Author Topic: Health Care/Privacy/2nd ammndmt (Read 5834 times)

castle key · « **on:** February 09, 2009, 02:36:33 PM »

In the "stimulus package" being bandied about, one element is that all health care records will go into some vast Federal Database. While there may be some valid reason why this is a good idea, or even able to stimulate the economy, it raises some significant privacy issues.

Let's say that many years ago you had a medical condition related to some event and that issue is resolved. Let's say you lost your job or got divorced or something like that. Two months of treatment for a minor case of depression and you were completely cured with no indicia of long term effects.

Fast forward a couple of years and you are filling out the ATF form to get a firearm. You are not rule out crazy or anything like that, just had a medical problem of short duration that was completely treated....and now, you are denied your Constitutional Rights.

Pretty creepy.......

Manedwolf · « **Reply #1 on:** February 09, 2009, 02:43:01 PM »

I'm more worried about when the database is hacked. Lowest bidder, all that.

K Frame · « **Reply #2 on:** February 09, 2009, 02:53:10 PM »

Actually, David, there would have to be other changes to the law for that to happen.

Currently you are not stripped of your rights if you were treated for a condition such as depression if you were a) voluntarily treated, b) not treated in a residential setting for more than (IIRC) 72 hours, c) not involuntarily committed.

I don't believe that the laws have changed those requirements since Virginia Tech.

castle key · « **Reply #3 on:** February 09, 2009, 02:55:06 PM »

I am not talking about "other changes" as this administration seems able to interpret the gun control laws as needed to fit a specific agenda. Think Rham E.!!

K Frame · « **Reply #4 on:** February 09, 2009, 03:00:17 PM »

Come on, don't be getting so worked up to drink the magical Kool Aide.

MY GOD! HE'S THE PRESIDENT! HE CAN DECLARE ALL WHITE PEOPLE ILLEGALS AND HAVE US EXPELLED FROM THE COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, anything is POSSIBLE.

It's possible that that could happen at some point in the future.

But do you really think that centralized records are the single master requirement for something like this to happen?

No.

Let's focus on the real reasons why centralized electronic records systems are a startling bad idea, and not invent OH MY GOD!!! reasons for it.

"Think Rahm E!"

What, you mean the APPOINTED, non-elected, chief of staff's OPINION as to what he would like to see enacted?

Emanuel certainly has the President's ear, but the President can't pass laws. Only Congress can do that, and unless Emanuel has the ear of every member of Congress, it will remain that; his opinion.

RevDisk · « **Reply #5 on:** February 09, 2009, 03:09:19 PM »

Quote from: Manedwolf on February 09, 2009, 02:43:01 PM

I'm more worried about when the database is hacked. Lowest bidder, all that.

Well, if you want to approach the situation from a glass half full approach, it'd be a much quicker turnaround time on FOIA requests. Either get it yourself, or shell out $19.95 for a copy from a company based in Elbonia.

castle key · « **Reply #6 on:** February 09, 2009, 03:32:12 PM »

Quote from: Mike Irwin on February 09, 2009, 03:00:17 PM

Emanuel certainly has the President's ear, but the President can't pass laws. Only Congress can do that, and unless Emanuel has the ear of every member of Congress, it will remain that; his opinion.

Right, only Congress can do it...and what is the split for those who adore "Dear Leader"

Kinda goes to the left me thinks!!!

Manedwolf · « **Reply #7 on:** February 09, 2009, 03:37:26 PM »

Quote from: RevDisk on February 09, 2009, 03:09:19 PM

Well, if you want to approach the situation from a glass half full approach, it'd be a much quicker turnaround time on FOIA requests. Either get it yourself, or shell out $19.95 for a copy from a company based in Elbonia.

There isn't much in medical databases that that would apply to? Patient records are protected by HIPAA.

K Frame · « **Reply #8 on:** February 09, 2009, 03:41:38 PM »

"What is the split..."

You know, it's funny, but a LOT of people expected the favorable split (which does not include 60 members in the Senate needed to cloture discussion) to result in just a terrific amount of new legislation in the week after Obama's innauguration.

Right now there's a fair amount of "shock and awwwwwwww...." going on because all of this wonderous legislation either isn't happening, or it's still stuck in congress. The stimulus bill is a perfect example.

Then there's the fact that when it comes to the supposed split, there are more than a few Democrats who are far more pro-2nd amendment than some of their Republican counterparts.

Mark Warner and Jim Webb are both friends of the 2nd, for example.

The fact that the Democrats have a majority in both houses didn't immediately morph into a "We're going to pass every bit of legislation we talked about and screw the Republicans," which is exactly what some of Obama's supporters hoped.

Then, finally, there's a tremendous reinforcement object lesson that on-the-fence legislators are getting right now.

Firearms sales, including to first time buyers, are through the roof. There are many legislators, Republicans and Democrats alike, who are weighing the numbers they're seeing there against what happened to Gore in 2000 and translating that into how many votes they would potentially lose from those people were they to sign on to some new sweeping legislative intiative.

K Frame · « **Reply #9 on:** February 09, 2009, 03:42:16 PM »

Quote from: Manedwolf on February 09, 2009, 03:37:26 PM

There isn't much in medical databases that that would apply to? Patient records are protected by HIPAA.

Don't worry, Ram Emmanuel has a plan for that, as well... :D

Gewehr98 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 09, 2009, 03:45:11 PM »

Quote

but the President can't pass laws. Only Congress can do that

I'm confused.

If I remember correctly, there are (have been) Executive Orders that bypass all of the legislative hoops...

Balog · « **Reply #11 on:** February 09, 2009, 03:49:13 PM »

Quote from: Gewehr98 on February 09, 2009, 03:45:11 PM

I'm confused.

If I remember correctly, there are (have been) Executive Orders that bypass all of the legislative hoops...

Shhhh, if you point that out someone will be along to berate you for conspiracy therying and make mocking tinfoil statements.

Gewehr98 · « **Reply #12 on:** February 09, 2009, 03:51:51 PM »

No, I'm not trying to foment rebellion or sell stock in tinfoil.

It just creeps me out a bit.

I remember Clinton doing so, and if I remember correctly, both George Sr. and Jr. did the same.

The precedent (president?) has been set.

K Frame · « **Reply #13 on:** February 09, 2009, 03:54:24 PM »

Executive orders can bypass SOME legislative loops, but they are not "I'll write whatever law I damned well feel like and the nation can go straight to hell" blank checks.

Dianah and the Supremes have, in rulings on two executive orders, issued some guidelines on Executive Orders and their limitations.

Granted, there isn't a lot of case law on executive orders, but at the same time I don't think any president, not even Obama, would be frighteningly stupid enough to try to "pass" sweeping changes of law without Congress.

Congress still has the ability to pass legislation that can circumvent an Executive Order, and can also simply refuse to appropriate the funds necessary to carry out an executive order.

Gewehr98 · « **Reply #14 on:** February 09, 2009, 04:11:52 PM »

I don't think it has to be a "sweeping change" type of EO.

I distinctly remember two Clinton-issued Executive Orders banning import of certain firearm types not suitable for "sporting purposes".

It definitely caught the NRA by surprise.

Mr. Obama has already issued 5 each EOs since January 20th. Perhaps that's not a record, but he's by no means afraid of using them.

This is interesting, in that it's an interview with none other than Rahm Emmanual and Tanya Metaksa concerning Clinton's EO banning those 59 models of guns:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june98/guns_4-6.html

I know which way Rahm will go with anything gun-control related presented on his plate, and were an EO to come from the Oval Office with implications concerning the topic of this thread, I'd hardly be surprised.

Back to the garage for now, I have the Dillon SDB set up for a big batch of .44 Special and it's calling me.

RevDisk · « **Reply #15 on:** February 09, 2009, 05:10:15 PM »

Quote from: Mike Irwin on February 09, 2009, 03:54:24 PM

Executive orders can bypass SOME legislative loops, but they are not "I'll write whatever law I damned well feel like and the nation can go straight to hell" blank checks.

Correct, EO's aren't blank checks. That's what signing statements are for.

Quote

There isn't much in medical databases that that would apply to? Patient records are protected by HIPAA.

Yea, I was kidding. But HIPAA is very FUBAR. Thank the Gods it doesn't apply to my company (I just have SOX, ITAR, etc), but HIPAA is a compliance nightmare and doesn't do a bang up job of protecting your medical information. It gives a nice illusion of securing your medical data and does actually make modest security gains, but at a very steep price.

Don't care · « **Reply #16 on:** February 09, 2009, 08:43:32 PM »

Parker Dean · « **Reply #17 on:** February 10, 2009, 01:41:15 PM »

Quote from: Mike Irwin on February 09, 2009, 02:53:10 PM

Actually, David, there would have to be other changes to the law for that to happen.

Currently you are not stripped of your rights if you were treated for a condition such as depression if you were a) voluntarily treated, b) not treated in a residential setting for more than (IIRC) 72 hours, c) not involuntarily committed.

I don't believe that the laws have changed those requirements since Virginia Tech.

Are you absolutely certain those changes aren't in the "stimulus" bill? Because everything else seems to be.

Matthew Carberry · « **Reply #18 on:** February 14, 2009, 05:06:58 PM »

Quote from: Don't care on February 09, 2009, 08:43:32 PM

Given the fact that the antigunners are in charge of Congress, it's not a hard pitch to imagine this particular law being changed.....and could realistically be done at the cabinet level and in effect for years before it ever being ruled unlawful at the judicial level.

How is that a "fact"?

Go count both houses of Congress and determine exactly what the pro/anti-gun split is based on hard data, like previous voting records and GOA / NRA ratings before making statements of "fact".

Here's a tip, "Democrat" does not equal "anti-gun".

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #19 on:** February 14, 2009, 06:18:14 PM »

Quote from: carebear on February 14, 2009, 05:06:58 PM

Here's a tip, "Democrat" does not equal "anti-gun".

The leaders of the congressional Democrats are decidedly antigun. There are a few rank and file Democrats who aren't antigun, but even those members help to keep the antigun leadership in charge.

Matthew Carberry · « **Reply #20 on:** February 16, 2009, 07:35:38 PM »

Quote from: Headless Thompson Gunner on February 14, 2009, 06:18:14 PM

The leaders of the congressional Democrats are decidedly antigun. There are a few rank and file Democrats who aren't antigun, but even those members help to keep the antigun leadership in charge.

Fortunately, those leaders can't vote proxies. The rank-and-file Dems get to cast their own votes and many are rather vocal as to what those votes will be.

I'm not saying it's sunshine and roses, but we have to get past the "Dems = bad / Rep = good on guns" trite BS. There is nothing positive or useful in it.

The country will always be split between the parties, we will never have an overwhelming pro-gun AND Republican Congress even if we wanted such a thing.

What we can and should aim for is a bipartisan pro-gun Congress. That is achievable and will do more for gun rights short and long term than constantly and inaccurately pillorying one party.

Don't care · « **Reply #21 on:** February 16, 2009, 08:02:36 PM »

jackdanson · « **Reply #22 on:** February 16, 2009, 11:12:56 PM »

Quote

In the "stimulus package" being bandied about, one element is that all health care records will go into some vast Federal Database. While there may be some valid reason why this is a good idea, or even able to stimulate the economy, it raises some significant privacy issues.

The best part is it is going to put a lot of people out of a job. Small doctors offices can't afford the $20k+ that it costs to convert to all electronic medical records. If the Dr.'s office I work in part-time implements it my hours could get cut substantially... if they can even afford to get the system up. Combine that with the fact that Obama has stated that he wants to be able to make sure you are getting "the most efficient care" and you have doomsday for small doctors offices. You will have lawyers on one side, suing you if you don't order every test possible, and the .gov on the other side trying to make you order less tests/etc.

And to all the paranoids out there, you're too late. Any office that has electronic medical records stores them in a database of sorts. If you have been to any SSM provider (a big conglomerate in the midwest with 5000+ physicians) I can look up any of your records right now. It's only a matter of time until there is a national database.

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #23 on:** February 16, 2009, 11:24:19 PM »

Quote from: carebear on February 16, 2009, 07:35:38 PM

Fortunately, those leaders can't vote proxies. The rank-and-file Dems get to cast their own votes and many are rather vocal as to what those votes will be.

Have you ever noticed that there are RINOs in congress, but no DINOs? The only recent Democrat to seriously break with party doctrine is Lieberman, and they ran him out of the party for it.

Democrats don't break ranks. Don't count on those few pro-gun Democrats to fight their party leadership over the gun issue.

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #24 on:** February 17, 2009, 08:19:16 AM »

Quote from: Headless Thompson Gunner on February 16, 2009, 11:24:19 PM

Have you ever noticed that there are RINOs in congress, but no DINOs? The only recent Democrat to seriously break with party doctrine is Lieberman, and they ran him out of the party for it.

Democrats don't break ranks. Don't count on those few pro-gun Democrats to fight their party leadership over the gun issue.

That's just it. In 06, when all those "pro gun" Democrats were elected, everyone said "It'll be okay!". But then look at who became Speaker of the House. Look at who they turn to for "leadership" in the party. Those "pro gun" democrats won't be standing up for us when the legislation comes down the pike.

News:

Author Topic: Health Care/Privacy/2nd ammndmt (Read 5834 times)