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.
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."
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
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.
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.
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)