Dr's want OK to rescind laws limiting "medial research" on guns

[deen_ad]

We need to investigate doctors, hospitals and ban cars:

Deaths from avoidable medical error more than double in past decade, investigation shows

"The total number of iatrogenic deaths shown in the following table is 783,936. It is evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the United States"

From: Medical system is leading cause of death and injury in US - Health Supreme

"Of the total 323,993 deaths among Medicare patients in those years who developed one or more patient-safety incidents, 263,864, or 81 percent, of these deaths were directly attributable to the incident(s)."

From: In Hospital Deaths from Medical Errors at 195,000 per Year USA

"In 2003 there were 6,328,000 car accidents in the US. There were 2.9 million injuries and 42,643 people were killed in auto accidents."

From: How many deaths are caused by car accidents a year

"In the U.S. for 2006, there were 30,896 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,883; Homicide 12,791; Accident 642; Legal Intervention 360; Undetermined 220."

FIREARMS TUTORIAL

 

[Kable]

you mean like the feds not being able to save the info from when you bought a gun and had a background check done??
sure they don't

Yeah I know that was pretty stupid assuming the feds would follow the laws they wrote... anyway here is the text of the bill section section 2716 "prohibition on discrimination in favor of highly compensated individuals "
"( c) PROTECTIONOFSECONDAMENDMENTGUNRIGHTS.— ‘‘(1) WELLNESSANDPREVENTIONPROGRAMS.—A wellness and health promotion activity implemented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to— ‘‘(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully-possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or "( B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual. ‘‘(2) LIMITATIONONDATACOLLECTION.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the collection of any information relating to— ‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; ‘‘(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or ‘‘(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition. ‘‘(3) LIMITATIONONDATABASESORDATABANKS.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used to maintain records of individual ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition. ‘‘(4) LIMITATIONONDETERMINATIONOFPREMIUMRATESOR ELIGIBILITYFORHEALTHINSURANCE.—A premium rate may not be increased, health insurance coverage may not be denied, and a discount, rebate, or reward offered for participation in a wellness program may not be reduced or withheld under any health benefit plan issued pursuant to or in accordance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act on the basis of, or on reliance upon— ‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or ‘‘(B) the lawful use or storage of a firearm or ammunition. ‘‘(5) LIMITATIONONDATACOLLECTIONREQUIREMENTSFOR INDIVIDUALS.—No individual shall be required to disclose any information under any data collection activity authorized under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act relating to— ‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or ‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition.’’. (f) Section 2718 of the Public Health Service Act, as added by section 1001(5), is amended to read as follows:"

 

[oknow]

Yeah I know that was pretty stupid assuming the feds would follow the laws they wrote... anyway here is the text of the bill section section 2716 "prohibition on discrimination in favor of highly compensated individuals "
"( c) PROTECTIONOFSECONDAMENDMENTGUNRIGHTS.— ‘‘(1) WELLNESSANDPREVENTIONPROGRAMS.—A wellness and health promotion activity implemented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to— ‘‘(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully-possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or "( B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual. ‘‘(2) LIMITATIONONDATACOLLECTION.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the collection of any information relating to— ‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; ‘‘(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or ‘‘(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition. ‘‘(3) LIMITATIONONDATABASESORDATABANKS.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used to maintain records of individual ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition. ‘‘(4) LIMITATIONONDETERMINATIONOFPREMIUMRATESOR ELIGIBILITYFORHEALTHINSURANCE.—A premium rate may not be increased, health insurance coverage may not be denied, and a discount, rebate, or reward offered for participation in a wellness program may not be reduced or withheld under any health benefit plan issued pursuant to or in accordance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act on the basis of, or on reliance upon— ‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or ‘‘(B) the lawful use or storage of a firearm or ammunition. ‘‘(5) LIMITATIONONDATACOLLECTIONREQUIREMENTSFOR INDIVIDUALS.—No individual shall be required to disclose any information under any data collection activity authorized under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act relating to— ‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or ‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition.''. (f) Section 2718 of the Public Health Service Act, as added by section 1001(5), is amended to read as follows:"

I see you skipped over the pool part but we understand why don't we

so they are going to follow this rule/law

 

[Kable]

I see you skipped over the pool part but we understand why don't we

so they are going to follow this rule/law

Pool?... I must have overlooked that part, the pdf is only 907 pages... and no I don't really expect them to follow the law, someone will have to get asked about it and then sue and then it will probably have to work it's way all through the court system

 

[Rotty]

When my doctor asked me if I had any guns in my house, I told him it was none of his business. This is just a way to create a cross referenced data base on gun owners in America!

Not only is it a cross referance but it opens the door for scrutiny if the doctor ever prescribes anti depressants to a patient. It a patients mental stability ever come into question you can bet the govt will use that as leverage to take away an individuals gun rights away.

 

[g.i. joe]

Bah, you guys are paranoid. I only ask my patients if they have a gun if they tell me they are going to go home and kill themselves or their family. I'm required by law to inform the police of those situations.

Pediatricians ask because they were trained in medical school to ask, not by the men in black. The reason is that homes with guns are more likely to have gun related deaths of kids than if they dont have guns. Some physicians feel it is their duty to protect these kids by mentioning this fact to families. Studies have shown that if the doctor mentions they should keep their guns away from kids, then more people secure the guns properly and less kids get shot. Same as if we recommend people stop smoking, more people do.

No one is reporting to any obamacare conspiracy government agency so they can come confiscate your guns. Just say you prefer not to say if you dont like the question.

Im busy enough fighting with jackass insurance companies and drug companies and every other industry trying to get rich off of sick people to have to time to be a government stooge. Hell, I dont even know who I would tell. Do I call up Obama personally and name off my patients that have guns?

My kid's pediatrician knows I have guns at home because we work in the same office and I have a gun safe at my desk about 20 feet from hers!

Bah, I call B.S.
Do you ask parents if they have swimming pools, bicycles, automobiles, heavy machinery, harsh cleaning chemicals, hornet nests, ladders, trampolines, etc. at home? Because families who do, statistically, run a much higher risk of a family member dying due to instances related to items in this list than firearms.
How about this, do you ask if the family has a family Doctor? At about 10:1, more people die from medical malpractice by doctors then they do from bullet holes. And don't forget, that is total firearms related deaths, not just the "accidents" category.
So, dont tell us we are "paranoid".
Do your patients a favor, tell them to stay away from Doctors

 

[Mark W.]

I was just enlightened literally minutes ago but after looking at those two articles and giving it some thought it would seem the intended goal is to turn this into a public health issue which could have some interesting implications.

I get the feeling our doctors wouldn't be impressed about the colt 6920 in my closet or the glock 23 in my pants.


Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

Actually my Doc just switched his main toy from an AR-15 platform to an FN platform rifle and was commenting on how nice it groups at 100 yards. So I doubt he would care what was in your pants unless it was infected LOL.

 

[duane black]

Actually my Doc just switched his main toy from an AR-15 platform to an FN platform rifle and was commenting on how nice it groups at 100 yards. So I doubt he would care what was in your pants unless it was infected LOL.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[bolus]

Bah, I call B.S.
Do you ask parents if they have swimming pools, bicycles, automobiles, heavy machinery, harsh cleaning chemicals, hornet nests, ladders, trampolines, etc. at home? Because families who do, statistically, run a much higher risk of a family member dying due to instances related to items in this list than firearms.
How about this, do you ask if the family has a family Doctor? At about 10:1, more people die from medical malpractice by doctors then they do from bullet holes. And don't forget, that is total firearms related deaths, not just the "accidents" category.
So, dont tell us we are "paranoid".
Do your patients a favor, tell them to stay away from Doctors

Yes, you are being paranoid if you are thinking I report my patients who have guns to some secret government agency so that they can be targeted for confiscation. Im going to call you guys paranoid in every one of these doctor bashing threads that are completely wrong about what I do.

I havent killed any of my patients. Like I said, I dont ask my patients if they have guns unless they are planning on killing themselves then Im required to.

I can understand why a pediatrician feels it is important to suggest that patients keep their guns secure around kids. Because it actually keeps kids from getting shot. Now people can call that a "nanny state" tactic but its not required to take their advice, its not against the law to say no or refuse to answer or ask why to doc is interested, it does not get reported to the government like everyone here is suggesting. NOTHING FREAKIN HAPPENS IF YOU SAY NO OR DONT ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Perhaps people in this country need a little more good advice once in a while. Dont smoke or at least dont do it around your kids, dont use corn syrup as food group, dont weight 500 lbs so that you get disabling conditions and then have to go on SSI and state medicaid because you cant work anymore so the tax payors support you for the rest of your life, dont shoot up meth to the point that you cant hold a job and have to go on state medicaid so you can lie about chronic pain to get pain meds paid for by the tax funded medicaid that you turn around and sell for more meth.

 

[duane black]

Yes, you are being paranoid if you are thinking I report my patients who have guns to some secret government agency so that they can be targeted for confiscation. Im going to call you guys paranoid in every one of these doctor bashing threads that are completely wrong about what I do.

I havent killed any of my patients. Like I said, I dont ask my patients if they have guns unless they are planning on killing themselves then Im required to.

I can understand why a pediatrician feels it is important to suggest that patients keep their guns secure around kids. Because it actually keeps kids from getting shot. Now people can call that a "nanny state" tactic but its not required to take their advice, its not against the law to say no or refuse to answer or ask why to doc is interested, it does not get reported to the government like everyone here is suggesting. NOTHING FREAKIN HAPPENS IF YOU SAY NO OR DONT ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Perhaps people in this country need a little more good advice once in a while. Dont smoke or at least dont do it around your kids, dont use corn syrup as food group, dont weight 500 lbs so that you get disabling conditions and then have to go on SSI and state medicaid because you cant work anymore so the tax payors support you for the rest of your life, dont shoot up meth to the point that you cant hold a job and have to go on state medicaid so you can lie about chronic pain to get pain meds paid for by the tax funded medicaid that you turn around and sell for more meth.

When I first moved to WA I went to the tag office here in Vancouver . I was walking up to the front door and a nice looking young women about 25 years old was standing out front smoking a cigg. The interesting thing was she was about 7 months pregnant. I had never seen I pregnant woman smoking, ever.

I will concede that it is likely my daughters doctor asking if I am a gun owner is so she can educate us. I'm fully within my rights to lie about it too. Problem solved.

Here is my question for you;

Why are some folks in your profession trying to make gun violence a public health issue ?

Quote from Dr Begg "This is a tipping point. And this is a public health issue."

If you read the article you don't have to be a rocket scientist ( or a Dr ) to figure this out. Yes, I know they want funding to study it. There is no doubt Begg and others have a agenda. So, are we paranoid when they ARE out to get us ?

Do you believe Dr Begg has a agenda ?

I can come up with some nefarious reasons as to why they want funding to " study " this.

Thinking a Dr can solve gun violence in this country is beyond absurd. Gun violence isn't a medical condition, period. What can Dr Begg educate me about when it comes to gun violence in this country ? Very little. Most of these folks know nothing of violence, and have never been exposed to it outside of watching movies which is about as realistic as pink unicorns.

You can see why folks are paranoid when people in your profession are doing stuff like this, no ?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[duane black]

Doubletap. Srry.

 

[bolus]

You can see why folks are paranoid when people in your profession are doing stuff like this, no ?

I dont know why a small proportion of physicians want to focus on gun research. We like data though. we are repeatedly drilled on evidence based medicine. Is there a study that shows that treatment is good? are their more than once study? was the study done by a drug company and biased? we love data and as independent and as unbiased as possible.

perhaps they are paternalistic and feel the need to have data to take away guns. I said this in another thread though, I have not had one actual conversation with a colleague about taking away guns in the 20 years its been since medical school. I not had one administrator or medical director or grands round topic or any other push at all on this topic. We cant get people to stop smoking so gun violence is way down the list on our radar.

The studies may influence the anti-gun politicians but It would not influence medicine as a whole on any scale.

dont worry about the influence of physicians. I cant get insurance companies to spend $10 on a medication let alone influence national policy on gun control.

 

[duane black]

I dont know why a small proportion of physicians want to focus on gun research. We like data though. we are repeatedly drilled on evidence based medicine. Is there a study that shows that treatment is good? are their more than once study? was the study done by a drug company and biased? we love data and as independent and as unbiased as possible.

perhaps they are paternalistic and feel the need to have data to take away guns. I said this in another thread though, I have not had one actual conversation with a colleague about taking away guns in the 20 years its been since medical school. I not had one administrator or medical director or grands round topic or any other push at all on this topic. We cant get people to stop smoking so gun violence is way down the list on our radar.

The studies may influence the anti-gun politicians but It would not influence medicine as a whole on any scale.

dont worry about the influence of physicians. I cant get insurance companies to spend $10 on a medication let alone influence national policy on gun control.

Thank you for entertaining the question. I feel that you are more than likely on track that they are looking for data, not to our benefit. Also I forgot to say it earlier. Good for you having a gun in your office. You are the first Dr I have ever heard of that has said that.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[oknow]

I dont know why a small proportion of physicians want to focus on gun research. We like data though. we are repeatedly drilled on evidence based medicine. Is there a study that shows that treatment is good? are their more than once study? was the study done by a drug company and biased? we love data and as independent and as unbiased as possible.

perhaps they are paternalistic and feel the need to have data to take away guns. I said this in another thread though, I have not had one actual conversation with a colleague about taking away guns in the 20 years its been since medical school. I not had one administrator or medical director or grands round topic or any other push at all on this topic. We cant get people to stop smoking so gun violence is way down the list on our radar.

The studies may influence the anti-gun politicians but It would not influence medicine as a whole on any scale.

dont worry about the influence of physicians. I cant get insurance companies to spend $10 on a medication let alone influence national policy on gun control.

I bet if you could prove that guns were bad you could get the insurance companies to charge us a mint for coverage

 

[MrNiceGuy]

The pediatrician asked me once if I had any weapons in the home. I said "HECK YEAH!, but I surround the guns with candy coated animal tranquilizers so the children will be passed out before they can get their grubby hands on them."

 

[mancat]

So for all of those who have been asked if you have guns on a doctor's form or in person: why didn't you just not answer?

 

[MrNiceGuy]

So for all of those who have been asked if you have guns on a doctor's form or in person: why didn't you just not answer?

A non answer is just as good as an answer in the affirmative.

To steal a line from The Departed:

My theory on nosy doctors is that they're like mushrooms. Feed 'em s**** and keep 'em in the dark.

 

[drew]

A non answer is just as good as an answer in the affirmative.

To steal a line from The Departed:

My theory on nosy doctors is that they're like mushrooms. Feed 'em s**** and keep 'em in the dark.

That quote has been around for a long time but its still true.

Sometimes the truth on a need to know basis.

 

[g.i. joe]

Yes, you are being paranoid if you are thinking I report my patients who have guns to some secret government agency so that they can be targeted for confiscation. Im going to call you guys paranoid in every one of these doctor bashing threads that are completely wrong about what I do.

I havent killed any of my patients. Like I said, I dont ask my patients if they have guns unless they are planning on killing themselves then Im required to.

I can understand why a pediatrician feels it is important to suggest that patients keep their guns secure around kids. Because it actually keeps kids from getting shot. Now people can call that a "nanny state" tactic but its not required to take their advice, its not against the law to say no or refuse to answer or ask why to doc is interested, it does not get reported to the government like everyone here is suggesting. NOTHING FREAKIN HAPPENS IF YOU SAY NO OR DONT ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Perhaps people in this country need a little more good advice once in a while. Dont smoke or at least dont do it around your kids, dont use corn syrup as food group, dont weight 500 lbs so that you get disabling conditions and then have to go on SSI and state medicaid because you cant work anymore so the tax payors support you for the rest of your life, dont shoot up meth to the point that you cant hold a job and have to go on state medicaid so you can lie about chronic pain to get pain meds paid for by the tax funded medicaid that you turn around and sell for more meth.

bolus,
I think you are misinformed, this thread is not about YOU personally. It is about the profession in general and its close tie with FDA and CDC (which, as you know, are more than happy to bring in a SWAT team for having something as simple as raw milk). You keep bringing it back to YOU and YOUR practice, saying that your practice represents the whole ("No one is reporting to any obamacare conspiracy government agency so they can come confiscate your guns. Just say you prefer not to say if you dont like the question."). Again I ask, why are firearms on the list, when clearly there are many more lethal "dangers" around the home to be cautious of? All of which, by the way, are NOT Constitutionally protected.
You also said: "Like I said, I dont ask my patients if they have guns unless they are planning on killing themselves then Im required to."
Ar you required to ask them if they have a rope, a car, abridge to jump off of, pesticides, prescription drugs (ironically, prescribed by said dr.'s), a razor, etc.?

 

[bolus]

bolus,
I think you are misinformed, this thread is not about YOU personally. It is about the profession in general and its close tie with FDA and CDC (which, as you know, are more than happy to bring in a SWAT team for having something as simple as raw milk). You keep bringing it back to YOU and YOUR practice, saying that your practice represents the whole ("No one is reporting to any obamacare conspiracy government agency so they can come confiscate your guns. Just say you prefer not to say if you dont like the question."). Again I ask, why are firearms on the list, when clearly there are many more lethal "dangers" around the home to be cautious of? All of which, by the way, are NOT Constitutionally protected.
You also said: "Like I said, I dont ask my patients if they have guns unless they are planning on killing themselves then Im required to."
Ar you required to ask them if they have a rope, a car, abridge to jump off of, pesticides, prescription drugs (ironically, prescribed by said dr.'s), a razor, etc.?

Except for my CHL, I think I represent the average practice and at very least Im an insider. As an insider I'd be very aware if there was some internal push that was anti-gun focused. I've been to leadership meetings within my health organization for the last year, I know personally the medical director of another large health organization in Portland. I was a medical director in another large health organization in Portland in the past. I get CDC updates 2-3 times a week. I've also done a ton of work on the electronic health records that are used by these organizations (EPIC, Centricity and others). Except for the occasional link to a news article like the one here, I dont see any anti-gun push from the inside.

I've also had a lot of experience writing my own databases to pull population data out of these records for such tasks as improving diabetes management. So I know that none of them even have a structured field to record if firearms are in the home. Im looking at the pediatric social history area of a chart right now. There isnt even a field to fill in about firearms. This is an obamacare approved electronic health record (EPIC) that is used in all of Legacy, Kaiser, OHSU and Providence in Portland. Even if someone wanted to data mine firearm data from these charts it would be damn near impossible to get good data out.

So I feel I have a good pulse on at least what is going on in Portland. There are a lot of people in this thread who feel that if you answer a question about firearms in the home to your doc, or even if you refuse to say, that it gets recorded in a way that would be reported to the government. I want to get across that it just does not happen. I want people to trust their docs.

So believe me, if there was any push to make firearm reporting within medical records a thing, I'd be telling you guys first

And yes, if someone is telling me they are suicidal I ask more than just about guns.