Be Nice To Your Doctor

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HOWARD J

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
2,643
Location
S/E Michigan
I see part of Obamas gun control is to have your doctor report YOU to
the government if he thinks you are a danger( whatever that means)

Also--Obama will have the DOJ tell what people on Social Security will
not be allowed to purchase a gun---CUTE
 
Last edited:
Classic "democracy" at its finest. Just be glad you're not a veteran.
 
If this is in reference to the HHS rule, there is an important detail:

Under this final rule, only covered entities with lawful authority to make the adjudications or commitment decisions that make individuals subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor, or that serve as repositories of information for NICS reporting purposes, are permitted to disclose the information needed for these purposes. The disclosure is restricted to limited demographic and certain other information needed for NICS purposes. The rule specifically prohibits the disclosure of diagnostic or clinical information, from medical records or other sources, and any mental health information beyond the indication that the individual is subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor.
Click to expand...
 
I once had a doctor who was giving me a yearly check-up and looking into my ears, ask me if I wore ear plugs when shooting guns. SNEAKY!!
 
He has no such authority to order HIPPA to be violated; heck, congress may not even be able to without first repealing the law or SCOTUS getting involved. Poor Obama; within ten years, either his entire policy legacy will be overturned, or the government enforcing it will no longer be relevant.

TCB
 
One of my doctors asked me why I reload ammo ""isn't that against the law""
I told him it certainly IS NOT.
""I have been retired 17 years---do you want me to spend my whole day watching liberals
on TV?""
I need something to keep busy --""I enjoy reloading & shooting--it is a great hobby""
He has not asked me about it since.
 
Unintended consequences of these things are for folks to keep their firearms stashed in multiple locations just in case. I'm guessing that many of these second plus sites are less secure. As such more guns that are less secure.
 
That only applies to folks who cannot handle their own affairs
Click to expand...

NO! It applies (Or can apply) to anyone who has someone else handle their affairs for them which can be for a number of reasons other than incompetence. And, there is no due process involved, only a clerk doing the reporting.
 
It applies to anyone who has appointed a fiduciary, regardless of mental capacity.

Also, the HIPPA was specifically referred to in an order an a "needless hurdle".
 
Same thing happens in the UK.
Well, it works like this:

1) The police advise your GP that you have applied for a firearm certificate.
2) The GP may (or may not) advise the police if you have a medical condition that makes it unsafe for you to operate a firearm. Note that this could be something like uncontrolled diabetes, it doesn't have to be a mental condition.
3) If the police get a note from the GP saying you are unsafe because of X,Y, or Z condition, the police can temporarily revoke your firearms certificate and take your firearms into storage.
4) According to advice I have had from the police directly, when the condition has been resolved/treated, you can get the guns/FAC back.

I shouldn't have to point out that most people are not confident about point number (4).

Unintended consequence is that existing firearms owners are less likely to seek treatment from their GPs for medical conditions that could result in them being reported and losing their guns.

From the standpoint of the police (the issuing authority of the FAC) this is a cover-your-arse manouevre, brought about by public outrage when legally-held guns have been used to commit murder or serious harm in the UK. An example of this is the Cumbria shootings where a taxi driver killed 12 people with legally-held guns.
The obvious outcry was "why was he allowed to have these guns when he had a screw loose?"

In my opinion, the GP rule is a buffer between public scrutiny and the police about the physical and mental competence of a person to handle a firearm. It is so that the police can say (after the event): "well we advised the GP that he had guns, and no unfavourable warnings were received back from the GP..."

It is a mechanism to deflect scrutiny.

Whether the GP reports anything to the police, and what the flavour of that report is, is another matter.
The data protection laws in the UK provide for the release of medical data (even against the patient's wishes) where such release will prevent harm coming to that patient or his family or the public. Serious mental defects and highly infectious diseases are covered by that.
 
Find a Dr that would never breach your trust and divulge you confidential health information to Big Brother. Mine would not. He was upset when he was forced to keep electronic records so I'm sure this EO will tick him off even more.
 
Twiki357 said:
NO! It applies (Or can apply) to anyone who has someone else handle their affairs for them which can be for a number of reasons other than incompetence. And, there is no due process involved, only a clerk doing the reporting.
Click to expand...
My grandma wanted my dad to take care of the bills when she was 80, just a hastle for her. She was as sharp as you or I and my dad finally took over when she was 95. Under proposed plans, she would have lost her rights.
 
Sheepdog1968 said:
My grandma wanted my dad to take care of the bills when she was 80, just a hastle for her. She was as sharp as you or I and my dad finally took over when she was 95. Under proposed plans, she would have lost her rights.
Click to expand...

I think the proper term is "could have lost her rights".
 
JFtheGR8 said:
Find a Dr that would never breach your trust and divulge you confidential health information to Big Brother. Mine would not. He was upset when he was forced to keep electronic records so I'm sure this EO will tick him off even more.
Click to expand...

Get meds for a year & wait till Trump gets elected

with luck things will change

do not trust your doctor

no matter what ......just my .02

trust no one
 
Tom Gresham has this to say about the subject, from his late father:

"It's not a sin to tell a lie to someone who isn't entitled to know the truth"

-Grits Gresham
 
Hehe.

Both my doctor and dentist are shooters. I am in the process of helping my dentist get started reloading. So sure... We talk about guns all of the time:)
 
I see part of Obamas gun control is to have your doctor report YOU to
the government if he thinks you are a danger( whatever that means)
Click to expand...

You'll have to provide a citation of the EA or EO for such an extraordinary claim (keep in mind those only apply to government agencies and not physicians themselves). You may be parroting an unreliable source or misunderstanding.
 
Last edited:
hso said:
You may be parroting an unreliable source or misunderstanding.
Click to expand...

HOWARD J said:
http://toprightnews.com/new-obama-ru...ts-to-the-fbi/
Click to expand...
That right there is the perfect example of an unreliable source. That's not even a real news site, it's just a clickbait political site pretending to be real news.

And in case the first part of that "article" wasn't a dead giveaway, this little gem of reporting at the end makes it plainly obvious:

"Are you a 'racist' Trump supporter who has guns at home? Obama has just empowered your kids’ Democrat pediatrician to report her concerns to the Federal government.

Betcha won’t hear about this on the Nightly News.

So please share this on Facebook right now…or your friends and family never will either."
 
I recently changed doctors and was asked to fill out a questionnaire. It had these 2 questions; Do you have guns in your household? Are the guns safely stored in a locked location? I drew a line through the questions and wrote N/A next to it. The doctor never even mentioned it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top