Urgent Message to all Gun Owners!

[Rich-D]

Congress Trying To Implement The Medical Records Gun Ban!

http://gunowners.org/a042709.htm

Please follow the instructions at the end of the article, and either send in or call in your objections on the Government Data Base.

Rich

[Chilo45]

Rich,

While I will agree that "anything is possible", this reference is so bias that it reads like WE GOOD - THEM BAD - which classifies it as in my perspective as not to be trusted and along the same propaganda lines that the Left puts out when they want their understanding of the truth to be the only truth out there.
I'm sorry but that form letter reads like, well, nothing that I would ever want to associate my name with. I oppose the government having a database of my data but it already exists (IRS / Social Security / my former government security clearance data / etc.) and this form letter makes it sound like I am under-educated in the workings of government and reacting to what it could be used for.

The American people will never allow for universal government mandated personal medical insurance and neither would the insurance industry lobby - for it is a true form of capitalism and messing with that it the third rail.

Wile I applaud your convictions, I personally choose to inform my elected representatives on subjects that are not assumptions, but factual, proven objections to any erosion of our Constitutional rights.

[Rich-D]

I do not concur with your disagreement or analysis concerning this matter. However, I do so in a manner that would encourage debate. In the hope that the public views us as gentleman, who may not agree on a subject.

Rich,
I oppose the government having a database of my data but it already exists (IRS / Social Security / my former government security clearance data / etc.) and this form letter makes it sound like I am under-educated in the workings of government and reacting to what it could be used for.

First, IRS, S.S. and Government Clearance data, do not include what the proposed Medical Data base would include. My family having been stung by a grade school medical report, concerning my grandson who was suppose to have ADHD. ( The diagnosis has since changed)The first question asked by a family services investigator was " Are there any guns in the home" In that household there were no guns. However, when the family member asked why. The response was, if there were guns, we would insist that they be removed.

Second, What transpires between a doctor and patient or the patients child is no business of the government. Unless of course the child is in danger, which was not the cause of the investigation done by the State of NJ, concerning my grandson.
Rich,
The American people will never allow for universal government mandated personal medical insurance and neither would the insurance industry lobby - for it is a true form of capitalism and messing with that it the third rail.
We can't sit back and depend on the American people, We are the American people. How are the people suppose to block such a system if informing them is propaganda and alleged to be wrong.

The Article States:
And, incidentally, when we say "anti-gun database," we mean that everything your kid told his pediatrician about whether you have a gun collection will be searchable by the government. And people with Alzheimer's, ADHD, and other disorders will begin losing their gun rights just as quickly as veterans -- who have seen the ramifications of being on a government database.

I know of several veterans who will not go to veterans hospitals due to the fear of losing their right to gun ownership! Should they also fear seeking all medical attention.

Rich

[kenhwind]

The Liberals are going to use every snidely, schemming effort to outlaw firearms in the US.
It is becoming very apparent to me the similarities that are happening here now and what happened in Germany in the 1930s.

I trust what GOA posts and can take it at face value. Read report and E-mailed my Rep and Senators.

[Frank]

Personally, I find the GOA outline far too vague and general.

[Chilo45]

Rich,

Thank you for your insight and I too have had that question asked of me, "Are there any guns in the home" as I am the foster grandparent to my 16-1/2 year old granddaughter and according to Oregon law that question is always asked. I answered yes there are and they are secured according to the state requirements and I proceeded to physically show them the electronic pistol safes I have around the home, along with the large gun safe in my study. I know that this data, along with everything else the government has on me is available to any agency that puts in a request. And since I have a concealed carry permit in both Oregon and Utah, more of my personal medical information is known.

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) enacted in 2003, protects your medical records maintained by health care providers, health plans, and health clearinghouses - and only if the facility maintains and transmits records in electronic form. A great deal of health-related information exists outside of health care facilities and the files of health plans, and thus beyond the reach of HIPAA.
(www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs8a-hipaa.htm)

While the intent of what the GOA is doing (per your original post) is valuable, their methods are tainted with what I consider exaggerations and over simplifications. If they would just stick to the black and white facts I might be able to get behind it.

[Rich-D]

The Ultra liberal, ACLU states:
Current Federal Legislation on E-Medical Records
On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), which encourages the adoption of electronic medical records by doctors and hospitals. But, in poll after poll Americans, both doctors and patients, worry that their personally identifiable medical data will not be protected.
Full Text http://www.aclu.org/privacy/medical/index.html

Institute for Health Freedom
On a previous attempt to centralize Medical Records
Today a patchwork of state laws protects patients' medical records. A 1997 survey prepared by Lawrence Gostin, professor of law at Georgetown University, and his colleagues [http://www.epic.org/privacy/medical/cdc_survey.html] found that:
37 states require physicians to maintain the confidentiality of medical records;
26 states extend this duty to other health care providers;
33 states and territories require health care institutions to maintain the confidentiality of medical records they hold; and
4 states have specific legislation requiring insurers to maintain the confidentiality of medical records
However, if recent activity is any indication, Congress is likely to try to override these laws. The Republican's Patient Protection Act (H.R. 4250), which passed the House but was never enacted into law, would have done just that. The act would have permitted the collection, exchange, and distribution of personal medical information. True, its use would have been limited to health care providers and administrators engaged in "health care operations," but that vague term includes everything from monitoring people's health to auditing health insurance records.

Whether or not Congress will act, or be acted upon, to protect your medical privacy remains uncertain. But one thing is certain: Your medical records are currently available to many individuals and organizations. These private and government entities have strong financial interests in maintaining access to your medical records.

If you care about your medical privacy, be sure to voice your opinion well before August 21, 1999. Watch your medical privacy, or the federal government will do it for you!

And a news release:
http://newsblaze.com/story/20090221072439ross.nb/topstory.html

Also see: http://news.cnet.com/Medical-records-policy-likely-to-benefit-Net-firms/2100-1023_3-229138.html

The concern is so strong, that it crosses the political beliefs of both Right and Left and Center!


Rich

[Frank]

...The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) enacted in 2003, protects your medical records maintained by health care providers, health plans, and health clearinghouses - and only if the facility maintains and transmits records in electronic form... I'm sorry, but this is not accurate. The regulations promulgated under HIPAA apply to all medical records, in any form, held by providers of health care services, insurers, health plans and certain other entities. (http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/administrative/privacyrule/adminsimpregtext.pdf)

I'm very familiar with the HIPAA privacy rules because for several years I provided the primary legal support in connection with the implementation by a major health insurer of policies and procedures necessary to comply with the the privacy regulations.

So at present, all medical record information, in whatever form, is private and confidential subject to a comprehensive set of federal regulation. In addition, various state laws, to the extent more stringent than the federal regulations, continue to apply.

[d90king]

Frank, what is the truth behind the story that is building around the "blood taken at birth" and then turned over to the government with out the consent of the parents?

[Frank]

...what is the truth behind the story that is building around the "blood taken at birth" and then turned over to the government with out the consent of the parents? I don't know. I haven't heard anything about that. Do you have a reference so I can try to track it down?

[Rich-D]

Frank, It's the first I heard of it. However, a search shows that d90King may be referring to the Citizens Council on Heathcare report on S 1858 and H.R. 3825 http://www.cchconline.org/pdf/S_1858HF3825_NBS_SummaryFINAL.pdf

Rich

[Frank]

Thanks for the link, Rich. I had a look and it's fairly scary stuff.

But this thread is also starting to wander very far afield. As John set up this Forum, it was intended to be for the discussion of gun politics only -- not politics or civil liberties generically. Let me just make a comment or two, since Patrick asked. But then let's try to get this thread back on track. If anyone has a burning need to address anything I say about this proposed legislation, we'll allow it. But let's try to keep it brief and to the point. And let's not wander off down a path of discussing this in depth.

The Bill, S. 1858, authorizing collection of DNA at birth was apparently signed by President Bush. So it's law. I haven't read the Bill, and don't plan to right now, since it's not an appropriate topic of discussion on this board. I did a quick Google and didn't see anything about any pending legal challenges to the law, and candidly that surprises me. I would think that the law could be challenged on constitutional grounds.

It's first not immediately apparent to me how Congress has authority to enact this sort of law. But that may become clearer when I finally read the law. But in any case, the Supreme Court over the years has begun to recognize a constitutional right to privacy, and it would seem to me that this sort of a law would be vulnerable under that line of cases.

I know that many conservatives have been bothered by the Supreme Court's discovery of a constitutional right to privacy, but it may come in handy here. And I hate to say it, but this may be a job for the ACLU.

Can we get back on topic now please?

[d90king]

Thanks for the help Frank and Rich.... and now back to our regular programming. ;)