Jump to content
CrazyBoards.org

How will the presidents new policies effect us.


Recommended Posts

 Department of Health and Human Services will finalize a rule regarding health record privacy laws to remove barriers to states providing mental health records to the background check system.

  This is what I have read about this topic today. Does this still mean that you have been adjudicated  and involuntarily commited by any state court?

I am able to answer no in a truthful manner on the current form. I am treated by the VA healthcare system. Will they be able to openly share my private information with the FBI ? Will this transend H.I.P.P.A. laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait a minute! So your telling me they are going to start disclosing our mental health backgrounds to a standard background test? This will be a problem for me. I got 2 more years of college and then I intended on becoming a probation/parole officer. I highly doubt they would let me do that if they knew how much medication I'm on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Noo  all I know is what I read and that's not much. The article says that it will be to a limited degree whatever that means. I'm concerned about being able to buy a gun. I just bought one and I was relieved that there was no problem and I felt like a regular citizen. I haven't been adjudicated or anything so nothing should show up. I'm hoping they are talking about people who have been determined by a doctor to be really unstable and dangerous. If you read anything else let me know and I will do the same.

Don't start worrying yet.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen a copy of the rule yet and I'm curious about the fact that it's coming out of DHHS, though I guess that's because it technically relates to health privacy laws.  I'd need to read the actual rules (or a really good summary of them that had some quotes) to really have a firm opinion.

SCOTUS suggested in their infamous gun-related opinion that certain weapons could be denied to the "mentally unstable" and my guess is that this is an attempt to interpret and actually follow through on that permitted restriction.  While there's always the possibility that the government could be found to "take it too far," I would think that the court would err on the side of caution on this issue.

All that said, I'd be surprised if it allowed access to ALL mental health records and ALL mental health treatment. I'd think it's more along the lines of involuntary commitments, state commitment proceedings, etc. But I can't confirm that without actually reading the thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think TDocs already are mandatory reporters if a patient starts talking about his interest in murder / homicide.   I'm concerned that HIPPA laws would be effectively trashed because someone has a pretty common issue with depression and or anxiety. 

Frankly I get pretty angry when every evil person is considered "insane"   That being an insult to people with some form of MI.   How many sane people decide to kill someone for greed, revenge, or some love life problems?   They are wrong and evil but "rational" and thus we have laws.   Maybe I'm way off on this and don't understand this?

I think the issue is more one of what will make a difference.  For one thing.  Whatever you want to say about guns in the US I think you have to factor in the numbers.  There are enough guns out there right now to arm every single living person in the US.  I know that there are a good number of people that have none and other that have 4 or 5 but that is a lot of guns.  You could stop all sales to everyone and what would that accomplish?  As close to nothing as I think you can get.

Don't all of these mass shootings happen in "gun free" zones?  Don't the majority of these murderers go out of their way to go to public places with signs that say "No Guns Allowed?"  And if the non crazy people have a right to bare arms how is it that they have this right but just not in places that other people decide to put up a sign?   So what other rights are limited to what someone else does or doesn't like?  I guess the anti gay people church of the stupid people with bull horns screaming "God Hates Fags" at Military Funerals are ok??  but going to a movie with a gun to defend yourself from some kid whose played too much first person shooter games and thinks it would be cool to slaughter people is wrong?   How about that Army officer who decided to switch sides and murder a bunch of soldiers at Army base?  How is it that they weren't armed?  Its my understanding that on base the only people allowed to "carry" are MPs.   True?  How can stupid stuff like this be a rule?

I don't carry a gun but I've been places that I could see a reason to want to.  Go to nice places (I'm not talking the southside I mean actual fancy nice places) in Chicago.  Gun fire?  Its so common when I reported people screaming and shooting at each other in a parking garage the reaction was "Yeah?   so?" 

Maybe we can learn a lesson from the Motorcycle gangs.  If having a gun is a problem with the law then simply carry hammers or bike chains.  Its not AS effective as a gun but don't you think a theatre full of people throwing hammers at someone shooting into a crowd would be slowed down by having 50 hammers bouncing off his head?  Ditto having a few Bike Chains slamming into him and while a shooter might not feel too bad about being killed by the Police shooting him it might be a little less "fun" to be hit with a few bike chains handled by people who aren't worried about the police protocol for deadly use of force?  Personally I can't think of many ways that I would less like to die then be beaten by a crowd of movie goers with bike chains.   But I don't really get the thinking of mass shooters or the appeal of games that are focused on slaughtering large groups of people, places and things.   Maybe that makes me crazy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, HAL9000 said:

I think TDocs already are mandatory reporters if a patient starts talking about his interest in murder / homicide.   I'm concerned that HIPPA laws would be effectively trashed because someone has a pretty common issue with depression and or anxiety. 

 

Wow really? I'm interested in hearing more. During a very bad time I told my pdoc and the police that I was going hurt someone whilst I was psychotic. It was in the UK and I was committed but no reporting was made. How does this work in the US? Who do they report to and what happens? Just curious in case I find myself in this situation again... hopefully not, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HAL9000 said:

Wish I had specifics but certain jobs earn you certain rules.  Like if you do foster care and you hear anyone talking about molesting a kid it is mandatory to report that. 

 

Just now, melissaw72 said:

I think teachers are mandatory reporters also.  Like if they suspect child abuse they have to call (whomever) or notify someone in the school who deals with CPS.

Yes, I did know that. Didn't know tdocs were mandatory reporters. I guess if you are actually have plan to hurt someone and you spell it out, I guess that makes sense though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doctors, nurses, nurse assistants, medical assistance, clergy, therapists, peer support workers, case managers, teachers (and all school employees), foster parents, DSHS workers, etc... it varies by state but that's the general idea. 

All these people are mandatory reporters. It varies state by state because these are state regulations and not federal. Most of the places that designate these people as mandatory reporters also include vulnerable adults and elderly as well as children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I guess it won't apply to us unless we plan to do something dangerous and hurt other people or have been in residential treatment. RT is one of the questions on the Virginia form for a concealed weapon permit. From what I have read the reporting will only apply to a limited amount of people.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is even more narrow than that. I think you have to have been Baker'ed to get onto the background check list.

I swear I read that somewhere last night, but of course now I can't find it. Because that would be evidence to support my claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Involuntary, aka court ordered treatment could be inpatient hospital, residential, or outpatient treatment.

if the treatment was voluntary I believe it will be excluded based on what I have read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...