TexasCHLforum.com

http://downtrend.com/jrc410/obamas-surg ... arry-guns/

There is now even more to dislike about Obama’s new pick for the nation’s top medical position. Surgeon General nominee Vivek Murthy wants doctors to be trained in order to determine who is “fit” to carry a firearm. This is one of the biggest reasons why we are now seeing even right-thinking pro-Second Amendment Democrats lining up to oppose this nomination.

Murthy is also teaming up with the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American College of Physicians (ACP) to call gun violence a public health crisis, as was reported in The Atlantic recently. Their main justification for this new push to try and develop training programs for doctors is a new North Carolina study that shows most doctors don’t feel they have adequate competence in order to determine whether they can properly sign off on a patient’s gun permit. Yes, North Carolina is one of the few states to allow doctors this power (of signing off on competency permits for prospective gun owners).

If this bozo gets the job, this is what we can look forward to during the next 2 years.

Disgusting is not too strong a word.

Electronic health records, which are mandated for medicare in 2015, will make this even easier. Another database for the gov to track us by.

XnTx wrote:Electronic health records, which are mandated for medicare in 2015, will make this even easier. Another database for the gov to track us by.

I have religious objections to the gathering and use of that data.

XnTx wrote:Electronic health records, which are mandated for medicare in 2015, will make this even easier. Another database for the gov to track us by.

Where did you get this information? I believe docs will face a financial penalty if they don't have EHR but I don't believe it is mandatory (yet).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Inf ... Health_Act As with most medical, make it mandatory for medicare or medicaid and it becomes de facto mandatory for the rest of the system.

rotor wrote:

XnTx wrote:Electronic health records, which are mandated for medicare in 2015, will make this even easier. Another database for the gov to track us by.

Where did you get this information? I believe docs will face a financial penalty if they don't have EHR but I don't believe it is mandatory (yet).

What's the difference?

XnTx wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Inf ... Health_Act As with most medical, make it mandatory for medicare or medicaid and it becomes de facto mandatory for the rest of the system.

Without a long boring read, where is it mandatory? Plenty of docs will not waste their $$ on EHR. Like Obamacare, pay a fine is cheaper than buying.

rotor wrote:

XnTx wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Inf ... Health_Act As with most medical, make it mandatory for medicare or medicaid and it becomes de facto mandatory for the rest of the system.

Without a long boring read, where is it mandatory? Plenty of docs will not waste their $$ on EHR. Like Obamacare, pay a fine is cheaper than buying.

And you know this, how?

You guys are going to hate this, but I'm not so sure I'm against having doctors trained to evaluate stuff like this. The alternative is to continue to hand out permits based on (largely) self-assessment or self-justified assessment. I don't want untrained doctors to make evaluations, because results will vary wildly. I've already read several questions about bi-polar disorder - and many of those people obviously self-assess.

We evaluate pilots, what's the difference here? I can tell you that pilot evaluations require voluntary disclosure of medical records. Although that might change in the future, it'd certainly make things easier than having to track (literally) every single doctor visit I've made in the last 5-10 years, every single prescription medication I've taken, etc.. Honestly, it keeps me out of the doctor because I don't want to have to track it.

The AMA has a pretty bad rap, perhaps deservedly so, of being anti-gun... But I'm not sure that being unwilling to change any of the rules is a good long term strategy as public opinion shifts anti-OC and the media continues to highly firearm issues where mental deficiency is involved.

Note, I see this as a replacement for the kind of restrictions that we see in NY, NJ, and Chicago. I don't see it as a restriction that gets added on top of that... IE - a tool to show that gun owners are not only background checked, but deemed mentally competent... It becomes increasingly harder to argue (in my mind) for more restrictive options.

But maybe I've got the strategy wrong... But it's just what I'm thinking at the moment. And obviously this may just apply to the NC situation, where doctors are already being asked to qualify people without special training.

cb1000rider wrote:You guys are going to hate this, but I'm not so sure I'm against having doctors trained to evaluate stuff like this. The alternative is to continue to hand out permits based on (largely) self-assessment or self-justified assessment. I don't want untrained doctors to make evaluations, because results will vary wildly. I've already read several questions about bi-polar disorder - and many of those people obviously self-assess.

We evaluate pilots, what's the difference here? I can tell you that pilot evaluations require voluntary disclosure of medical records. Although that might change in the future, it'd certainly make things easier than having to track (literally) every single doctor visit I've made in the last 5-10 years, every single prescription medication I've taken, etc.. Honestly, it keeps me out of the doctor because I don't want to have to track it.

The AMA has a pretty bad rap, perhaps deservedly so, of being anti-gun... But I'm not sure that being unwilling to change any of the rules is a good long term strategy as public opinion shifts anti-OC and the media continues to highly firearm issues where mental deficiency is involved.

Note, I see this as a replacement for the kind of restrictions that we see in NY, NJ, and Chicago. I don't see it as a restriction that gets added on top of that... IE - a tool to show that gun owners are not only background checked, but deemed mentally competent... It becomes increasingly harder to argue (in my mind) for more restrictive options.

But maybe I've got the strategy wrong... But it's just what I'm thinking at the moment. And obviously this may just apply to the NC situation, where doctors are already being asked to qualify people without special training.

A licensed commercial pilot is responsible for hundreds of lives daily. There is a need to know what kind of meds the pilot is on. ie. is he on a med for epileptic seizures, or how about insulin?
Your family Dr. should have nothing to say about your mental capacity unless he/she knows your on psychiatric drugs or mind altering type drugs, then he could have a voice. A Dr. is not a psychiatrist and a psychiatrist would never sign off on a form stating that you would not shoot a person, no matter how well he knew the person. He might sign off on one attesting that you are mentally competent at the time he signed the form, but not that you will be mentally competent next year.

cb1000rider, Should we all then have a psychiatric sign-off by a doctor before being allowed to go to church or to speak freely? How about requiring a psychiatric sign-off for an abortion? It's both (allegedly) a constitutional right to have one, AND it results in the ACTUAL death of a specific person (rather than the potential death of a future unnamed person).

It is bad enough to have to pay the state $70 and a CHL instructor whatever they charge, not to mention the background check, just in order to exercise a limited right (limited, because it applies to concealed carry only) that other states, both liberal and conservative, simply take for granted and do not trouble their citizens over it.

On top of that, you want to add a layer of psychiatric oversight by a cadre of professionals who A) tend overwhelmingly to hold the 2nd Amendment in disfavor, and B) practice a science with often vague and difficult to empirically measure parameters?

Reminds me of one of the characters at the local cowboy murder mystery theaters - Miss Ima Nottahavinany.

n5wd wrote:

rotor wrote:

XnTx wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Inf ... Health_Act As with most medical, make it mandatory for medicare or medicaid and it becomes de facto mandatory for the rest of the system.

Without a long boring read, where is it mandatory? Plenty of docs will not waste their $$ on EHR. Like Obamacare, pay a fine is cheaper than buying.

And you know this, how?

I asked you "where is it mandatory". I have seen nothing yet that says that medicare REQUIRES EHR. Asking me how I know this is not the point. Show me where medicare is requiring EHR.

On the other hand my experience with physicians is that they are either avid gun lovers or they hate them Just like the general population. My experience also is that Indian ( like from India) physicians tend to very rarely have anything to do with either guns or dogs. A cultural thing I suspect. I suspect the current nominee will be one of those that does not like guns.

MeMelYup wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:You guys are going to hate this, but I'm not so sure I'm against having doctors trained to evaluate stuff like this. The alternative is to continue to hand out permits based on (largely) self-assessment or self-justified assessment. I don't want untrained doctors to make evaluations, because results will vary wildly. I've already read several questions about bi-polar disorder - and many of those people obviously self-assess.

We evaluate pilots, what's the difference here? I can tell you that pilot evaluations require voluntary disclosure of medical records. Although that might change in the future, it'd certainly make things easier than having to track (literally) every single doctor visit I've made in the last 5-10 years, every single prescription medication I've taken, etc.. Honestly, it keeps me out of the doctor because I don't want to have to track it.

The AMA has a pretty bad rap, perhaps deservedly so, of being anti-gun... But I'm not sure that being unwilling to change any of the rules is a good long term strategy as public opinion shifts anti-OC and the media continues to highly firearm issues where mental deficiency is involved.

Note, I see this as a replacement for the kind of restrictions that we see in NY, NJ, and Chicago. I don't see it as a restriction that gets added on top of that... IE - a tool to show that gun owners are not only background checked, but deemed mentally competent... It becomes increasingly harder to argue (in my mind) for more restrictive options.

But maybe I've got the strategy wrong... But it's just what I'm thinking at the moment. And obviously this may just apply to the NC situation, where doctors are already being asked to qualify people without special training.

A licensed commercial pilot is responsible for hundreds of lives daily. There is a need to know what kind of meds the pilot is on. ie. is he on a med for epileptic seizures, or how about insulin?
Your family Dr. should have nothing to say about your mental capacity unless he/she knows your on psychiatric drugs or mind altering type drugs, then he could have a voice. A Dr. is not a psychiatrist and a psychiatrist would never sign off on a form stating that you would not shoot a person, no matter how well he knew the person. He might sign off on one attesting that you are mentally competent at the time he signed the form, but not that you will be mentally competent next year.

I have my commercial pilots license. The FAA makes it very difficult for senior pilots (with the most experience) to fly. A smart pilot with a medical problem can find the right doctor to work around the FAA medical mumbo-jumbo just like a rich person can get the right lawyer to defend him. I don't think that most doctors are capable of giving the OK for gun ownership. More than likely if they signed off on someones health and that person shot someone the doctor with the deep pockets would be sued. I can just see the advertising now. "Need your gun sign off- we have doctors ready to sign it off 24/7"

cb1000rider wrote:You guys are going to hate this, but I'm not so sure I'm against having doctors trained to evaluate stuff like this. The alternative is to continue to hand out permits based on (largely) self-assessment or self-justified assessment. I don't want untrained doctors to make evaluations, because results will vary wildly. I've already read several questions about bi-polar disorder - and many of those people obviously self-assess.

The question should be asked why do we need a doctor's evaluation for gun carry? If a person is inclined to hurt himself or others, you can bet he will find the means. Giving doctors control of who can or cant possess, and this is exactly what is being proposed, would be a calamity.

If the real priority is one of protecting society against itself, I propose that the government require those who wish to consume alcohol get a medically sanctioned government permit ....renewed annually.