TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77 wrote: I have to disagree with you about compromise and background checks. Compromise is no longer possible because as you allude to yourself, we've already given so much away that "compromise" can only mean concession. To the libs compromise means letting them have their way. The only thing they ever offer in return is letting us keep what little piece of the cake we have left for a little longer.

Compromise is compromise. I'm not talking about concession. It means both sides get something that they want. Or perhaps that both sides walk away defeated. I'm not sure what we've already given away, but I certainly recognize the state of the 2nd amendment. It's not so much about what is or isn't on the books as it is about what isn't practical anymore. And yea, I'd suggest compromising on one thing to gain another.

VMI77 wrote: On background checks...I can't see anyway the anti-gun people are going to let someone who is prohibited from buying a new gun keep the ones they already have. It's much more likely that they'll come take YOUR guns when your spouse, or other family member living in your home, is prohibited from buying guns. I agree we don't have a right to keep and bear arms....what we have is temporary permission, in some parts of the country, to keep and bear arms. I agree that demonstrations don't work....they're nothing more than political theater promoting the illusion that politicians care what the electorate thinks. It helps keep people docile to let them believe they have any role in this so called "democracy." Voting doesn't work anymore either, at the national level. Voting, for now, can still influence what happens at the local level --at least if you don't live somewhere where voting has been marginalized by one faction or the other (note, I don't say side, or Party here, but faction, as in which particular group or family is vying for more power within the criminal enterprise).

Baby steps. Thinking about this there is perhaps a some ground that you and I can agree on. My tin-foil hat isn't big enough to think that they'll try and take guns away. It is big enough to thing that in addition to preventing the purchase of a new one, they might remove your right to carry or possess one.

I look at it in another sense: The government might take my license to fly away, but I can still own airplanes. They don't even inhibit my ability to buy another, which is a bit strange.

VMI77 wrote: I don't share your optimism. We're locked on course on a path that only leads into the abyss, and the psychos running the show are putting the pedal to the metal. The current system cannot be changed enough to avert catastrophe, and even if it could, there is no will to do it, either from the majority of the population or our rulers. The only thing we can do is be the best people we can be and prepare ourselves and our families for what is coming. But while the outcome is pretty certain, the timing is not. How long can this debt system continue? No one knows or can predict when the system will implode. Could be ten years from now, or even longer, or it could be just about anytime, depending on unpredictable events.

I hear you there. If debt continues to mount, eventually something will break... That I certainly agree with. We're responsible for this public-pandering political system where we vote for people who will decrease our taxes and increase our benefits. I just hope that something breaks that is big enough to garner enough attention without the entire thing falling apart.

Rotor, unexercised rights are eroded. It's unfortunate that we need to work to retain those rights, but that's the reality of the current situation.

VMI77 wrote: I have to disagree about the diagnosis of mental disorders. A doctor should not unilaterally have the power to deny someone a Constitutional right. The only way anyone should be stripped of their right to bear arms is by a full hearing in a court of law. And if the government loses it should have to pay the costs of the defendant whose rights it was trying to strip.

Give that power to one or perhaps a series of doctors and we'll have fewer gun deaths at the cost of constitutional rights. Fewer gun deaths could lead to the re-granting of the rights that we're already guaranteed.

Think we have a 2nd amendment right? Try carrying a shotgun through the neighborhood and see what happens. Also, we're going to have to compromise. Two sides that pick "their way" and are unwilling to make any compromise around the edges are doomed to gridlock and lack of progress. Choosing lack of progress can certainly be strategic, but if we really want change, some compromise is necessary. And discussion with people that we don't agree with is necessary too.

I guess I'm saying that we've already lost the constitutional right. Demonstrations don't work. Legislation seems to work - you've got to explicitly define what is OK. I'd trade the possibility that a doctor could take away my right to purchase a new gun (not my right to own one) for a little more carry flexibility in terms of what I can realistically carry.

Is this any different than what is already being asked for on the background check when purchasing one? I believe there is a question about being treated for a mental health condition.

BTW, I'm surprised to see you criticize the Republican party... I don't disagree with most of your points, I'm just a little surprised.

1wise1 wrote: The trouble, like the devil, always rests in the details. The WND article is fact based. It is a fact physician practices are being offered several hundred thousand dollars for purchasing computerized records systems. It is a fact that beginning in 2015 physician practices will be penalized 1 percent per year for failure to use these computerized systems. It is a fact that after time up to 95 percent of Medicare reimbursements to practices will be withheld as a penalty for not converting to an electronic system. The leap, so far, is federal government access to these systems holding sensitive and private information. We citizens must "trust" that the IRS which is tasked with administering the ACA will not access or misuse our information.

The requiring computerized records is fact. Penalties are fact.
Two leaps:
1) That the government has access to these systems. There is nothing that says the systems have to be cloud based or are anything more than local records in electronic form. I agree that if it's online, it is at risk. You can ask Iraq about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

2) That the government is requiring these types of questions on forms. The companies providing this software - the free market that makes money on it - may very well default to very generic questions that could apply across practice. That's how I'd write it - questions common to most practice types. That is, I can see a question about firearms ownership in a pediatric office. It's not exactly compelling proof that the government is requiring that doctors ask, collect, or provide this data to the government. Again, I think this is a bit tin-foil-hat because it's so much easier to get this information from electronic receipts. You guys buying 100% cash and person to person are probable safe. None of you on this board are safe at all.

I think we all want lower heath care costs. Paper systems don't do much to facilitate medical records, medical payments, or billing. Sure, it could be a conspiracy to track all the gun owners, but I think it's more likely a bit of a stick that's being poked at an industry that is very slow to change.

Inflammatory to this group anyway... I'm surprised that it wasn't posed as fact! Thanks for recognizing it for what it is.


VMI77,
I've got to admit, you've got some valid cases. Personally, I'm not against using medical history (such as MD diagnosis of mental disorders) for allow/disallow purchase of firearms. I already deal with that for other licenses. I know I'm in the minority.

You're right that medical history could be used to harass. Using it would be political suicide, but you certainly could leak it and the damage would be done. You've got a valid concern there.... Just remember that it's "equal" on both sides of the political isle - that is, one party has no more or no less interest in gathering that information. As long as both sides have it or don't have it, they're equal. I'm concerned about the government getting other information - but not particularly my medical history... Maybe it's just me..

sjfcontrol wrote: Have you seen the so-called "privacy" notice on the Obamacare site?

Within the “Terms and Conditions” source code of the ObamaCare web site, at least when it’s working, is this disclaimer: “You have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communication or data transiting or stored on this information system. At any time, and for any lawful Government purpose, the government may monitor, intercept, and search and seize any communication or data transiting or stored on this information system. Any communication or data transiting or stored on this information system may be disclosed or used for any lawful Government purpose.”

No, I hadn't. It's a government system and the fact that they might use data on their own site doesn't surprise me.
I think my debate is this: The government has the capacity to steal health records that are on the internet. What purpose does it serve to do so? I understand why the government would want my contact list and phone records.

lfinsr wrote: 1)If there is a potential for abuse, it will be abused.
2)Today's conspiracy theory is tomorrows headlines.
3)There are 2 kinds of data. Data that has been compromised and data that will be compromised.

Larry:

1) I completely agree with you on number one. It's why I think the LA trooper that opened the CHL'ers glovebox (thread reference to be added) is a really bad idea.
2) Some of them will be headlines. There are more conspiracy theories than available headlines.
3) I agree. Data can be compromised and most of it will. Compromising encrypted data doesn't give you much unless you're really really motivated and have a lot of power or time. That's part of why HIPAA is important.

I'll buy in to the conspiracy theory here when there is a reason or motivation for the government to want to steal that data. Right now, I don't see one.

MotherBear wrote: Well, you can't fault their logic -- if there were no firearms anywhere there would be no firearms-related injuries. Of course, that assumes that you could actually ensure the total absence of firearms, as opposed to just the absence of those owned by law-abiding, decent people. And that you don't mind other sorts of injuries. Details, right?

Yea, but it's a different subject with kids. We can talk about what removing firearms does to crime rates, but firearms injuries and children aren't typically criminal. They're accidental and avoidable. It's easy to see how owning a gun is a risk factor to children over not owning one at all. As a parent, I'm acutely aware of it and it requires a level of discipline that not everyone may have.

I think the statistics are why some pediatricians choose to ask.

rotor wrote:cb1000rider, your trust in the HIPAA laws to protect medical information assumes that the government won't access the information. The questions about gun ownership are part of the medical record mandated by ???. Doctors don't automatically start adding these questions to their templates. The HIPAA laws fine you or private companies for releasing medical information. But when the IRS can pull off release of info to "friends" what makes you think that your medical info won't be scanned by the government and what would you do if they did scan it? Have you heard of Edward Snowden? The fact that your electronic records are all stored in house means nothing if you are part of a "portal" that shares records with other providers and if you are not yet doing this you will in the future. Everything will be on the internet and reachable by the same people that now read all of your emails, track all of your cell phone useage, etc. Sure, there are easier ways to find out if you own a gun but eventually they will just have internet "bots" tracking the records. When it come to HIPAA fines, have you ever heard of the government being fined?

Rotor,
HIPAA laws show intent. If complied with, they prevent your generic hacker from stealing your health records off a compromised server. There is no encryption level requirement that I know of.. And they won't stop someone with a dedicated super computer and determination.

With enough computing power - with the kind of computing power that the NSA has - they can certainly bypass common encryption.

As I illustrated before, questions about gun ownership are not mandated... People are blaming Obamacare and Medicare for those questions, but that's just misinformation. Your doctor may or may not ask. It might be part of a standard software template. I'm indicating that it's a "risk factor" that may be applicable to pediatric doctors. In no way am I saying that it's required. I'm simply saying that it may be interesting information to some professionals in light of certain statistics.

I think that there is no reason for a government agency to invade my medical records that might be stored on private server somewhere. What purpose would it serve? If there was DNA information there, I might believe you. The NSA is spying with purpose. If they want to count the guns, there are easier ways. Much easier ways.


I think if you're talking about common "portals" that you perhaps don't entirely understand how things work. If I store data in house, I can make sure it's inaccessible. I know a lot about it. It's what I do for a living.


I believe our government is spying... That's fairly common knowledge. Do I think our government is hacking into private medical databases and decrypting them? No.

BTW, my primary care physician still uses paper. I digitize his records.

rotor wrote:Many of the electronic health records have this type of question built in. These records are government mandated and doctors that do not adapt to these records are penalized. They also want to know your ethnicity, your sexuality (gay or straight or whatever). All this is to be datamined by big brother and perhaps even NSA. Hopefully your doctor is putting NA in each of those boxes but don't for one second believe that the government mandate is not out there to track down this kind of info. And who knows where it goes. Many electronic health records are stored on the cloud. Easily reachable by NSA. Don't tell your doctor anything that you think should be confidential as even if the doctor says nothing it is datamined. Next will be microphones at confession to record your when you go to church. Or perhaps I am just paranoid. We know that NSA follows this forum.

Oh boy. I'll help. Or try to. I don't know if this will make it better or worse:
Doctors are encouraged to go to electronic records by 2015. That's true.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no "universal" means for storing patient data. That is, there are many many different providers of software, but no universal standard. There is no central database on everyone. There are lots of little databases in different forms.

Yes, questions can be personal and may offend some people. Many of the personal questions such as ethnicity and sexuality may actually have a bearing on your health. After all, if you're American Indian, you're more predisposed to certain conditions than other parts of the population. And yea, your sexual lifestyle plays a part in your health risks too. Offended? Yea, we don't like to talk about it. Relevant medical information? Absolutely. Do you have to answer? No.

Records can be stored in many forms. They can be stored on local storage in doctors offices, they can be stored on remote storage, they can be stored on cloud storage. Personally, the loss of my paper medical records could be a problem and I'd be happy if my doctor would choose to store them digitally with a secure remote backup.. Yes, even cloud-based! I keep electronic copies of my dogs vet records as well as my own. It's massively useful when visiting a new vet or doctor to have it all with you in one shot.

There is substantial and significant legislation around how your electronic health data can be stored by companies. It's non-trivial. You can't just pump it to the cloud and be HIPAA compliant. Our legislators have shown good faith there. Course, we know that anything that is electronic can be accessed... Just like paper records.

Look I think.. well... I know that the NSA is listening. If the federal government really wanted to know my ethnicity, sexuality, or if I own a gun - there are much easier ways to obtain that information than from covertly stealing electronic health records. When those records start containing DNA tracing - or other information that can be used for national security, I'll wear the tin-foil hat with you, but until then, it's just not something that I'm going to worry about.

E.Marquez wrote:It's been years now, but I did have a Peds doc ask about guns in the house once when I had our youngest son at the doc. I responded by asking her if she participated in a very personal sexual act.. she declined to respond, and understood at that point why I asked.. I said I apologize for asking a personal question I had no right to ask.
She was actually a good doc, and we were happy to have her.... This was in Oregon, 2002..

In 2002 the CDC released several studies that had to do with gun ownership and children. I understand why a pediatrician might try to educate parents. If everyone practiced appropriate safety around children, we wouldn't have such statistics.

Course, trampolines are dangerous to kids too. I'm not offended by a discussion about them.

Doctors can ask me whatever they want that might facilitate a reasonable discussion. I can choose to not answer if I don't want to.

I always question forwarded information. Things that immediately jump out at me:
1) Why would it be illegal for your doctor to ask you if you own a firearm?

This post seems to be misinformation designed to spread. I'm beginning to see this more and more. The information makes us angry and feel passionately, but it's really not based on any fact. It also seems to be much more effective to spread non-truths than speak the truth.

Here's another link to it : http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2012/10 ... own-a-gun/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And here: http://gulfcoastgunforum.com/archive/in ... -2895.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Government now requires these questions be asked of people on Medicare, and probably everyone else.

That sound right to you? It doesn't sound right to me.

Per Snopes, here is the origin:

This March 2012 item combines a claim that Medicare regulations require doctors to ask patients whether they keep guns in their houses with a 2009 piece about VA patients' being reported to Homeland Security and losing their concealed carry
permits for answering "yes" to any one of three diagnostic questions.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/med ... 8bQuSmg.99" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In the former case, although some doctors (particularly pediatricians) may ask their patients whether they have guns at home, there is no provision of Medicare regulations that requires them to do so; it's purely an individual initiative on the part of various doctors.