HB2823 Introduced. Prohibit physician questions re firearms.

[K5GU]

You can do your own research. The AMA and NRA are entirely different from one another.

Mojo, I have. I couldn't find anything that said doctors are compelled to ask these questions other than 2nd-hand antidotes, which is why I asked. It was a legitimate question. I'd feel differently if they ARE being compelled to ask. Your type of response solidifies my position, rather than providing me some data that I might need to see things differently.

I'm well aware of the AMA's historical record on anything firearm related in the political arena. I assume that indicating I need to compare to the NRA is just a great example of civil discourse and constructive suggestion, right?

I wouldn't be surprised if the AMA compiles statistical information around firearms. And regardless of who is complaining that data, it's almost certainly not going to be a positive story. I don't want my physicians bound and gagged around the subject just because we're scared of the political spin. When I'm compelled to answer, then I'll want physicians compelled not to ask.

Maybe we shouldn't allow them to ask if we're pilots, scuba dive, sky dive, or engage in other behavior that might have actuarial impacts?

Is there a group or government out there trying to outlaw those activities? If so, maybe you are right.

You can deny it all you want and make the 1st Amendment argument all you want, doctors are being and will continue to be used for the anti-gun cause.

By the way, do you not realize there are already other things the government regulates regarding the patient doctor relationship?

I'm not sure how the linkage among insurance companies and doctors works, but a co-worker of mine who was a stunt pilot had his insurance cancelled. When he did the inquiries, his insurance agents said their database flagged him as a high risk client. He claimed he'd never disclosed his hobbies to his insurance companies, but he did say his doctor was a good friend, and he and the doc talked about his stunt flying all the time. I guess a similar linkage might exist for firearm ownership data too.

[rotor]

You can do your own research. The AMA and NRA are entirely different from one another.

Mojo, I have. I couldn't find anything that said doctors are compelled to ask these questions other than 2nd-hand antidotes, which is why I asked. It was a legitimate question. I'd feel differently if they ARE being compelled to ask. Your type of response solidifies my position, rather than providing me some data that I might need to see things differently.

I'm well aware of the AMA's historical record on anything firearm related in the political arena. I assume that indicating I need to compare to the NRA is just a great example of civil discourse and constructive suggestion, right?

I wouldn't be surprised if the AMA compiles statistical information around firearms. And regardless of who is complaining that data, it's almost certainly not going to be a positive story. I don't want my physicians bound and gagged around the subject just because we're scared of the political spin. When I'm compelled to answer, then I'll want physicians compelled not to ask.

Maybe we shouldn't allow them to ask if we're pilots, scuba dive, sky dive, or engage in other behavior that might have actuarial impacts?

Is there a group or government out there trying to outlaw those activities? If so, maybe you are right.

You can deny it all you want and make the 1st Amendment argument all you want, doctors are being and will continue to be used for the anti-gun cause.

By the way, do you not realize there are already other things the government regulates regarding the patient doctor relationship?

I'm not sure how the linkage among insurance companies and doctors works, but a co-worker of mine who was a stunt pilot had his insurance cancelled. When he did the inquiries, his insurance agents said their database flagged him as a high risk client. He claimed he'd never disclosed his hobbies to his insurance companies, but he did say his doctor was a good friend, and he and the doc talked about his stunt flying all the time. I guess a similar linkage might exist for firearm ownership data too.

It takes 2 seconds to check the FAA pilot database. They even have a smartphone app for this. How hard do you think insurance companies have to work to see if your friend is a pilot? Getting the doctor's records is tough though.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Maybe we shouldn't allow them to ask if we're pilots, scuba dive, sky dive, or engage in other behavior that might have actuarial impacts?

Good idea.

Chas.

[cb1000rider]

Is there a group or government out there trying to outlaw those activities? If so, maybe you are right.

I'm pretty sure the federal government is doing their best to crush general aviation, yes. Between the massive regulations, mostly allowing "certified" technology from the 1950s, and the FAA medical program that has cost me a fortune as a healthy person, I'd say yes. There's no real political movement to do it, it's just happening anyway. But I digress to apples and oranges...

You can deny it all you want and make the 1st Amendment argument all you want, doctors are being and will continue to be used for the anti-gun cause.

I didn't deny it, in fact I told you I was aware of AMA's political history as it pertains to firearms. I'm also aware of various surgeon generals activities that are quite political in nature and not very pro-firearm.

By the way, do you not realize there are already other things the government regulates regarding the patient doctor relationship?

I'm aware of HIPAA. I'm aware of part of the mandates around electronic records in the future.
My situation is different - my medical records really are not private. I provide them to the government in exchange for a license. I provide the government reports on what prescriptions I'm on, my medical history for the last 10 years, every single visit, every single medication, even OTC stuff. It's invasive and difficult to keep up with. I'm probably much more sensitive than most people to what my doctor asks me and what I'm willing to answer.

Even as such, I don't want a medical professional bound by more rules.. That's not good for anyone. You want the federal government out. I want the federal government out. Mandating physician behavior is more government, not less.

And I'll ask you again - where are doctors being compelled to ask these questions? I'd really like an answer to that. You asked me to research it and I've got zilch.

[cb1000rider]

It takes 2 seconds to check the FAA pilot database. They even have a smartphone app for this. How hard do you think insurance companies have to work to see if your friend is a pilot? Getting the doctor's records is tough though.

That's right, but the license is forever, unless actively pulled. You really can't use it to determine who is flying aircraft. You could make a best guess based on medical, but even that isn't going to be right.
Same thing with SCUBA - a PADI Cert doesn't mean higher life insurance rates until the end of time... Lots of certs. Few active divers.

[mojo84]

Is there a group or government out there trying to outlaw those activities? If so, maybe you are right.

I'm pretty sure the federal government is doing their best to crush general aviation, yes. Between the massive regulations, mostly allowing "certified" technology from the 1950s, and the FAA medical program that has cost me a fortune as a healthy person, I'd say yes. There's no real political movement to do it, it's just happening anyway. But I digress to apples and oranges...

You can deny it all you want and make the 1st Amendment argument all you want, doctors are being and will continue to be used for the anti-gun cause.

I didn't deny it, in fact I told you I was aware of AMA's political history as it pertains to firearms. I'm also aware of various surgeon generals activities that are quite political in nature and not very pro-firearm.

By the way, do you not realize there are already other things the government regulates regarding the patient doctor relationship?

I'm aware of HIPAA. I'm aware of part of the mandates around electronic records in the future.
My situation is different - my medical records really are not private. I provide them to the government in exchange for a license. I provide the government reports on what prescriptions I'm on, my medical history for the last 10 years, every single visit, every single medication, even OTC stuff. It's invasive and difficult to keep up with. I'm probably much more sensitive than most people to what my doctor asks me and what I'm willing to answer.

Even as such, I don't want a medical professional bound by more rules.. That's not good for anyone. You want the federal government out. I want the federal government out. Mandating physician behavior is more government, not less.

And I'll ask you again - where are doctors being compelled to ask these questions? I'd really like an answer to that. You asked me to research it and I've got zilch.

I said compelled may have been too strong of a word. I'm not going to play your game. I've provided support for what I've said.

Keep in mind, as a pilot, you represent a very smart percentage of the population and you choose to provide that information in order to obtain your license.

[cb1000rider]

I said compelled may have been too strong of a word. I'm not going to play your game. I've provided support for what I've said.
Keep in mind, as a pilot, you represent a very smart percentage of the population and you choose to provide that information in order to obtain your license.

Sorry, I missed that part. If you're talking about the fact that the AMA isn't pro-firearm, I completely agree with you. You're not the first person to suggest that doctors don't have a choice - I'm just curious what the factual basis is for those people saying that. I was hoping you had that info as it will change my opinion on the legislation.

For clarification - I chose to provide my records to obtain certain ratings. Not ratings all require it. I choose to continue to provide records to be able to exercise those ratings. To be honest, it discourages me from any MD visit as I risk throwing away a hobby I enjoy. There is a large push to drop requirements that most recreational pilots view as an unreasonable burden for non-commercial activity. It's invasive, can be ridiculously expensive, and the FAA more often than not chooses their own interpretations over that of medical professionals. The government ignores the statistical data that shows no difference between medically cleared and non-medically cleared pilots and continues to incur massive cost and overhead.

It's part of why I'm concerned that the government won't be able to do "metal health" checks around firearm purchases correctly, especially if they get tangled up in medical records.

[JSThane]

In January, I got a call from a Doctor's office and the "girl" asked me if I knew that my 90 year old mother kept a loaded shotgun by her bedside. I explained that not only did we know, but my brother and I kept her in ammo and it was none of their business period and we would be looking for another Doctor to treat mother's ailment. I called Mother and she said she was proud that she lived alone and could take care of any problems that might arise. She also said she told them about the loaded Savage 24 (22 over 410) by the back door to keep the squirrel population down in her Pecan trees.

She is still able to live alone, drive to the store in the daylight and attend church several times a week. About 5 years back she took Daddy's old Rem 870 from her bedside and held an intruder at gunpoint on her carport, called 911 from her cell phone and waited for Sheriffs Dept to arrive. There may come a time when we have to remove her gun, but it will be when we move her in with one of us boys, who will take care of her safety.

I've never met her, but I like her already!

My wife's doc has a silhouette target on the wall in her office, perforated by many 9mm holes. I don't worry about her, or my wife. The only time the topic of guns has ever come up was when I asked about the target. I assume the doc assumes there are guns at home anyway, given she knows what I do for a living.

Now, if it came up on a "child wellness exam," I might have words, but given our daughter's pediatrician came with the explicitly unspoken "recommendation" of my wife's doc (because she's not allowed to officially recommend), I'm again not too worried.

But then, we're in small-town southern NM, and firearms are fairly common here.

[rbwhatever1]

Good Legislation. We also need to do something about teachers asking kids about guns as well since we are on the subject of intrusion into the Family by outside sources. The red herring here is that we need any firearms Legislation at all. But we do and we all know why.

Has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. If one wishes to voluntarily talk about guns with his doctor one is free to do so. Hello Doctor Jones how are you? I have 47 guns in my house. Did you write that down? 47 right? Good...

[rotor]

Good Legislation. We also need to do something about teachers asking kids about guns as well since we are on the subject of intrusion into the Family by outside sources. The red herring here is that we need any firearms Legislation at all. But we do and we all know why.

Has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. If one wishes to voluntarily talk about guns with his doctor one is free to do so. Hello Doctor Jones how are you? I have 47 guns in my house. Did you write that down? 47 right? Good...

Next it will be restricting people from mentioning God in school. I can't believe people believe it's a good idea to let government decide what doctors ( teachers- or anyone) is allowed to say. You people really need to think about what you are saying here. You believe government knows what's best. Very frightening to me.
How can you talk to your doctor about guns when by law he is not allowed to talk to you about guns?

[mojo84]

I wouldn't be concerned if it wasn't a step or tool used in the effort to hold gun ownership against us or to develop a backdoor registry of gun owners.

If it wasn't an issue, Harry Reid would not have addressed the concerns by adding language in the ACA that addresses this concern. See pages 2037 and 2038 of the ACA. While the law restricts what doctors, this administration does not worry too much about being restricted by laws or the Constitution.

If it's not a concern for you, fine. Don't be surprised when you encounter problems and start losing your rights because of what you told your doctor.

[rotor]

I wouldn't be concerned if it wasn't a step or tool used in the effort to hold gun ownership against us or to develop a backdoor registry of gun owners.

If it wasn't an issue, Harry Reid would not have addressed the concerns by adding language in the ACA that addresses this concern. See pages 2037 and 2038 of the ACA. While the law restricts what doctors, this administration does not worry too much about being restricted by laws or the Constitution.

If it's not a concern for you, fine. Don't be surprised when you encounter problems and start losing your rights because of what you told your doctor.

What if I changed the title of the post to read
"HB2823 INTRODUCED. PROHIBITS PHYSICIANS TO DISCUSS RELIGION WITH PATIENTS"
Would you still be in favor of it? What sane ( no implication here ) person would be in favor of allowing the government to control what we are allowed to discuss with our physicians or actually anyone. This is still (I hope) the land of the free, home of the brave. We can still say ( within reason) what we want. I don't need a government agency telling me what I can say. My doctor should be able to say or ask me anything without restriction and not be forced to ask or restricted to not ask.

[Cedar Park Dad]

I wouldn't be concerned if it wasn't a step or tool used in the effort to hold gun ownership against us or to develop a backdoor registry of gun owners.

If it wasn't an issue, Harry Reid would not have addressed the concerns by adding language in the ACA that addresses this concern. See pages 2037 and 2038 of the ACA. While the law restricts what doctors, this administration does not worry too much about being restricted by laws or the Constitution.

If it's not a concern for you, fine. Don't be surprised when you encounter problems and start losing your rights because of what you told your doctor.

What if I changed the title of the post to read
"HB2823 INTRODUCED. PROHIBITS PHYSICIANS TO DISCUSS RELIGION WITH PATIENTS"
Would you still be in favor of it? What sane ( no implication here ) person would be in favor of allowing the government to control what we are allowed to discuss with our physicians or actually anyone. This is still (I hope) the land of the free, home of the brave. We can still say ( within reason) what we want. I don't need a government agency telling me what I can say. My doctor should be able to say or ask me anything without restriction and not be forced to ask or restricted to not ask.

This is the same state government that requires fetal exams before abortions no? What government regulates has gone way beyond that already.

I get your argument and as a matter of policy I agree. But the law is an attempt to protect another fundamental right. Perhaps a law should say "no doctor may be required to ask." That preserves everyone's freedom no?

[TVGuy]

I wouldn't be concerned if it wasn't a step or tool used in the effort to hold gun ownership against us or to develop a backdoor registry of gun owners.

If it wasn't an issue, Harry Reid would not have addressed the concerns by adding language in the ACA that addresses this concern. See pages 2037 and 2038 of the ACA. While the law restricts what doctors, this administration does not worry too much about being restricted by laws or the Constitution.

If it's not a concern for you, fine. Don't be surprised when you encounter problems and start losing your rights because of what you told your doctor.

What if I changed the title of the post to read
"HB2823 INTRODUCED. PROHIBITS PHYSICIANS TO DISCUSS RELIGION WITH PATIENTS"
Would you still be in favor of it? What sane ( no implication here ) person would be in favor of allowing the government to control what we are allowed to discuss with our physicians or actually anyone. This is still (I hope) the land of the free, home of the brave. We can still say ( within reason) what we want. I don't need a government agency telling me what I can say. My doctor should be able to say or ask me anything without restriction and not be forced to ask or restricted to not ask.

Your wording is just a hair off, but it makes a HUGE impact. The word in the bill is "inquire into, or ask a patient to disclose", NOT "discuss". Legally they could discuss firearms with you all they wanted, just not ask or force you to answer in order to be treated.

I'm perfectly sane and I'd have no problem with the bill as you described above. There is no medical need for a doctor to ask my religious beliefs, and if he insisted I disclosed that information before treating me...I'd walk out the door before he could finish his sentence. If I decide to discuss either - that it's up to me.

[EEllis]

To me a law that would prevent doctors from recording or disclosing any information that was not directly health related. I don't remember what the exact language in the Fl law is but you guys see where I'm going. It doesn't seem like the TALK is the big deal but that there is concern about what information might get put in the files or some database and later used against someone. So why not forget about the questions and prevent the information from being collected or used. Heck throw in something about it being illegal for anyone to use such info to make any judgements or decisions either. So if an insurance company does find out about something about guns it would be illegal to change anything on your policy. That leaves the Govt out of our conversations but still protects us.