Thanks for nothing, Obama

[sy2502]

As you know, part of the executive orders Obama just signed deal with the exchange of information between health care providers and the federal government, so that your medical history can be used in the background checks.

I have a family member who's an alcoholic, and also has some depression and anxiety issues. He owns guns, but he is not a danger to anybody. The rest of the family has given up on him and I am the only person who tries to help him. Recently he mentioned he'd like to get some professional help. If you know people with addictions, or if you are or have been one, you know how hard it is for an addict to seek help, so I was just ecstatic to hear it.

Well, now I can assure you, this person will not, under any circumstance, seek help any more, knowing the federal government will keep a record on him. And how can I blame him? If I am ever in the situation of needing mental help, I wouldn't get it either under the current circumstances. And I am pretty sure plenty of gun owners out there won't either. So once again, a dimwitted law will get the exact opposite result of its intent.

So yeah, thanks for nothing Obama, you dimwit.

[SP1966]

Big government FTW!! Government is our savior, just ask them.

[KeepItMoving]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Liberals followers are never wrong because their emotions told them they "meant well."

[sy2502]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Liberals followers are never wrong because their emotions told them they "meant well."

It took me about 30 seconds from the moment I read the contents of the executive orders to connect the dots on how they are going to discourage people from seeking mental help. Seriously, it's not that frigging hard to see. What are these people thinking?

[KeepItMoving]

It took me about 30 seconds from the moment I read the contents of the executive orders to connect the dots on how they are going to discourage people from seeking mental help. Seriously, it's not that frigging hard to see. What are these people thinking?

Doctors now work for the government under obamacare. Go ahead and think for a minute just how much the government can now be involved in your personal liberties in the name of furthering "health issues." One of the most sacred relationships in personal liberties/freedom has historically been between doctor and patient. We have pissed that away in the "good intentioned" name of giving everyone "free" health care. History has shown, time and again, that liberal leaders use 'good intnetions' as ways to gain more control over a populace that they beleive is to inept, too incapable, too stupid to govern or care for themselves. There is a reason that Lenin coined the phrase "Useful Idiots" to describe the people/citizens he used to advance his progressive agenda. And it's all done in the name of capturing the elusive, non existent Utopia liberals beleive they can create.

[sy2502]

Doctors now work for the government under obamacare. Go ahead and think for a minute just how much the government can now be involved in your personal liberties in the name of furthering "health issues." One of the most sacred relationships in personal liberties/freedom has historically been between doctor and patient. We have pissed that away in the "good intentioned" name of giving everyone "free" health care. History has shown, time and again, that liberal leaders use 'good intnetions' as ways to gain more control over a populace that they beleive is to inept, too incapable, too stupid to govern or care for themselves. There is a reason that Lenin coined the phrase "Useful Idiots" to describe the people/citizens he used to advance his progressive agenda. And it's all done in the name of capturing the elusive, non existent Utopia liberals beleive they can create.

“One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.”
― Milton Friedman

[Phattso]

The war on drugs has been a failure. The war on guns will be a huge failure. People will get drugs no matter the laws. People will get guns no matter the laws.

[drudixon]

As you know, part of the executive orders Obama just signed deal with the exchange of information between health care providers and the federal government, so that your medical history can be used in the background checks.

I have a family member who's an alcoholic, and also has some depression and anxiety issues. He owns guns, but he is not a danger to anybody. The rest of the family has given up on him and I am the only person who tries to help him. Recently he mentioned he'd like to get some professional help. If you know people with addictions, or if you are or have been one, you know how hard it is for an addict to seek help, so I was just ecstatic to hear it.

Well, now I can assure you, this person will not, under any circumstance, seek help any more, knowing the federal government will keep a record on him. And how can I blame him? If I am ever in the situation of needing mental help, I wouldn't get it either under the current circumstances. And I am pretty sure plenty of gun owners out there won't either. So once again, a dimwitted law will get the exact opposite result of its intent.

So yeah, thanks for nothing Obama, you dimwit.

That runs contradictory to HIPAA, so I wonder if it can stand a legal challenge.

[mtpockets]

The war on drugs has been a failure. The war on guns will be a huge failure. People will get drugs no matter the laws. People will get guns no matter the laws.

Yup, War on drugs clogged up the courts and jails with non violent criminals.

Need to get softer with non violent crimes and a lot tougher with violent ones involving firearms.

[Phattso]

Yup, War on drugs clogged up the courts and jails with non violent criminals.

Need to get softer with non violent crimes and a lot tougher with violent ones involving firearms.

Agreed.

[sy2502]

That runs contradictory to HIPAA, so I wonder if it can stand a legal challenge.

You know, I understand all the health care debate and implications, and I know it's not a simplistic issue, but truly when I think about it, the only health care system that would ensure freedom is a pay-as-you-go system. As soon as you have to be accountable to an insurance company or the government, whichever is providing you with the health care, they have you by the balls.

[beachguy498]

The 4th biggest lie... "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.".

My chiropractor warned me about this last month or so... he has to take my vitals and ask what drugs I'm taking and a bunch of other inane questions on a periodic basis. Now I'm on some gov't list as a potential junkie... nice.

Rob

[HairyScandinavian]

I already wouldn't allow anyone in my family to seek mental help because of things like that, but you're right now that I could be denied from purchasing a firearm I could be bat **** looney and no way I'd go get help and I'm sure many others would be the same way. At the same time, we don't want looneys running around with guns so how do we accomplish that?

Not that it would do any good anyway, from what I understand this recent looney was already denied purchasing a weapon but his mother was sane enough to own them so it wouldn't have prevented this one anyway.

[beachguy498]

You know, I understand all the health care debate and implications, and I know it's not a simplistic issue, but truly when I think about it, the only health care system that would ensure freedom is a pay-as-you-go system. As soon as you have to be accountable to an insurance company or the government, whichever is providing you with the health care, they have you by the balls.

I just had some out-patient surgery done the other day, they gave me a 13-page HIIPA book as a parting gift. Even the loopholes in it have loopholes.

Rob

[sy2502]

I already wouldn't allow anyone in my family to seek mental help because of things like that, but you're right now that I could be denied from purchasing a firearm I could be bat **** looney and no way I'd go get help and I'm sure many others would be the same way. At the same time, we don't want looneys running around with guns so how do we accomplish that?

Not that it would do any good anyway, from what I understand this recent looney was already denied purchasing a weapon but his mother was sane enough to own them so it wouldn't have prevented this one anyway.

Actually, most people with what would be considered a mental illness are perfectly harmless individuals, and most people who commit gun crime are not mentally ill. In fact, studies seem to show that mentally ill people are no more or less likely to commit an act of violence than sane people. So the issue should really be how to keep weapons out of the hands of VIOLENT people, mentally ill or not.
The thing is that while mental illness doesn't necessarily make you dangerous, it is a illness, and people should feel free to seek help for it. But this law just puts one more obstacle in place all the while claiming to want to help them.

[HairyScandinavian]

Actually, most people with what would be considered a mental illness are perfectly harmless individuals, and most people who commit gun crime are not mentally ill. In fact, studies seem to show that mentally ill people are no more or less likely to commit an act of violence than sane people. So the issue should really be how to keep weapons out of the hands of VIOLENT people, mentally ill or not.
The thing is that while mental illness doesn't necessarily make you dangerous, it is a illness, and people should feel free to seek help for it. But this law just puts one more obstacle in place all the while claiming to want to help them.

Agree 100% on all that. I used the term "looney" in hopes to convey the idea that I was speaking of the far fringe extreme of an illness, not using it loosely to all mental illness. Also worth noting is that I wasn't using it in a derogatory way toward the mentally ill, it was directly at the 0.1% that we actually don't want to have guns like this recent shooter not the 99.9% that would pose no threat.

[mslman71]

I would only seek official clinical help as an absolute last resort, as if I felt the end of my life was imminent. Nothing you do is truly private anymore and any information that can be had about you will be used against you in one form or another. I don't like integrated medical records and national databases. I don't like being someone else's property, either literally or by virtue of information systems. It sometimes can't be helped and I've rolled over at times to get what I want but I don't make any of those decisions lightly.

[sy2502]

Agree 100% on all that. I used the term "looney" in hopes to convey the idea that I was speaking of the far fringe extreme of an illness, not using it loosely to all mental illness. Also worth noting is that I wasn't using it in a derogatory way toward the mentally ill, it was directly at the 0.1% that we actually don't want to have guns like this recent shooter not the 99.9% that would pose no threat.

I didn't think your post was offensive, I thought it was pretty clear what you meant

[bennuk]

But so what if government keeps track of your mental issues, what are they going to do with that information? don't see the problem

[HairyScandinavian]

I didn't think your post was offensive, I thought it was pretty clear what you meant

Oh yeah, but after I reread it I realized others might think it was derogatory so figured I'd clear it up just in case.

But so what if government keeps track of your mental issues, what are they going to do with that information? don't see the problem

You must not be paying attention.

[Phattso]

By the way, sy, that is very kind of you to help your family member

[bennuk]

You must not be paying attention.

He doesnt wanna get tracked by the government what did I miss?

[sy2502]

By the way, sy, that is very kind of you to help your family member

Thank you, that is very kind of you. It's really hard and frustrating work, but someone has to do it.

[Phattso]

Thank you, that is very kind of you. It's really hard and frustrating work, but someone has to do it.

Very welcome.

[LisaSkinnoble]

As you know, part of the executive orders Obama just signed deal with the exchange of information between health care providers and the federal government, so that your medical history can be used in the background checks.

Can anyone give me a better understanding of what this about, please?

What are "the background checks" and when are they conducted? Are they random, or are they conducted when someone applies for a permit or a government job or some other circumstance? Will all medical records sent to some department in the government or only on request? Are there any restrictions on a request for records, or is the government omnipotent? What level of government sees the records? If a person gets pulled over for a traffic ticket, does Sheriff Bob send a couple of emails and then have access to somebody's up-the-bum-oscopy results?

Haven't HCPs always had an obligation to maintain records, and have those records not always been subject, in certain cases, to subpoena?

[Brackneyc]

Yup, War on drugs clogged up the courts and jails with non violent criminals.

Need to get softer with non violent crimes and a lot tougher with violent ones involving firearms.

Guns and drugs are kissing cousins where crime is concerned. Legalizing drugs is not going to stop drug related crimes.

[Corbi]

Guns and drugs are kissing cousins where crime is concerned. Legalizing drugs is not going to stop drug related crimes.

Part of the problem with legalizing drugs is then the drug companies would mark them up higher than street value, junkie boy isn't going to get a script of whatever to get his fix. I don't think legalizing them would do a damn thing.

[Brackneyc]

Part of the problem with legalizing drugs is then the drug companies would mark them up higher than street value, junkie boy isn't going to get a script of whatever to get his fix. I don't think legalizing them would do a damn thing.

Agree 100%.

[LisaSkinnoble]

Part of the problem with legalizing drugs is then the drug companies would mark them up higher than street value, junkie boy isn't going to get a script of whatever to get his fix. I don't think legalizing them would do a damn thing.

Oxycontin is legal, a controlled substance, and only available by script. But holy smokes have we got problems with illegal use of it.

[quietchef]

Can anyone give me a better understanding of what this about, please?

What are "the background checks" and when are they conducted? Are they random, or are they conducted when someone applies for a permit or a government job or some other circumstance? Will all medical records sent to some department in the government or only on request? Are there any restrictions on a request for records, or is the government omnipotent? What level of government sees the records? If a person gets pulled over for a traffic ticket, does Sheriff Bob send a couple of emails and then have access to somebody's up-the-bum-oscopy results?

Haven't HCPs always had an obligation to maintain records, and have those records not always been subject, in certain cases, to subpoena?

It's a matter of privacy and confidentiality. Do you want your a$$hole boss knowing you had (insert disease) back in (insert year) even though its been treated and has no influence on your job description. How about when you inquired about that ambein drug that was advertised on tv, that you were convinced you might have social anxiety disorder. Guess what the doc might've written down when you asked that? Depression? That one conversation might double your car insurance rates when they write your policy.

Wrong on so many levels.