Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

HIPAA and privacy? Not so much.

page: 1
5

log in

join

posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
For the children of course.


One proposal would formally give permission to states to submit "the limited information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands," without having to worry about the privacy provisions in a law known as HIPAA.


We got this HIPAA thing here. Very important. Cant even mention it without the ACLU jumping down your throats. Dems too for that matter. But the Dems arent Dems anymore. They're just more of the same tyrants as are the Repubs.

No room for abuses here:

The other proposal would clarify that those who are involuntarily committed to a mental institution -- both inpatient and outpatient -- count under the law as "committed to a mental institution."
linkaroo

What qualifies as 'committed to a mental institution' ? It's that word "outpatient" that gets me. Can you be committed to a mental institution as an outpatient? What's involved to be committed?

I wonder if the mental health advocates will come pouring out against this. After all a person with mental health issues is more likely to be a victim of a crime than a perpetrator so in a way these executive actions seek to disarm victims.

ETA: Also an incentive to not seek help if you feel like you need it. That'll be good for society.

ETA Again: Because I know the "Fox lies" nonsense will take up valuable internet space I offer: Huff Po
WaPo
NBC News
edit on 3-1-2014 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   
This is definitely a tough subject to tackle.

On one hand, I believe we need to protect our medical privacy and uphold the right of Americans to obtain a firearm. On the other, I don't want someone with severe mental issues to have a weapon.

I suppose we have to take a chance based on odds. The odds of a mentally-ill person wanting to obtain a firearm through the legal process...that also wants to go out and harm people are quite low.

I'd rather keep my 2nd amendment rights intact as well as my medical privacy and take my chance with the odds.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   
While I agree that focusing on mental illness is the key to preventing mass murders, this is not the correct approach at all. As the OP stated, this is simply making those who need treatment even more less likely to seek it out. There should be more effort and money put into removing the stigma of seeking mental health treatment rather than giving those with issues something else to worry about.

Also


Over the past year, the administration has been trying to get states to offer up more data for that system, after failing to pass legislation to expand the background check infrastructure.


So basically, we can't pass laws legally, so we will just do it anyways.......

I cannot stand our government.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 01:53 PM
link   

BlackJackal

There should be more effort and money put into removing the stigma of seeking mental health treatment rather than giving those with issues something else to worry about.


Bury and stigmatize. We havent moved all that far from the "pregnant girls home" or the "chain and beat" asylums of the 50's and 60's. Just bury everything, ignore it or lock it away. Don't deal with it. Don't live with it.

Just now we're all patients being chained and beat in one great coast to coast asylum with laws passed that tie hands and ban activities that may lead to over-excitement or acting out.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Holy Crap! I never though about the HIPAA rules ! I am in the insurance buss. and I can't help a client unless they sign a form. yet our govevement can By pass this is real crap!



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


Considering you are more likely to die in a car accident then from some mass shooting perpetrated by a mentally ill person, I don't really care if they obtain a firearm. People die, it is a part of life. Sometimes it is directly caused by other people. Can't change the world through feel good legislation.
edit on 3-1-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by nighthawk1954
 


Rules and laws dont apply to the government. They do whatever they want whenever they want with royal decree.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


That's the thing, isn't it.

It's the Fluffy Kitten Defense used by progressives.

If you don't support these laws, then fluffy kittens will die. Ergo; anyone anti-gun control hates fluffy kittens.


What many fail to realise is that freedom contains risks. The risks are like the other side of a coin.

You can't just eliminate the "risk" side of the coin. Once you do, you eliminate the "freedom" side.

And if you don't agree, then you must hate fluffy bunnies.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   

thisguyrighthere
For the children of course.
We got this HIPAA thing here. Very important. Cant even mention it without the ACLU jumping down your throats. Dems too for that matter. But the Dems arent Dems anymore. They're just more of the same tyrants as are the Repubs.


In short HIPAA was designed to protect patient information from 3rd parties. It is a federal law that is defined by state law. In order to understand the finer points you would need to look up your state laws and go from there.



thisguyrighthere
No room for abuses here:

The other proposal would clarify that those who are involuntarily committed to a mental institution -- both inpatient and outpatient -- count under the law as "committed to a mental institution."
linkaroo

What qualifies as 'committed to a mental institution' ? It's that word "outpatient" that gets me. Can you be committed to a mental institution as an outpatient? What's involved to be committed?

Again state specific. In my state of MO a person who is a danger to themselves can be detained and transported to a medical facility where they can undergo psychiatric screening.

An affidavit can be done that documents the actions that would support the claim the person in question is a danger. That information must be first hand and cannot be passed on - IE a sister cant fill out the affidavit simply because mom told her what happened.

Its called a 96 hour hold in my state. A person who is brought in is given the option (in general) of going through the process voluntarily. If they refuse, and there is enough information present, the affidavits are used to essentially hold the person for their own safety. Its in essence a civil arrest and they have their own version of legal rights read to them (like Miranda). The incident that caused an involuntary detention cannot be continually used to hold a person beyond 96 hours (unless they make new threats while at the facility). Anything going beyond 96 hours requires a court appearance.

if they go voluntarily only to try and leave later, the affidavits can be used to prevent the person from leaving.More often than naught its people who are off their meds / undiagnosed illness who come around once they figure out what is out of whack (blood chemical stuff).

So yes, a person can be held involuntarily and released voluntarily. When the hold is forced that action can be attached to their records for the gun purchase issues. When its voluntary, baring something extroidinary (in general) they can transition to outpatient status. They will be referred to out patient psychiatric services who can help with the adjustment / social issues / jobs etc.



thisguyrighthere
I wonder if the mental health advocates will come pouring out against this. After all a person with mental health issues is more likely to be a victim of a crime than a perpetrator so in a way these executive actions seek to disarm victims.

Im not entirely sure they are proposing anything new. From what I see its pretty much whats in place now.



thisguyrighthere
ETA: Also an incentive to not seek help if you feel like you need it. That'll be good for society.

While they can find ways to milk the Medical industry, Psychiatric services are one of those areas where there is literally (and disgustingly in my opinion) no profit. Some states have developed ways to force the issue so to speak. If a Hospital wants to maintain a trauma status (level A is highest in my state and all medical services / personnel are on campus) they must also include psychiatric services.

The Feds have been using the PTSD argument to "disarm" vets. Since PTSD is arguably a mental category, it meets criteria. in addition to mental diagnosis, people arrested / convicted of Domestic Violence can also lose their ability to own weapons.

Federal legislation is so friggin verbose.....
edit on 3-1-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


To further your explanation, courts can order outpatient treatment for substance abuse, physical abuse giving or receiving, et cetera. "As a condition of release to own recognizance you must appear at monthly / weekly / daily meetings for XYZ."

edit on 1/3/2014 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 

Considering you are more likely to die in a car accident then from some mass shooting perpetrated by a mentally ill person, I don't really care if they obtain a firearm. People die, it is a part of life. Sometimes it is directly caused by other people. Can't change the world through feel good legislation.

You're more likely to be killed by the healthcare industry as well.


I'd rather we take another approach: If you're not allowed to bear arms ... your citizenship is IMMEDIATELY revoked, you're taken to the nearest border ... and told to leave.





new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join