Doctors need/want to know.

[olafhardtB]

I wonder, could an insurance company deny your claim because you falsified the application. They might especially for lead poisoning or gun related injury.

 

[sqwerl]

Even if your doctor is a hunter, shooter, best buddy, etc. I wouldn't dismiss the reason the question is on there because chances are the doctor is just being required to ask it by the government.

Soon if we keep the same nut job/administration in the white house gun ownership will become a "health hazard" to you and your children.

Things like this are already seeping into our insurance policies. If the insurance companies can start penalizing you for being "too fat" in their eyes then why not guns? Soon they'll be denying brain cancer claims due to talking on the cell phone too much since they'll start coming with a warning soon if they haven't already. Big brother knows what's best for you. Big insurance companies are playing both sides of the fence. They blame Obamacare for rising expenses but do you think they care one iota about increasingly invasive risk assessments as long as it's money in their pockets?

This reminds me of a good editorial cartoon I saw yesterday and it's attached. It's even funnier than I remember. Chicago politics at it's finest. lol

 

[TRX]

When I was a child in elementary school in California in the 1960s the school had all kinds of questions for first and second graders. They wanted to know all about your parents, your siblings, etc.

My parents got a visit from a social worker who demanded to know why "Tina" wasn't registered in school. As I remember, their questions were about "anyone" in the home. It's not my fault they didn't enquire deeply enough to find out Tina was a dachshund.

We had a long discussion that night, when my parents were surprised and angry at the questions we were being asked.

Oh, yes, and they also wanted to know about any guns in the home.

This was in Sacramento, circa 1966-1968.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Interesting: a lot of assumptions, without much fact.

1. Can health insurance companies access the data in your medical record? Yes absolutely. They are allowed to do that for the purposes of claims verification (making sure your doc actually did what he charged them for) and for statistical analysis (for example, seeing what their costs are, re whether they need to adjust their premiums upward. Again.)

Health plans are not allowed by law to use your info to adjust your personal rates (life insureance plans, however, are not bound by the same law). For example, if you ski, health plans are not allowed to exclude you from a group plan (at work, for example) that you would otherwise qualify for; nor are they allowed to charge you more to join.

Some plans have "Wellness plans" and charge members less if they don't smoke, for example. But use of firearm ownership or storage info for the purposes of a wellness plan is prohibitted by P.L. 111-148.

2. Can health plans deny claims if you provide false info? I suspect if you lie on your application for coverage, they can and would do that. However, most folks get their coverage via open enrolment" at their place of work; there is usually very little health info asked (except of course for the notorious "previously existing conditions" if you didn't have coverage when those conditions arose) on those. Lying on a physician's questionnaire has no such penalties in general (although I wonder if that would still be true in the Armed Forces, or by extention, in the VA medical system).

3. FL passed a law... Yes, they did; as JD said above, it's being challenged and its constitutionality will be decided.

I'm not sure I see the nefarious intent that many here assume; and I certainly disagree that accident prevention is none of the doc's business. But, if it makes people feel better to lie about it, then fine: lie.

 

[zxcvbob]

I've been absolutely open with the family Doc about my hobbies. All it's done is get the kids lead levels tested ( low/none)

And my own.... Surprisingly high... too much soft lead in an indoor range... I'm still hemming and hawing on a lead filtermask for the range.

So it was a good thing. I found out that I literally DO shoot too much. Anyone have a suggestion for a small, but effective mask ?

Those disposable nuisance masks should be a lot better than nothing, but get the ones that are "N95" certified. More importantly, breathe thru your nose, then wash your hands and blow your nose after you shoot. It wouldn't hurt to wash your hair when you get home.

Take Vitamin C tablets when you're shooting indoors a lot. Maybe 2000 mg per day of the really cheap ones. The ascorbic acid is a chelating agent.

 

[HOOfan_1]

I certainly disagree that accident prevention is none of the doc's business. But, if it makes people feel better to lie about it, then fine: lie.

Are they teaching firearms safety in medical school now? If they are, did they do emperical studies to come up with proper procedures for gun safety? If not, I fail to see how doctors in general are qualified to give advice about it.

 

[Sky]

My G.P. a few years ago, when 25mil reward was offered for Osama Bin Ding Dong, wanted to know if I wanted to go with him and see if we could get the reward. I just laughed and found out he thought he was a pretty good long range shot.....He did speak Packy and Arabic and would have been a good guy to go with but after discussing Osama being 6'6" and having to carry the body out underfire (probably) in a hostile land without air support and no helicopter taxi; we decided it was a fun thought experiment but that is all it was......25mil would go a long way for rice and beans even in today's market.

Who do you give the captured prisoner too. You turn body or prisoner over and get a bullet for you trouble; or just as bad only more lingering being accused of wrong doing and not sanctified by some agency for the mission and spending 45mil on lawyers to maintain your freedom?!?.

But it was fun talking and thinking......to old for that stuff and just not as trusting of the world as I once was. But a good fantasy can make for lively conversations sometimes during a prostate exam.

Conversation was good and so was the prostate.

I think if confronted with the question on a form today I would just say yes.

Before when all my guns were hand me downs and not registered then I might not have thought or said the same; dunno depends on the atmosphere.

I used to pride myself on honor, honesty, and forthrightness; I like to think I still lean that way with my friends and family.

 

[sqwerl]

Interesting: a lot of assumptions, without much fact.

1. Can health insurance companies access the data in your medical record? Yes absolutely. They are allowed to do that for the purposes of claims verification (making sure your doc actually did what he charged them for) and for statistical analysis (for example, seeing what their costs are, re whether they need to adjust their premiums upward. Again.)

Health plans are not allowed by law to use your info to adjust your personal rates (life insureance plans, however, are not bound by the same law). For example, if you ski, health plans are not allowed to exclude you from a group plan (at work, for example) that you would otherwise qualify for; nor are they allowed to charge you more to join.

Some plans have "Wellness plans" and charge members less if they don't smoke, for example. But use of firearm ownership or storage info for the purposes of a wellness plan is prohibitted by P.L. 111-148.

2. Can health plans deny claims if you provide false info? I suspect if you lie on your application for coverage, they can and would do that. However, most folks get their coverage via open enrolment" at their place of work; there is usually very little health info asked (except of course for the notorious "previously existing conditions" if you didn't have coverage when those conditions arose) on those. Lying on a physician's questionnaire has no such penalties in general (although I wonder if that would still be true in the Armed Forces, or by extention, in the VA medical system).

3. FL passed a law... Yes, they did; as JD said above, it's being challenged and its constitutionality will be decided.

I'm not sure I see the nefarious intent that many here assume; and I certainly disagree that accident prevention is none of the doc's business. But, if it makes people feel better to lie about it, then fine: lie.

The underlying problem and cause for the legislation is not the fact that the doctor asked but that he DENIED treatment to a child for the mother not answering.

http://www.ocala.com/article/20100724/ARTICLES/7241001/-1/news?p=1&tc=pg

The American Association of Pediatrics urges pediatricians to ask questions of parents about gun ownership when they get children's medical histories and to suggest that parents remove guns from the home.

Do you not see the slippery slope here? How long of a list could a doctor deny you treatment based on your refusal to answer questions?
Do you store Drano unsafely?
Do your children have access to prescription drugs?
Do you have a pool?
Do you use child safety seats?

Who decides that guns are more dangerous than any of the above?

If the child had come in with a gunshot wound, not to mention why they wouldn't be in the ER in the first place and there is no time to make a person answer these questions before treatment, the police will be notified and it would be investigated.

"The American Academy of Pediatrics' position on firearm-related injuries states 'the absence of guns from children's homes and communities is the most reliable and effective measure to prevent firearm-related injuries' to them."

Thinking cap, likely liberal and highly educated know what's best for us and telling us how to live. Never mind you can and should do these things RESPONSIBLY and your child won't get hurt.

 

[jerkface11]

"The American Academy of Pediatrics' position on firearm-related injuries states 'the absence of guns from children's homes and communities is the most reliable and effective measure to prevent firearm-related injuries' to them."

So abstinence is the best form of safe firearms handling? Considering the logic the same people use on sex I expected it to be education and kevlar.

 

[sqwerl]

So abstinence is the best form of safe firearms handling? Considering the logic the same people use on sex I expected it to be education and kevlar.

LMAO

 

[jerkface11]

I can keep making analogies to actual healthcare issues all day long.

 

[Dnaltrop]

I've generally been taking 2 packets Daily of Emergen-C since my early teens, so the C is covered.

I don't know if it's just a feel-good measure, or if it has any real effect as I have not laid eyes on hard medical data, but I also once in a while take a few weeks worth of Bentonite clay as an adsorbent. (http://www.sonnes.com/products_line_7.html)

I'll let people know how the lead levels adjust once I hit my follow-up date.

 

[Lonestar49]

One "medical change" among many more IMHO

With Obama care starting to come into power as the months progress

* I think it is prudent that all of us look at the questions on medical forms with more skepticism.

* I find no reason for a MD. to know about my fire arms activities and how many I may or may not own. However, it looks like with all the electronic data being collected it could be just one more way to track gun owners.

...

*I agree here in both, IF Obama/FDR lending hands, once again, go into affect, the first time one has a bout with some form of depression (happens to most) and the Doc prescribes anything for it, and with "data", you'll get a knock at the door by some Feds w/warrant to seize all your weapons..

No questions asked -


Ls

 

[Rail Driver]

I've generally been taking 2 packets Daily of Emergen-C since my early teens, so the C is covered.

I don't know if it's just a feel-good measure, or if it has any real effect as I have not laid eyes on hard medical data, but I also once in a while take a few weeks worth of Bentonite clay as an adsorbent. (http://www.sonnes.com/products_line_7.html)

I'll let people know how the lead levels adjust once I hit my follow-up date.

Wow, Dnaltrop you can't be too old then... Emergen-C was introduced to the market in 1994

Really though, unless I'm shooting with my doctor, he has no reason to know whether or not there are guns in my house and the same goes for my kids' doctors.

 

[Hacker15E]

it was required by the federal government that they ask all clients on their first visit since the rule went into effect

It's one of the intrusive privacy violations that obamacare requires

Do you gents have a reference on this being a required question for health care providers to ask due to the Health Care bill?

 

[Loosedhorse]

Are they teaching firearms safety in medical school now?

No. Nor are they teaching swimming pool design, fence installation or life-guard certification. Still, your doctor may properly ask you (if you have young kids) if you have a pool, how it is secured, and whether your kids can swim.

By the way, this is the "anti-gun" advice the doctor gives:

He said he asks such questions of all his patients so he can advise parents to lock their guns away from children.

"I don't tell them to get rid of the guns," he said. "The purpose is to give advice."

You are perhaps suggesting that only a "real gun expert" (like us?) should be allowed to advise parents to keep their firearms safely stored, away from children?

The underlying problem and cause for the legislation is not the fact that the doctor asked but that he DENIED treatment to a child for the mother not answering.

Naaaaaaasortof.

Your representation of the facts is one-sided. First, the doctor did not refuse treatment; instead he asked that the mother find a new doctor within the next 30 days (doctors are not legally or ethically allowed to refuse emergency patients, nor to suddenly abandon them).

As to the reason for the dismissal of the patient, the doctor has this take on it:

He said the doctor and patient have to develop a relationship of trust and that if parents won't answer such basic safety questions, they cannot trust each other about more important health issues.

He said he respected a patient's right not to answer questions, but it was also his right to no longer treat them, and he isn't required by law to do so.

The story does mention that the mother not only refused to answer the questions, but threatened to sue the doctor--a reasonable doctor is going to choose to have such a mother in his practice?

(You are perhaps arguing that the doctor has no choice in the matter, no right to decide whom to have in his practice?)

The doctor said that half of the patients he DOES treat have firearms in the house--he has no problem with treating them. And the family mentioned no hardship in finding another pediatrician.

If, after the above, we are still to suppose that this instance was the underlying reason for the FL law, then the law should have stated (simply) that it was illegal for a doctor to discharge a patient from his/her care for non-answer (or a yes answer, or a no answer) to the gun question (instead of specifying that merely asking the question can result in disciplinary action against doctors).

I'm sure that more limited law would have also been challenged, but (IMHO) it would have made a much more interesting and supportable case.

Do you not see the slippery slope here?

Sure. Slippery slope arguments, however, have limited validity. They are, for example, among the most important arguments used by antigunners to justify taking away our legal rights in certain places or in certain situations.

 

[JPG19]

I'm not sure, but your use of asterisks and periods has given me one hell of a headache.

 

[whalerman]

When someone, or something, be it the medical profession or some agency sticks its head in my personal business, they will pay a price. If it's nothing more than encountering my rudeness, so be it. Too many of us, when confronted with nonsense, accept it willingly. I won't anymore.

Some of our posters clearly don't mind bending over, as long as it's just a little and for a good cause. I can't accept it. This has what has gotten us into the trouble we are in.

 

[jcwit]

Don't fly anymore do you whalerman?



Ment in jest, I agree with you.

 

[sqwerl]

Your representation of the facts is one-sided. First, the doctor did not refuse treatment; instead he asked that the mother find a new doctor within the next 30 days (doctors are not legally or ethically allowed to refuse emergency patients).

You're right. I misread it as the doctor stopped the examination but he did at least finish it before telling her to find another doctor.

The story does mention that the mother not only refused to answer the questions, but threatened to sue the doctor--a reasonable doctor is going to choose to have such a mother in his practice?

(You are perhaps arguing that the doctor has no right to decide whom to have in his practice?)

I said nothing about whom he can or can't have in his practice except based on that one question alone.

The doctor said that half of the patients he DOES treat have firearms in the house--he has no problem with treating them. And the family mentioned no hardship in finding another pediatrician.

Other patients voluntarily answering the question gives no basis to argue that she should be forced to answer the question or go elsewhere. Just because X number of patients have done it doesn't make it right. I wasn't suggesting that he would've denied her treatment if she told him she had guns. I don't see your point here.

If, after the above, we are still to suppose that was the underlying reason for the FL law was this instance, then the law should have stated (simply) that it was illegal for a doctor to discharge a patient from his/her care for non-answer (or a yes answer, or a no answer) to the gun question (instaed of specifying that merely asking the question could result in disciplinary action against doctors).

I do agree with you here. You should be able to decline to answer any irrelevant question like that and the doctor should not have the right to prevent you from being his patient any longer. I would voluntarily leave his practice and go somewhere else though knowing his agenda to preach to me about gun and pool safety.

 

[ThePlato]

Medical student here. It's generally asked and if answered in the affirmative we just make sure that you practice proper gun safety with it. It's a thorny issue and I personally never ask my patients the question.

Edit: If anyone wants a gun friendly doc in 2 years I'll be in the San Diego area! We can go shooting after your physical.

 

[Dnaltrop]

It's a bit older than 1994, I was still fencing (Epee and foil, not Cedar. ) and in high school when I started taking it. , but 35, so barely out of diapers here.

Alacer places the original introduction of the product in '78, they only had lemon-lime Sweatsock when I started the habit.

it's improved greatly

 

[sqwerl]

Maybe it's so they feel like they've gotten the monkey off their back that they've at least tried to "educate" the parents in the event something happens. Even though who knows how many of them either totally ignored his advice or just told him they had their guns locked up just so he'd shut up.

I guess whatever helps you sleep better at night.

 

[THe Dove]

My Doctor asks none of these questions. The Nurse, PA, or screener does (don't know their position)..... That person also asks me if I use my seatbelt. I choose to answer which questions I wish. To the other questions I simply ask why they are asking and the majority of the time the reply is, "it's in the questionair or computer" and we laugh and skip it.......Just my experience.

The Dove

 

[brickeyee]

The characteristic "sweet taste" is the reason why so many kids eat lead paint.

The most common lead containing compound in paint is lead acetate, AKA 'sugar of lead' for its sweet taste. It was used as a drier, to improve film hardness, and as a gloss improver.

If you ever encounter alkyd paint with lead acetate you will notice how hard the paint film is.
It makes flakes that can cut like a razor blade.

I wonder, could an insurance company deny your claim because you falsified the application. They might especially for lead poisoning or gun related injury.

The questionnaire is not an insurance claim form, and the only 'application' status it might have is if you are 'applying' to be a patient of the doctor.