Thanks for nothing, Obama

[LisaSkinnoble]

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.

Well, you're getting nearer to what I was thinking, but no one has answered my questions. So are you telling me that with these Executive Orders, my employer - my manager, not my HR or legal departments - would now receive employees medical records? And my car insurer? My house insurer? My banker?

I thought by the OP, that they were going to the government. I still don't know what department of the government will be the recipient of this information.

Can anyone clarify?

[quietchef]

If you perceived that was the situation, would you seek help for anything? That's how I interpreted the original post.

It's just a step in the wrong direction, IMO.

[mslman71]

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

What can they do with it if they don't have it?

Nothing.

Absolutely nothing.

And that's the way I like it.

[paolo59]

Well, you're getting nearer to what I was thinking, but no one has answered my questions. So are you telling me that with these Executive Orders, my employer - my manager, not my HR or legal departments - would now receive employees medical records? And my car insurer? My house insurer? My banker?

I thought by the OP, that they were going to the government. I still don't know what department of the government will be the recipient of this information.

Can anyone clarify?

I don't think there is enough information available to clarify anything Lisa. An executive order is something taken at face value, but that value is of little worth. One doesn't know the details. I trust this present administration just about as far as I could throw the capitol building. LOL From what I understand, doctors are to be incouraged to ask patients if there are guns present in the home...if there are, just what is the patient in the doctor's office for? Are they to make primary care physicians 'spies' for the government? That is not a position any doctor with good sense would want to be in. Just how 'responsible' for anything that could transpire would they become?

These are all questions that come to mind. But nothing, as far as these executive orders are concerned, has been clarified, or even really been determined.

[FlaIronMind]

Well, you're getting nearer to what I was thinking, but no one has answered my questions. So are you telling me that with these Executive Orders, my employer - my manager, not my HR or legal departments - would now receive employees medical records? And my car insurer? My house insurer? My banker?

I thought by the OP, that they were going to the government. I still don't know what department of the government will be the recipient of this information.

Can anyone clarify?

I believe OP is referring to a recent announcement by BHO pertaining to "23 Executive Actions" his Administration will take to purportedly reduce "gun violence."

No. 2 in this list of Executive Actions is:

Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

Related to this is No. 3 in this list:

Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

Not to get into the whole deal, because it is a text unto itself, but HIPPA is basically the legislation when it comes to the privacy and protection of medical records. There are exceptions to HIPPA (workers' compensation claims, etc.), but very few.

Now it seems as if HIPPA will be reduced in large scope (as an "unnecessary legal barrier"), under the auspices of some manner of gun control legislation and/or "background checks" re firearm purchases.

These Executive Actions are brand spanking new. How they play out remains to be seen. But, it does set us down the path of having anything and everything one tells their health care provider become discoverable by Big Brother, presumably on a much larger/easier scale than before. There are also "incentives" for the sharing of information.

What are the incentives and what information is it limited to?

Will it truly be limited to "gun control" "background checks?"

Who are the guardians of this information and who regulates said guardians to ensure that the guardians are acting appropriately?

Is it just coincidental that such "Executive Actions" are being set in motion shortly before Obamacare kicks in?

The problem is once it's in place, it's too late. The information becomes discoverable, accessible, "shared" and there are no guarantees that anyone can make (at least which I will believe) that it will be used on a limited, purposeful, dutiful or appropriate basis. The opportunity for misuse, overuse, inappropriate use, breach, etc., etc., etc., rises exponentially.

I've always advised people, be cautious what you tell your health care provider because they pretty much write down every single thing you tell them in your medical records and, one day, those records could see the light of day. Now, my recommendation of that remains intact and, in fact, is strengthened.

Edit-

Because apparently I've forgotten the difference between "write" and "right."

[so-tex]

God, I love Allen West. Words for the wise.


There's not a single directive the President announced today that would have prevented the tragedy at Sandy Hook. This is all about extending government control over the lives of law-abiding American citizens.

The administration is focused on "gun control," but what about "spending control?" Naturally, there's no acknowledgement of the damaging debt out-of-control spending puts upon the next generation.

The tentacles of tyranny are slowing extending and strengthening their hold on this nation - and too many Americans are oblivious. At this rate, we will not recognize the nation our next generation will inherit. Allen West.

And now we have the invasion of privacy thingy. I am telling you folks, Obama is nothing more than a dictator.

[LisaSkinnoble]

I've always advised people, be cautious what you tell your health care provider because they pretty much right down every single thing you tell them in your medical records and, one day, those records could see the light of day. Now, my recommendation of that remains intact and, in fact, is strengthened.

Thanks, your post was helpful, and I could see how frustrating it would be. I have heard the same advice (quoted) before from others. Some patients have a relationship with their HCPs that are amenable to this type of solution. I think it is prudent.

[snarkrob]

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

To fill in the blanks, right now this very second it wouldn't be used for anything. 10 minutes from now it might be used to figure out if you can vote. in an hour it could affect your credit worthiness. in a month it gets put on a national registry and any bozo on the internet can see who has what. then if I know you might have skitzophrenia meds, I'm coming to your house to steal your meds.

Think that's extreme? all sorts of people are being "outed" as gun owners right now and its affecting people's lives and careers and a gun registry isn't even a big deal. imagine what a mental health list would do.

[kh971]

If they start compiling lists of those who have mental illness or suicidal tendencies, next we may start seeing the goverment keeping tabs on their children since they might consider some of this to be hereditary.

Georgia does have a good background check when you purchase a gun through a FFL dealer or store, and to get a concealed carry is even better and is very thourough. But they still have no way of knowing if you have any mental illness unless you have comitted a crime and your mental illness is linked to the crime. So there are ways that the system falls short of keeping weapons away from nutballs, but that will always be the case. Wacko's will always find a way to inflict as much pain and anguish as they can, if that is what they want to accomplish.

[gympunk]

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.

Hmm, and Obama is a dimwit?

[snarkrob]

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.

Also made steroids illegal. Now that's pretty dumb.

[paolo59]

Hmm, and Obama is a dimwit?

No. Obama is a rabble-rousing, community organizer. He was a Senator from the most corrupt district, of the most corrupt city, in one of the most politically corrupt states in the nation. That says a lot for the bloke, no? He managed to vote 'present' for the majority of legislative decisions that came before him when he was in Washington. Dimwit? Hardly. Stateman? Obama will never be anything but a divider. He is schooled in pitting one against another. It does not reside within him to rise to anything other than accusation. He is a vacuum.

[acrawlingchaos]

These conversations would be easier to get into if it wasn't for the political bashing.

[mslman71]

Hmm, and Obama is a dimwit?

I'm pretty sure one doesn't preclude the other.

[paolo59]

These conversations would be easier to get into if it wasn't for the political bashing.

Politics is one 'bashing game,' no? Within and despite all of the 'bashing' one can come to some inkling of the truth. You tell me?

[gympunk]

No. Obama is a rabble-rousing, community organizer. He was a Senator from the most corrupt district, of the most corrupt city, in one of the most politically corrupt states in the nation. That says a lot for the bloke, no? He managed to vote 'present' for the majority of legislative decisions that came before him when he was in Washington. Dimwit? Hardly. Stateman? Obama will never be anything but a divider. He is schooled in pitting one against another. It does not reside within him to rise to anything other than accusation. He is a vacuum.

Right, he voted 'present', I guess that's a big deal 4 years into his Presidency? You don't like Chicago. You've got your standard Talk Radio tirade set on autopilot. circa 2008. ....and then there's Texas' own boy, George W Bush... that turned out well.

[Protege385]

Right, he voted 'present', I guess that's a big deal 4 years into his Presidency? You don't like Chicago. You've got your standard Talk Radio tirade set on autopilot. circa 2008. ....and then there's Texas' own boy, George W Bush... that turned out well.

Is your only defense of Obama to blame Bush? Bro, its been a while since GWB has been in charge of anything . . .

[theKurp]

Can one person in this thread give an example of how their Federal tax return information has been used - without their express consent - in any other manner than to ensure they've paid their taxes as the law requires?

Just asking....

[HairyScandinavian]

Right, he voted 'present', I guess that's a big deal 4 years into his Presidency? You don't like Chicago. You've got your standard Talk Radio tirade set on autopilot. circa 2008. ....and then there's Texas' own boy, George W Bush... that turned out well.

How about rather than reading your talking points flash cards to us, you stick to the subject of this thread and tell us how it's a good thing that mentally ill gun owners will now NOT seek help for their illness for fear of losing their rights?

[mslman71]

Right, he voted 'present', I guess that's a big deal 4 years into his Presidency? You don't like Chicago. You've got your standard Talk Radio tirade set on autopilot. circa 2008. ....and then there's Texas' own boy, George W Bush... that turned out well.

That's his claim to fame. He's not Bush.

[Phattso]

Right, he voted 'present', I guess that's a big deal 4 years into his Presidency? You don't like Chicago. You've got your standard Talk Radio tirade set on autopilot. circa 2008. ....and then there's Texas' own boy, George W Bush... that turned out well.

Very offensive post. If you think proximity has anything to do with intelligence or success or whether or not a President is a success or not, you are one ignorant fool.

[drudixon]

Thinking about this more, I find it ironic that a black president legalizes discrimination. Sure, today it's guns, tomorrow it'll be certain jobs, then who knows what...

Would a postpartum depression mother be forced to surrender a weapon, to have her children taken away from her?

The problem is his 23 executive orders are so open ended, they can can really fck us anyway they see fit.

[whatevergirl]

Well, you're getting nearer to what I was thinking, but no one has answered my questions. So are you telling me that with these Executive Orders, my employer - my manager, not my HR or legal departments - would now receive employees medical records? And my car insurer? My house insurer? My banker?

I thought by the OP, that they were going to the government. I still don't know what department of the government will be the recipient of this information.

Can anyone clarify?

not sure this would trickle into privately owned companies. BUT... makes ya wonder how blurred the 'boundaries' may get, with the onset of Obamacare, and companies pushing things to save money.

but, there is an org known as the MIB...Medical Information Bureau. It's been around for a very long time, and stores info on many people and is accessed by life insurance companies before they make a determination on someone's life insurance application, from an underwriting standpoint. individual agents selling life insurance are not privvy to the info found on the applicants, they just serve as the conduit to deliver the info to the applicant that he/she's app has been approved or denied. in some cases, whatever was discovered during the due diligence process with the MIB, caused some applicants to be denied. this is nothing new, but for many, they are surprised that there is record of their medical history 'out there' for insurance companies to see. similar yet different, to this discussion. similar in that many are offended that life insurers can access such info...different, in that most insurance companies are privately owned. oh wait, didn't the gov't bail out AIG a few yrs ago? Hmmm...

i have mixed feelings about how this will affect applicants interested in purchasing a gun. the irony is...if someone is hell bent on hurting others, he/she will find the means to obtaining a weapon able to do just that. illegal or not. so ...here we go again. someone who has sought out professional help for a mental health issue, depression, etc...in an effort to get better...will be penalized if he/she wishes to buy a gun.

i looked for a link on this whole subject, and couldn't find one in google. most appreciated, if someone could provide me with one? Thanks.

@ sy...I understand your frustration. It doesn't seem fair, with the case you describe.

[gixxer0.6g]

You know what makes me mad?

Obama...



and







not being able to see any side boob in your avi

[whatevergirl]

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

this is very true, however, there is a subtle provision in the HIPAA rules that states if it's going to be used for patient care, or 'other important issues.' If it were for the 'safety of the public,' I can see that subtle rule being stretched to overrule HIPAA in that case. I'm just guessing, but HIPAA does have that in its provisions. Like so much, it's left up to individual interpretation.

[whatevergirl]

Can one person in this thread give an example of how their Federal tax return information has been used - without their express consent - in any other manner than to ensure they've paid their taxes as the law requires?

Just asking....

you mean whereby the data breach originated from the IRS? that would be probably hard to prove.

[mslman71]

Can one person in this thread give an example of how their Federal tax return information has been used - without their express consent - in any other manner than to ensure they've paid their taxes as the law requires?

Just asking....

IRS shares info with DHS I believe.

[DesertDude11]

So yeah, thanks for nothing Obama, you dimwit.

Obama's Executive Orders < Bush's Patriot Act.

Tell me which one is more invasive?

Don't get all defensive of Bush either... the financial situation we are in currently is EVERYONE's fault. Anyone who took out a HELOC, did a cash out re-fi or accepted one single red cent from either of those transactions is 100% to blame for the situation we are in now.

[Brackneyc]

Obama's Executive Orders < Bush's Patriot Act.

Tell me which one is more invasive?

.

Would you rather be punched in the throat, or the crotch?

[DesertDude11]

Would you rather be punched in the throat, or the crotch?

Pretty much...

My point in this is that we as Americans have taken to such partisan politics that we seem to forget that it is the GOVERNMENT we are pissed at, not the Pupp... I mean President.