Government wants to play voyeur with your medical records!

Discussion in 'Gun-Control Issues' started by plainsman, Feb 6, 2013.

  1. plainsman

    plainsman

    Messages:
    600
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2005
    MSN reported yesterday that Eric Cantor Republican wants to include medical health information in gun data bases so that some bureaucrat can play voyeur with your medical records, and I guess if you are a postal worker you canforgetaboutit.


    Cantor reported this medical data base was implimented in the State of Virginia about the Virginia Tech. massacre.!

    Pathetic liberals, since you won't take the insane off the streets!!!!!!!!have do something........
     
  2. RussP

    RussP Super Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    54,371
    Likes Received:
    86,162
    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Location:
    Central Virginia
    Do you have a link to the MSN report? I cannot find it.

    Thanks...
     

  3. plainsman

    plainsman

    Messages:
    600
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2005
    Title was Gun background checks dive by 10.5 percent.

    I felt the more important part was Cantor's comments wanting to tie medical data bases to the firearms databases. Next step would have to be a prescription drug side effect data base...
     
  4. Jerry

    Jerry Millennium Member

    Messages:
    4,115
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Dec 21, 1998
    Location:
    Louisiana
  5. RussP

    RussP Super Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    54,371
    Likes Received:
    86,162
    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Location:
    Central Virginia
    It looks like the one, thanks Jerry.

    plainsman, is this the paragraph you are interpreting?
    I doubt you researched the actions taken here in Virginia.

    No new "extensive background checks" were implemented following The Tech murders.

    There was no new background check "model".

    There was no new linking of medical and/or mental health information to firearm databases.

    That is all BS, major league BS.

    Want to read about what was done? It is right here:Mental Health System Transformation After The Virginia Tech Tragedy

    It is long. You need to read ALL OF IT.
     
  6. plainsman

    plainsman

    Messages:
    600
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2005
    Sara Brady said years ago the need to check medical records of firearms owners.

    .Right now Congressman Joe Manchin is seeking to put more Veterans who claim post traumatic stress
    in the Federal data base according to GOA.

    Republican Eric Cantor said he wanted to include mental health information in the extensive background checks he supports.

    The evidence is out there of what they want, any reason to deny new groups of firearms owners, without proper legal process,(other then suing the government, or state out of your own pocket). With a single medical depository, it is just a key stroke to send your private medical history, all over the world. Medical privacy, don't make me laugh! Obama will protect you-sure.....after all it's to save the chuldreeeeeeeen!
     
  7. strakele

    strakele

    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2012
    I don't know what the right answer is in all of this, but I am not keen on the government having all kinds of access to private medical records.

    But after the latest shooting, gun owners went on and on about this being a mental health issue, not a gun issue... which is obviously true. And we're all for keeping guns out of the hands of people who aren't legally able to have them... enforce the existing laws, not make more, yadda yadda yadda. We all basically agree on that, and I think we all agree that people with mental health issues severe enough to cause them to do horrible things shouldn't have guns either (or knives, or cars, or fertilizer, or anything, really...)

    So...how exactly do we go about identifying these people to prevent them from having guns? If NICS, etc. doesn't have access to this info, then...? Gun owners get all up in arms whenever someone suggests psych tests before buying guns, for the obvious reason that it would be too easily abused. I sure as heck don't want that either.

    So we all agree mentally disturbed people shouldn't have guns, we agree there needs to be better care for them, and we agree there needs to be better ways of identifying them. But we don't want to give the background check agencies access to where that information would be stored, and we don't want to support the primary method we have of identifying these people - psych evals.

    So what should we do? People with the types of metal health issues that commit violence seldom self-identify. So how do we identify them and keep them from endangering themselves and others without violating our rights and privacy?
     
  8. RussP

    RussP Super Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    54,371
    Likes Received:
    86,162
    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Location:
    Central Virginia
    Still looking for the link to an actual quote by Cantor saying that.

    Did you read the article about the changes in Virginia's mental health processes?

    You do understand that...well, what do you understand was the goal and the end result of the Virginia study?

    Do you believe question 11.f. on the 4473 is a reasonable question? It is the one that asks if you've ever been adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution. Here's a link to Form 4473. On Page 4 are instructions for completing question 11.f. and defining the terms used and the exception to the question.

    Have you read that before?

    I really would like to read Cantor's words on connecting mental health information to a firearm data base.

    Thanks...
     
  9. somebodybuymeaglock

    somebodybuymeaglock

    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2012
    Location:
    Mississippi Gulf Coast
    Dear gubmint, MYOB.

    Here is one more reason to stay away from he healthcare system if possible.

    Maybe Cantor said that, maybe not. But I can see whats going on a mile away.

    Nosey gubmint sniffing your health records+ push for gun control=complete disaster.

    Snoopin will be even easier wit Ocare Emrs.
     
  10. RussP

    RussP Super Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    54,371
    Likes Received:
    86,162
    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Location:
    Central Virginia
    Do you believe that mental health contributed to the decisions made by those who committed some of these murders?
     
  11. somebodybuymeaglock

    somebodybuymeaglock

    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2012
    Location:
    Mississippi Gulf Coast
    Yes, I am sure some muderers really do have mental disorders.

    However, I dont agree with medical databases for the masses to catch the few.
     
  12. cagnoli

    cagnoli Patriot First

    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Location:
    Kiantone, NY
    I don't have any issues with the NICS database being updated with someone being mentally unstable AS LONG AS THERE IS A SET OF STRICT GUIDELINES ON WHAT CONSTITUTES MENTALLY ILL.

    I don't want to see a woman who was depressed after a twenty year marriage went south, was placed on anti depressant medication until she beat it......unable to buy a firearm to protect herself. (Or ammunition with the pending NICS checks on that)

    There ARE mental health issues that should prevent a person from buying a weapon. But mental health professionals deal with a lot of maladies. I think that will make this a very worthwhile debate.


    Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
     
  13. patrickkpm

    patrickkpm

    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    4
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2012
    Location:
    Florida
    As politicians have the power to hurt many people at once, I would like them to give us their medical and psychological records and be subject to weekly drug test.

    Any politician who is taking a drug that has any side effect that could impair their mental status, or being treated for any mental or psychological issue should be fired.

    Any politician who is living with or is related to a convicted felon, a person with mental disease or any other dangerous person should be fired.

    In addition, before running for office, they should submit to a psychological screening and the report being published.

    They should only be able to accept money to their campaign found after doing a background check on all benefactors. They should too have a psychological screening.

    :wow:
     
  14. Jerry

    Jerry Millennium Member

    Messages:
    4,115
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Dec 21, 1998
    Location:
    Louisiana
    :supergrin: :perfect10: :nutcheck:
     
  15. Jeffrey Lebowski

    Jeffrey Lebowski Not a golfer

    Messages:
    432
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2013
    Location:
    Colorado
    Reality check:

    PPACA (Obamacare) is wanting all electronic medical records to talk to each other. There are providers and health systems out there without ANY electronic medical records still, and those with the most advanced systems are paying huge dollars in software and IT support personnel to make these records compatible. And these are companies that WANT to talk to each other.


    Now, on a whim they're going to make them compatible with criminal and alphabet soup agency records? Doubtful.
     
  16. Jeffrey Lebowski

    Jeffrey Lebowski Not a golfer

    Messages:
    432
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2013
    Location:
    Colorado
    Also, good post patrickkpm.
     
  17. BRabbit

    BRabbit Millennium Member

    Messages:
    372
    Likes Received:
    15
    Joined:
    Feb 28, 1999
    Location:
    Way down South
    I have been thinking about this band wagon that so many are jumping on regarding "mental health records and background checks", and have come to the following conclusions. Lets say that this is implemented nationwide, and you have a good kid who is diagnosed with ADHD due to poor performance in school and you get him or her treatment along with a prescription, or one of your elderly parents is depressed due to the other one passing away and they seek grief counseling for the loss and possibly are prescribed a sleeping pill to help them rest, or a man or women seeks counseling at a local mental health facility due to issues from finding out their spouse cheated on them, or a veteran has mild symptoms of PTSD and seeks help from the VA...in all instances, no threat or danger was exhibited or vocalized, they just needed some help. Now they are classified as "people with a history of mental illness" and it is in their records.

    This is opening a dangerous window regarding medical privacy and will most likely lead to people with only mild or temporary mental health issues not seeking help before they worsen, or those most likely to commit a violent act avoiding treatment, thus leading to worse problems in the future...not to mention possibly removing the rights of people who are not a threat based solely on the decision of an unaccountable government bureaucrat.

    "Spree killers" or many mass shooters are mentally ill, but they are a small % of those who kill with firearms, while this policy runs the risk of stigmatizing a large segment of the population and discouraging those who need help from seeking it out of a fear of being placed on a "government list"....Stalin and Hitler had such lists and not only used them to kill or sterilize the mentally ill, but they also had their political enemies declared mentally ill so they could do with them as they pleased. Does anyone who is vocal about standing up to the government on any issue want to give unlimited ability to access your medical records and to declare people "mentally unfit" to a bureaucrat who works for that government?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/01/u...-unfair-some-say.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2013
  18. BRabbit

    BRabbit Millennium Member

    Messages:
    372
    Likes Received:
    15
    Joined:
    Feb 28, 1999
    Location:
    Way down South
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc1525086/

     
  19. RJ's Guns

    RJ's Guns

    Messages:
    791
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2010

    The government is not going to stop at just being voyeurs looking at our medical records. They are trying to fly drones over our heads to watch everything that we do. Literally, everywhere that I look there is a damn surveillance camera of some sort, monitoring what we do.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:eek:ffice" /><o:p></o:p>

    RJ<o:p></o:p>
     
  20. ScottieG59

    ScottieG59

    Messages:
    981
    Likes Received:
    7
    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2011
    Location:
    Rural area near Kansas City, KS
    It is funny how some people worry.

    The government has my medical records, my finger prints, my DNA, samples if my blood, all of my financial records, details on every place I ever lived, the names of girls I dated, name an addresses if my friends and relatives, information related to my mental stability, and information related to my sex life. Just a simple phone call or communication can launch an investigation on me without notice. As far as I know, one could be going on now or in the past.


    I never worry about it for a moment.


    I understand my lack of privacy is voluntary and it done in order to qualify me at my job.


    The issue of those who may pose a threat is not as easy to quantify. If these people do not ask to be considered for positions of significant trust, they are free to stay dangerous and undiscovered. Perhaps they will just be odd and harmless and perhaps not. How do you step in to prevent a crime that may never happen? How do you accuse someone of something they have not done? What do we do when our definition of normal us culturally biased?


    My position is that all I can do is try my best to be prepared to deal with the possibilities. I wear a seatbelt because I might have an accident. I have smoke and carbon monoxide detectors because I might have a fire. I train with and carry weapons because I may have to defend myself.


    We cannot identify those among us who will do harm. People with the same background checks I have still betray their countries. We can try out best to identify threats and dangers, but, in the end our national and personal security relies on our abilities to put boot to ass and take on evil when and where it shows itself.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2013