen. I just received my C&R FFL application from BATFE. When you sign it, you agree to the following:

"Specifically, I hereby authorize the release of the following data or records to ATF: Employment information, military information/records, medical information/records, police and criminal records."

Note also that in California, you don't need to be adjudicated as mentally defective to lose your firearm rights. You lose them for 5 years if you are simply detained by a LEO on a 5150:

http://law.onecle.com/california/welfare/5150.html

Fortunately, the legislature allows you to petition the court to have your rights restored in such a case. And, the feds don't care about 5150, the lifetime prohibition for firearms comes into play only if they hold you against your will into the 5250 intensive treatment phase.

Seeking treatment voluntarily currently has no effect on firearms rights, regardless of how long or intense the treatment is, so people that need treatment shouldn't fear seeking it.

OHOD
10-26-2009, 9:03 AM
Like I said, I learn something new every day.

As for the C&R FFL, that is an eyeopener. Never say never, someday someone is going to want to know everything.

7x57
10-26-2009, 9:11 AM
Bill, I think the fear is more what *could* be done. Given the renewed noise about getting around the Constitution via the "guns are a public health issue" gambit, I don't think the fear is entirely irrational.

On the other hand, someone makes a good point that there is a tremendous difference between voluntary therapy and involuntary therapy. Someone with real issues is better off for many reasons choosing therapy voluntarily and remaining in control. At least at one time in one state (I say it that way because I have one data point) if you committed yourself to an institution you could walk out at any time. If it was involuntary, you were essentially a prisoner at administrative discretion. It sounds like something similar is true for gun rights, so if there is any danger that someone's problems are going to affect others to the point of being committed involuntarily, that is simply another reason why they'd be better off taking their own steps.

7x57

Sinestr
10-26-2009, 9:19 AM
Uh oh, this thread is making me feel depressed.

halifax
10-26-2009, 9:22 AM
I'm never depressed and don't share anything nonessential with medical personnel.

I went to a clinic to have a wart on my finger frozen. The questionnaire asked if I had any guns in my house. I left it blank. The nurse asked me why I left it blank. I asked her what that question had to do with a wart on my finger. She said it was important. I said I don't believe it is and I'm not going to answer it. She checked it YES for me. :mad:

I told the doctor what happened. He accusingly asked me what I was so upset about. Figured I drop it.

I hope that kind of crap doesn't end up in some electronic record.

Sinestr
10-26-2009, 9:29 AM
Next time mark it no. I don't think you have my legal obligation to tell them.

a1c
10-26-2009, 9:29 AM
I went to a clinic to have a wart on my finger frozen. The questionnaire asked if I had any guns in my house. I left it blank. The nurse asked me why I left it blank. I asked her what that question had to do with a wart on my finger.

Well, is it your trigger finger? Now that could be important. :D

Sinestr
10-26-2009, 9:48 AM
Any legal obligation. Sorry, my iPhone typing skills are not so great.

halifax
10-26-2009, 9:56 AM
Well, is it your trigger finger? Now that could be important. :D

Actually it was and right on the pad. Still none of their business. :confused:

bwiese
10-26-2009, 10:06 AM
Note also that in California, you don't need to be adjudicated as mentally defective to lose your firearm rights. You lose them for 5 years if you are simply detained by a LEO on a 5150:

http://law.onecle.com/california/welfare/5150.html



Those rights are readily recoverable.
Most situations don't resolve to a full 5150 - arrest is not the issue, detention is preceded by observation in facility and can in fact show the person is not a nutjob or danger to himself. Many many folks have some drama in their life and are hooked up on that charge initially by LEO, but are not prohibited from gun ownership.

Between CA rights recovery allowable, as well as the added rights recovery in the NICS Improvement Act, we have many more things of higher priority to worry about.

OHOD
10-26-2009, 10:11 AM
Guns are considered a public health issue according to the DHS.

Based on that issue alone, the DHS could begin some sort of intervention related to public safety. Which would be for the public good or in other words "good for the collective". Who could argue with that? Lives would be saved? Isn't that good for the collective?

bwiese
10-26-2009, 10:17 AM
Bill, I think the fear is more what *could* be done. Given the renewed noise about getting around the Constitution via the "guns are a public health issue" gambit, I don't think the fear is entirely irrational.

What 'could' be done is dependent on nonexistent legislation.

Given we own Congress, and such legislation would result in added checks/balances (like the GOA-derided actual improvements NRA got in on NICS Improvement Act so vets who may've had issues can get gunrights back.

We also have the mental health lobby that's effectively working for us - almost too much. They've, over the years, protected the privacy of absolute menacing nutjobs that should be wearing sandwich-board placards. In fact gunnies have taken blame in the past (politically) for slack in legit mental health reporting.


On the other hand, someone makes a good point that there is a tremendous difference between voluntary therapy and involuntary therapy. Someone with real issues is better off for many reasons choosing therapy voluntarily and remaining in control. At least at one time in one state (I say it that way because I have one data point) if you committed yourself to an institution you could walk out at any time. If it was involuntary, you were essentially a prisoner at administrative discretion. It sounds like something similar is true for gun rights, so if there is any danger that someone's problems are going to affect others to the point of being committed involuntarily, that is simply another reason why they'd be better off taking their own steps.

Good points.

fullrearview
10-26-2009, 10:41 AM
What about pregnant women???? A vast majority go through some form of depression... How does this effect their chance of being able to purchase firearms.

7x57
10-26-2009, 10:51 AM
What 'could' be done is dependent on nonexistent legislation.


I didn't give an opinion on how realistic or how immediate the fear could legitimately be. But this is at some level above a totally random worry--we know the profession has some will to go this way. What they don't have right now is the power to do so, as you state. But it's worth remembering that they have the will, should the power ever become available. Of course, our job is to ensure that it does not. The existence of some will to harm us makes the fear somewhat realistic, but I'd say that the absence of the influence to pursue it makes it not more than "somewhat."

Immediate--it doesn't seem so. At best, about like the occasional efforts of the non-psychological medical profession to get guns inside their area of authority. (Notice the wording--frankly, I view the periodic noises in this area as being driven by the simple and instinctive grasp for more authority that any organization or profession has, as much as they are driven by real anti-gun sentiment. If you see any issue you might get more power over, why not float a trial balloon and see if it gets shot down?)

In a different climate, I suspect this could be as serious an issue as the "guns as defective consumer products" gambit, which for a while was pretty serious. They're examples of the anti-gunners looking for a way to change the battlespace and the rules of the conflict, a sure sign they are *NOT* happy with the results they are getting by their traditional means. But as you point out, there is no legislation contemplated (that I am aware of) that would make this a near-term problem.

The appropriate level of response seems to be "memo to self--keep half an eye on the medical profession in general." As long as we have the influence we do, we seem to be able to shoot down any trial balloons that appear, and that's the end of it. As long as it stays that way, it doesn't take much ammo to keep their heads down and we can spend our efforts on the more realistic and dangerous issues.

But I don't think we should entire ignore the issue. It's worth talking about in an idle moment, but so far not a lot more.

You know, I think there is a far more concise post in there struggling to get out, but I just don't have the time to re-write it now that I've gotten the ideas out of the corners of my brain. :(

7x57

Write Winger
10-26-2009, 12:51 PM
Every time my wife and I bring my baby boy to the pediatric office for check ups, shots, or whatever, they start running down this list of questions INCLUDING "Do you have any guns in the home?" and "Are they locked up?"

What business is it of theirs whether I do or don't, and once we have socialized medicine, will this be in my permanent government file? And to ask this EVERYTIME I go... seems like there's a checklist to see if my answer ever changes from visit to visit.

Of course they say it's for "the safety of the children, because we saw a news story about a dumb F whose kids got ahold of their guns and blew their sister's head off", but they never ask about leaving the bath tub full after bath time or having gates at the top of stairs, or anything else a child could conceivably hurt/kill themselves with.

Irritates me every time....

oldrifle
10-26-2009, 1:49 PM
Fear of being "blacklisted" from buying guns would definitely dissuade me from ever getting any kind of mental health treatment, should I need it. It's pretty sad that people who might really need help won't get it... and the antis should be worried that those people are armed, wouldn't you think?

Not to thread jack, but I ran across this the other day... VeriChip Corporation and RECEPTORS LLC Announce Webcast Details for Today's Event to Unveil Development Details of Virus Triage Detection System for the H1N1 Virus and In Vivo Glucose-Sensing RFID Mic (http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.aspx?Feed=BW&Date=20091022&ID=10583826&Symbol=CHIP.uis.net)

"VeriChip Corporation, headquartered in Delray Beach, Florida, has developed the VeriMed™ Health Link System for rapidly and accurately identifying people who arrive in an emergency room and are unable to communicate. This system uses the first human-implantable passive RFID microchip and corresponding personal health record, cleared for medical use in October 2004 by the United States Food and Drug Administration."

Scary stuff... :eek:

yellowfin
10-26-2009, 2:01 PM
Is it possible to sue over these invasive questions which show a political and social prejudice?

510dat
10-26-2009, 2:09 PM
Is it possible to sue over these invasive questions which show a political and social prejudice?

Who would you sue? Your doctor?

510dat
10-26-2009, 2:22 PM
At least at one time in one state (I say it that way because I have one data point) if you committed yourself to an institution you could walk out at any time. If it was involuntary, you were essentially a prisoner at administrative discretion.

7x57

That's the way it is in Ca. If you're voluntary, you're voluntary, and you can leave at any time. The only reason they can force you to stay is if you're a danger to others (DTO), a danger to self (DTS), or gravely disturbed (GD), which basically means you're so far out there you can't take care of yourself, don't have any idea what's around you/where you are, etc.

Even if you're very schizophrenic, you can still walk out if you're voluntary. Now, they will do an evaluation when you admit, to see if you fit any of those criteria, but lots of patients don't fit those criteria.

yellowfin
10-26-2009, 2:30 PM
The doctor and the company that put it on the form. It's discriminatory harassment, plain and simple. If halifax had gotten his encounter on tape, that nurse and possibly the doctor would be toast, and deservedly so. Start turning those scum in for this.

7x57
10-26-2009, 2:33 PM
Every time my wife and I bring my baby boy to the pediatric office for check ups, shots, or whatever, they start running down this list of questions INCLUDING "Do you have any guns in the home?" and "Are they locked up?"


I have to say that this isn't a small town with one doctor. There are lots of pediatricians, and you better believe I'd read any doctor the riot act before walking out forever if this was tried.

That said, I already tested our pediatrician (I can't remember what I did--wore an NRA t-shirt for a baby checkup, probably), and he has at least some shooting background so these occasional suggestions from higher up the bureaucracy that he should engage in a bit of big-brotherish snooping probably go right out the other ear. :thumbsup:

I recommend voting with your feet, and making sure they know why. Most Calgunners probably live in large enough towns to have alternatives (and those that don't probably live where a doctor wouldn't dare pull the stunt, because those places tend to be very pro-gun in the first place). Are you really locked in that badly?

7x57

Gray Peterson
10-26-2009, 2:41 PM
Fear of being "blacklisted" from buying guns would definitely dissuade me from ever getting any kind of mental health treatment, should I need it. It's pretty sad that people who might really need help won't get it... and the antis should be worried that those people are armed, wouldn't you think?



If the fears are unfounded, as repeatedly proven in the thread, why do you believe them?

Super Spy
10-26-2009, 3:20 PM
I understand at Kaiser they keep mental health records and regular medical records separate. I would think if anyone were prescribed any medications it would have to show that to prevent a doc prescribing anything that might have adverse drug interactions, and obviously certain meds would be an obvious indicator of certain psychological disorders. So if prescribed drugs are listed and shared that automatically gives an indicator someone is under psychiatric care and the prescribed med narrows down the possibilities.

510dat
10-26-2009, 3:43 PM
I understand at Kaiser they keep mental health records and regular medical records separate. I would think if anyone were prescribed any medications it would have to show that to prevent a doc prescribing anything that might have adverse drug interactions, and obviously certain meds would be an obvious indicator of certain psychological disorders. So if prescribed drugs are listed and shared that automatically gives an indicator someone is under psychiatric care and the prescribed med narrows down the possibilities.

Everything psych related is kept in a different chart (by CA law, IIRC), which is actually a problem, as psych meds often interact with other meds. The patient has to tell the regular physician that they're taking medication X, even in the same hospital, or sign a specific release form.

Write Winger
10-26-2009, 3:53 PM
We're not locked in w/ the pediatrician... actually we won't be going to them anymore starting in December because of insurance reasons.

So how do we go about getting these kinds of invasive questions removed? What/who is Halifax?

I know this is lower on the food chain in the gun battle, but every little victory begins to add up.

510dat
10-26-2009, 4:14 PM
Its not like this is a national information gathering conspiracy; it's probably a generic form published by the AMA.

When you go to a clinic (like a pediatrician's office or a dentist), its no different than going to your local mechanic and filling out a questionnaire about how you keep your car, is it garaged/curb-parked, and do you have fuel containers nearby.

If you don't like some or any of the questions on the form, leave them blank, put a line through the space, check both yes *and* no, or whatever you deem appropriate. Then, explain to your doctor that you feel the question is personal or offensive or whatever, and request that the question be removed from the list.

And be polite; people don't respond well to rudeness.

OHOD
10-26-2009, 5:37 PM
"memo to self--keep half an eye on the medical profession in general."


I think you are probably right. At this point in time it is a non-issue, but we should keep a watchful eye for backdoor control of our rights in the guise something else.

As for the crazy postpartum depression murders, well they don't need a gun they will use a car, a pillow, a blanket, a dumpster or whatever they can get their hands on.

billrights76
10-26-2009, 7:55 PM
Regardless of how things might pan out in the future, I wouldn't visit any shrinks or therapists for anything. I don't need someone who knows absolutely nothing about me making professional OPINIONS about my state of mind or anything else.

ah c'mon those guys know what they are doing, what you worried about them writing something erronious in your permanent electronic medical record that is kept private by $9.00 hr gov't technicians. man your paranoid (sarcasm intended)

Mike d'Ocla
10-26-2009, 8:37 PM
Having worked as a therapist in community mental health clinics, I think this discussion is just a little bit out-of-whack (psychological jargon).

Two facts stand out to me:

1. Depression is normal. Virtually everyone has occasional mood changes that could be diagnosed as depression. The topic of depression is complex clinically. People who don't think they've ever been depressed are probably poorly-informed about their own feelings. Which is fine with me. In my jaded opinion most people are poorly-informed about most topics.

2. Mental health professionals as a rule (of course there are exceptions to every rule) are very well-trained and -informed ethically. They take endless classes on ethics and all licensing exams are full of ethical questions. When they do their continuing education classes after licensing, they are likely to take classes on the latest ethical perspectives and their legal obligations. They go out of their way NOT to reveal anything about their clients, or patients, or the people they are helping. They are ethically and legally bound to maintain privacy.

Because medical insurance requires that records be kept and diagnoses noted down, therapists make an effort not to note anything that might be harmful to a client if any information in a record should somehow be seen by someone other than the client or the therapist. If someone other than the client or the therapist is to have access to the records, then there needs to be a signed statement from the client giving permission to a specific person for a stated purpose within a precisely-defined time period.

Therapists, psychologists and psychiatrists for the most part follow such rules and laws with the greatest care. The only occasion I can think of when a therapist might involuntarily reveal something about a client would be in a court of law under a judge's direct instruction at the risk of being held in contempt of court if the instruction were refused. And an ethical therapist would under those circumstances reveal as little as possible.

billrights76
10-26-2009, 8:46 PM
Having worked as a therapist in community mental health clinics, I think this discussion is just a little bit out-of-whack (psychological jargon).

Two facts stand out to me:

1. Depression is normal. Virtually everyone has occasional mood changes that could be diagnosed as depression. The topic of depression is complex clinically. People who don't think they've ever been depressed are probably poorly-informed about their own feelings. Which is fine with me. In my jaded opinion most people are poorly-informed about most topics.

2. Mental health professionals as a rule (of course there are exceptions to every rule) are very well-trained and -informed ethically. They take endless classes on ethics and all licensing exams are full of ethical questions. When they do their continuing education classes after licensing, they are likely to take classes on the latest ethical perspectives and their legal obligations. They go out of their way NOT to reveal anything about their clients, or patients, or the people they are helping. They are ethically and legally bound to maintain privacy.

Because medical insurance requires that records be kept and diagnoses noted down, therapists make an effort not to note anything that might be harmful to a client if any information in a record should somehow be seen by someone other than the client or the therapist. If someone other than the client or the therapist is to have access to the records, then there needs to be a signed statement from the client giving permission to a specific person for a stated purpose within a precisely-defined time period.

Therapists, psychologists and psychiatrists for the most part follow such rules and laws with the greatest care. The only occasion I can think of when a therapist might involuntarily reveal something about a client would be in a court of law under a judge's direct instruction at the risk of being held in contempt of court if the instruction were refused. And an ethical therapist would under those circumstances reveal as little as possible.

for now-- let's see how all that changes with socialized medicine, the American version *not* the happy fuzzy French version, but the one Reid, Pelosi and the Chi town mobsters make up.

bodger
10-26-2009, 8:48 PM
I have read some speculation that the veterans with PTSD who are receiving treatment at the VA might have trouble purchasing firearms at some point. I don't know if it's a valid concern or not.

If we didn't have such nonsense laws regarding firearms to begin with I'm sure we wouldn't think twice about stuff like this. But so may out there want to take our guns anyway they can, we have to consdier every angle they might try to use.

Anyone, anywhere, asks me about my gun ownership on a written form gets no answer from me.

Mike d'Ocla
10-26-2009, 8:52 PM
"Let's see how all that changes with socialized medicine, the American version *not* the happy fuzzy French version, but the one Reid, Pelosi and the Chi town mobsters make up."

I wonder what kind of thinking this is. If you think "socialism" is such a problem, where do you think the internet came from?

OHOD
10-26-2009, 9:14 PM
Having worked as a therapist in community mental health clinics, I think this discussion is just a little bit out-of-whack (psychological jargon).

Two facts stand out to me:

1. Depression is normal. Virtually everyone has occasional mood changes that could be diagnosed as depression. The topic of depression is complex clinically. People who don't think they've ever been depressed are probably poorly-informed about their own feelings. Which is fine with me. In my jaded opinion most people are poorly-informed about most topics.

2. Mental health professionals as a rule (of course there are exceptions to every rule) are very well-trained and -informed ethically. They take endless classes on ethics and all licensing exams are full of ethical questions. When they do their continuing education classes after licensing, they are likely to take classes on the latest ethical perspectives and their legal obligations. They go out of their way NOT to reveal anything about their clients, or patients, or the people they are helping. They are ethically and legally bound to maintain privacy.

Because medical insurance requires that records be kept and diagnoses noted down, therapists make an effort not to note anything that might be harmful to a client if any information in a record should somehow be seen by someone other than the client or the therapist. If someone other than the client or the therapist is to have access to the records, then there needs to be a signed statement from the client giving permission to a specific person for a stated purpose within a precisely-defined time period.

Therapists, psychologists and psychiatrists for the most part follow such rules and laws with the greatest care. The only occasion I can think of when a therapist might involuntarily reveal something about a client would be in a court of law under a judge's direct instruction at the risk of being held in contempt of court if the instruction were refused. And an ethical therapist would under those circumstances reveal as little as possible.

Being both medical professionals, we could agree that medical records can be used to conduct research as long as individual identities are not revealed (HIPA privacy laws and all that). Who's to say that information could be flagged for researchers to gather information on community health i.e. guns as a community health and safety concern.

If there is abuse of a child or elderly person we are mandated to report. But I'm not sure how this would fit in the discussion other than connecting the background investigation dots.

dantodd
10-26-2009, 9:25 PM
"Let's see how all that changes with socialized medicine, the American version *not* the happy fuzzy French version, but the one Reid, Pelosi and the Chi town mobsters make up."

I wonder what kind of thinking this is. If you think "socialism" is such a problem, where do you think the internet came from?

I don't feel it is terribly far off base to be concerned that a government run single payer program would severely damage privacy. If it is a single payer then all the records will be centrally available. If it is the government the possibility for abuse goes up exponentially.

As for the origins of the Internet, it is surely not socialism. You cannot equate any and all government subsidized programs or projects with socialism. On top of that you cannot really say that the Internet of today is either run by the government or that it even remotely resembles what it was just 20 years ago. For one thing, when it was dominated by the government doing business was forbidden by most APUs.

OHOD
10-26-2009, 9:47 PM
I don't feel it is terribly far off base to be concerned that a government run single payer program would severely damage privacy. If it is a single payer then all the records will be centrally available. If it is the government the possibility for abuse goes up exponentially.



Yup.

billrights76
10-26-2009, 10:23 PM
I don't feel it is terribly far off base to be concerned that a government run single payer program would severely damage privacy. If it is a single payer then all the records will be centrally available. If it is the government the possibility for abuse goes up exponentially.
...
we all recall our DMV experiences. I really get a laugh when the supporters of gov't run healthcare cite the French and Swiss versions as a comparison to our current version. They never consider the most important fact, we are Americans not French just because the French have a tendency to fall in with gov't run enterprises why in God's green earth do they think that will work for a completely different culture. I laugh my *** off watching Al Franken get into this idiocy.

a1c
10-26-2009, 11:06 PM
we all recall our DMV experiences. I really get a laugh when the supporters of gov't run healthcare cite the French and Swiss versions as a comparison to our current version. They never consider the most important fact, we are Americans not French just because the French have a tendency to fall in with gov't run enterprises why in God's green earth do they think that will work for a completely different culture. I laugh my *** off watching Al Franken get into this idiocy.

Well the current healthcare system doesn't work. It's broken and costs more and more money, including for insurance companies. It's headed for a disaster.

The current system is an accident. The employer-based system was started by Blue Cross and then followed by others, but it was never thought to be a very good model. But successive governments gave up on trying to change it because they had other priorities at the time.

It's not the result of a cultural exception. It's an accident of history. And the status quo is no longer working. I know it first hand: when I was single and unemployed, I couldn't get insurance because of a pre-existing condition. That's shameful and needs to change.

I don't mind a public option at all. The current system is not a free market model, it's a broken oligopoly. Healthcare should not be a for-profit market, it should be an investment in the country's future, like infrastructure, public education and armed forces.

OHOD
10-26-2009, 11:16 PM
Well the current healthcare system doesn't work. It's broken and costs more and more money, including for insurance companies. It's headed for a disaster.

The current system is an accident. The employer-based system was started by Blue Cross and then followed by others, but it was never thought to be a very good model. But successive governments gave up on trying to change it because they had other priorities at the time.

It's not the result of a cultural exception. It's an accident of history. And the status quo is no longer working. I know it first hand: when I was single and unemployed, I couldn't get insurance because of a pre-existing condition. That's shameful and needs to change.

I don't mind a public option at all. The current system is not a free market model, it's a broken oligopoly. Healthcare should not be a for-profit market, it should be an investment in the country's future, like infrastructure, public education and armed forces.

I agree that the current system needs reform and I think 99.999% of Americans believe that. It is a shame when someone must go bankrupt and lost everything before help comes. We must fix the system, but a government run system is not the way.

By the way, have you ever read Alinsky's Rules for Radicals?
New definitions:
Status quo = capitalism
Investment = taxation

This was slightly off topic.

billrights76
10-27-2009, 2:35 AM
Well the current healthcare system doesn't work. It's broken and costs more and more money, including for insurance companies. It's headed for a disaster.

The current system is an accident. The employer-based system was started by Blue Cross and then followed by others, but it was never thought to be a very good model. But successive governments gave up on trying to change it because they had other priorities at the time.

It's not the result of a cultural exception. It's an accident of history. And the status quo is no longer working. I know it first hand: when I was single and unemployed, I couldn't get insurance because of a pre-existing condition. That's shameful and needs to change.

I don't mind a public option at all. The current system is not a free market model, it's a broken oligopoly. Healthcare should not be a for-profit market, it should be an investment in the country's future, like infrastructure, public education and armed forces.

i agree with what you are saying about the problems, but somehow you made the leap from realizing we have problems to accepting one shoe fits all as a solution.
This is where the Statist really have everyone hypnotized. This is whay the Statist do, "look here people we have a problem, see, ok. look at their solution over there for those different folks, well that will work for us"
the idiot al franken is the champion of this very humorous

GrizzlyGuy
10-27-2009, 8:26 AM
I don't feel it is terribly far off base to be concerned that a government run single payer program would severely damage privacy. If it is a single payer then all the records will be centrally available. If it is the government the possibility for abuse goes up exponentially.

No, not too far off base at all. NRA-ILA highlights yet another article pointing out that the NIH is already quite interested in this info, and eventually pulling it from our then-government-managed medical records would be the logical next step:

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=13046

"In response to inquiries about the studies, NIH spokesman Don Ralbovsky said: "Gun-related violence is a public health problem — it diverts considerable health care resources away from other problems and, therefore, is of interest to NIH."

a1c
10-27-2009, 9:01 AM
No, not too far off base at all. NRA-ILA highlights yet another article pointing out that the NIH is already quite interested in this info, and eventually pulling it from our then-government-managed medical records would be the logical next step:

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=13046

"In response to inquiries about the studies, NIH spokesman Don Ralbovsky said: "Gun-related violence is a public health problem it diverts considerable health care resources away from other problems and, therefore, is of interest to NIH."

The UK is an entirely different country. The invasion of privacy over the past decade has been incredible. Most Britons, interestingly, don't really care. So the government can get away with a lot of things. It wouldn't fly here.

dantodd
10-27-2009, 1:04 PM
I don't mind a public option at all. The current system is not a free market model, it's a broken oligopoly. Healthcare should not be a for-profit market, it should be an investment in the country's future, like infrastructure, public education and armed forces.

I have a serious problem with a public insurance option. IT AIN'T THEIR JOB. Do you also think that the government should provide housing? Why not? Everyone needs a home so if aynone is without a home the government should build them homes and put them into the house for a reduced cost and just lay the difference at the feet of those who are making more money. How about food? Don't you think that everyone should have the ability to eat a good meal? Why not have the government pay for all the food and just tax the "haves" to feed the "have nots?" This is the path to ruination of open markets and private enterprise.

If the government can suddenly start offering health insurance even though it is wildly outside of any power we gave them in the constitution what's to stop them from grabbing other powers that are not granted them?

GuyW
10-27-2009, 1:25 PM
Do you also think that the government should provide housing?

No - but that's just a short step. It already owns your house - you have to pay yearly rent to them to stay in it (sort of like a mafia protection racket...)

.

a1c
10-27-2009, 2:14 PM
I have a serious problem with a public insurance option. IT AIN'T THEIR JOB. Do you also think that the government should provide housing? Why not? Everyone needs a home so if aynone is without a home the government should build them homes and put them into the house for a reduced cost and just lay the difference at the feet of those who are making more money. How about food? Don't you think that everyone should have the ability to eat a good meal? Why not have the government pay for all the food and just tax the "haves" to feed the "have nots?" This is the path to ruination of open markets and private enterprise.

If the government can suddenly start offering health insurance even though it is wildly outside of any power we gave them in the constitution what's to stop them from grabbing other powers that are not granted them?

The government is already in the business of providing healthcare to millions of seniors who apparently are pretty happy with Medicare. The federal and state governments also provide health insurance to some who can't afford it. The states provides unemployment insurance. And this state even provides earthquake insurance through several providers.

Saying that the government is not in the business of healthcare means that you would want Medicare to disappear, for instance.

dantodd
10-27-2009, 2:19 PM
No - but that's just a short step. It already owns your house - you have to pay yearly rent to them to stay in it (sort of like a mafia protection racket...)

.

Somehow I think that property tax is a little too far down the road for an effective roll-back. This is the same problem that we'd have in 20 or 30 years trying to de-socialize health care.

RRangel
10-27-2009, 2:46 PM
The government is already in the business of providing healthcare to millions of seniors who apparently are pretty happy with Medicare. The federal and state governments also provide health insurance to some who can't afford it. The states provides unemployment insurance. And this state even provides earthquake insurance through several providers.

Saying that the government is not in the business of healthcare means that you would want Medicare to disappear, for instance.

That is not a real argument, not to mention government mandated healthcare is unconstitutional, but I digress. This is the Second Amendment forum people we need to stay on topic.

GrizzlyGuy
10-27-2009, 5:34 PM
The UK is an entirely different country. The invasion of privacy over the past decade has been incredible. Most Britons, interestingly, don't really care. So the government can get away with a lot of things. It wouldn't fly here.

You lost me on that one. The NIH is a U.S. agency, and Investor's Business Daily is a U.S. publication. That was the second NRA-ILA alert on the subject, here is the first one and the U.K isn't mentioned:

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5186

See also:

http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/news/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=7458

a1c
10-27-2009, 6:01 PM
You lost me on that one. The NIH is a U.S. agency, and Investor's Business Daily is a U.S. publication. That was the second NRA-ILA alert on the subject, here is the first one and the U.K isn't mentioned:

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5186

See also:

http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/news/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=7458

My bad, I hadn't had enough coffee obviously - I somehow read NHS. Duh. Crawling back into my hole.

GrizzlyGuy
10-27-2009, 6:14 PM
My bad, I hadn't had enough coffee obviously - I somehow read NHS. Duh. Crawling back into my hole.

Hah! No worries. When I read it, I had to Google it since it did sound like something only the Brits could come up with. Or maybe the French. But with Obama in office, we can't assume anything any more...

OHOD
10-27-2009, 8:40 PM
Who do they think we are? A bunch of idiots?

I read the Energy Commission Press Release regarding guns, booze and teens. They make it sound like these are innocent kids that accidentally shoot each other and that they will cooperate with authority to figure out the problem.

The answer is simple, gangs. I needs say no more. If guns are a public health concern, then obviously they should be banned. For health reasons that is, we want everyone to be healthy, right?