"Pork" Bailout Bill Could Ban Guns For Millions Of Americans

"Pork" Bailout Bill Could Ban Guns For Millions Of Americans

This is a discussion on "Pork" Bailout Bill Could Ban Guns For Millions Of Americans within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Wonder why they are in such a hurry to get it pasted. What else is hidden in the mass of it? [QUOTEGun Owners of America ...

Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Distinguished Member Array Bill MO's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,462

    "Pork" Bailout Bill Could Ban Guns For Millions Of Americans

    Wonder why they are in such a hurry to get it pasted. What else is hidden in the mass of it?

    [QUOTEGun Owners of America
    8001 Forbes Place Suite 102
    Springfield VA 22151
    Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408




    "HR 1 is about more than just pork. Millions of gun owners stand to lose their gun rights without any due process." -- Larry Pratt, GOA Executive Director





    Wednesday, February 11, 2009




    The Obama administration is putting a lot of pressure on Congress to slam through the most recent $800+ billion bailout package before anyone has an opportunity to read it.




    The Obama administration intones that the details are unimportant. The only thing that matters is the "bigness." And, by shipping a bill of nearly $900 billion (plus interest) to our children and grandchildren, the package is really, really big -- bigger, in fact, than the budget of our entire government for the first 170 years of our country's existence.




    But now that some of the details are finally starting to leak out of Washington, Gun Owners -- and a lot of other analysts -- are beginning to look at the fine print. And some of it is particularly scary.




    Of particular concern to gun owners are sections 13101 through 13434 of HR 1, which would set up the infrastructure to computerize the medical records of ALL AMERICANS in a government-coordinated database.




    True, the bill doesn't mandate that the data will be in a giant computer under the Oval Office. But it does mandate that your medical records be reduced to a computerized form which is available to it in a second.




    This it would do by establishing a National Coordinator for Health Information Technology -- tasked with, among other things, "providing information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care."



    It should be scary enough that a government bureaucrat is directed by statute to try to influence your doctor's decisions with respect to your medical care.




    But of even greater concern to gun owners is the fact that a government-coordinated database (which government can freely access) will now contain all records of government-provided and private psychiatric treatment -- including, in particular, the drugs which were prescribed.




    Remember last year's "NICS Improvement Act" -- otherwise known as the Veterans Disarmament Act? This law codified ATF's attempts to make you a prohibited person on the basis of a government psychiatrist's finding that you are a "danger" -- without a finding by any court. Well, roughly 150,000 battle-scarred veterans have already been unfairly stripped of their gun rights by the government.




    But people who, as kids, were diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder... or seniors with Alzheimer's... or police with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder... or people who are now theoretically covered by the new law... these people have, generally, not suffered the consequences of its sanctions -- YET. And the chief reason is that their records are not easily available to the government in a central, easily retrievable, computerized form.




    The bailout bill would change all of that. It would push increasingly hard to force your private psychiatrist or government-sanctioned psychiatrist to turn over your psychiatric records to a massive database. This would be mandated immediately if your doctor does business with the government.




    This would supposedly save Medicare money in connection with medical treatment. And, the sponsors insist, they would work very hard to protect your privacy.




    But this turns the concept of "privacy" on its head. The privacy which is MOST important is privacy from the prying eyes of government -- not privacy of government data against the prying eyes of others. After all, many government data bases have been hacked in recent years, with mountains of information stolen.




    So, once the government has access to these computerized psychiatric records, the stage will be set for using that database to take away the gun rights of those with Alzheimer's, those with ADD, and those with PTSD.




    ACTION: Write your two senators. Urge them to vote against the bailout bill (HR 1) until it is stripped of provisions which would turn your psychiatric records over to a central government-coordinated database against your will -- without you getting your day in court.




    You can use the Take Action feature below to send your Senators a pre-written e-mail message.







    [/QUOTE]


  2. #2
    Distinguished Member Array bandit383's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,681
    ^To late...already passed.

    Rick

  3. #3
    Distinguished Member Array Bill MO's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,462
    Sorry

  4. #4
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    One of the commentators was saying something about the Holt Bill might be a part of it, also. I have been unable to confirm that.
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  5. #5
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,662
    In a sense I actually do tend to have a partial concern with the issues the OP raised, but for a slightly different reason.

    There has been over the past few years very much talk about the necessity of computerizing medical records, and the supposed additional patient safety and cost effectiveness which would stem from this. Maybe, I don't know. To my mind the privacy issues greatly concern me. But not over gun license issuance. True, there is potential for abuse of mental health records and inappropriate denial, but that is not where the real problem with a centralized medical data base.

    The real problem with a centralized medical database is that it might make getting independent second opinions IMPOSSIBLE.

    When all care providers are able to see the same (perhaps erroneous) laboratory results or erroneous clinical notes, the doc asked to provide a second opinion will be in a difficult position--especially if insurers then decide it is OK to decline payment for a duplicative test or exam.

    I also suspect that the driving forces behind the movement toward centralized computerized medical records are the computer industry and the insurance industry. Our legislators just jumped on what seemed like a good idea, which it would be IF patients were the only ones controlling access to the information.

    This train left the station long before the stimulus package. The prior administration also pushed for computerization of medical records, and there has been little public opposition.

    This is one of those ideas which sound great, may turn out great, but has too much potential for causing harm.

    Anyway, it is a done deal and it was going to happen sooner or later because the big pols in both parties all signed on.

  6. #6
    VIP Member Array Patti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Show Me State
    Posts
    2,653
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    The prior administration also pushed for computerization of medical records, and there has been little public opposition.

    Anyway, it is a done deal and it was going to happen sooner or later because the big pols in both parties all signed on.
    Can you prove your statement about the prior administration?

    You are incorrect. In the House, 100% of the GOP voted AGAINST the bill.

    In the Senate, all of the GOP voted AGAINST it, with the exception of the 3 rinos, Specter, Snow and Collins.

    This porkulus bill was completely partisan.
    Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. Winston Churchill

  7. #7
    Distinguished Member Array bandit383's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,681
    Quote Originally Posted by Patti View Post
    Can you prove your statement about the prior administration?

    You are incorrect. In the House, 100% of the GOP voted AGAINST the bill.

    In the Senate, all of the GOP voted AGAINST it, with the exception of the 3 rinos, Specter, Snow and Collins.

    This porkulus bill was completely partisan.
    I think he is talking about computerized medical records...not the porkulus vote. You are correct concerning the outcome of the vote...but I also believe computerizing medical records idea has been around awhile. Personally, if we are to cut the overhead costs of medical needs (which I understand is like 40 cents on the dollar)...this is surely one way to do so.

    Rick

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Cheaper alternative to "Blue Guns" or "Red Guns?"
    By SpringerXD in forum Defensive Carry Holsters & Carry Options
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: June 29th, 2013, 07:14 PM
  2. Mayor Bloomberg: "Americans Can't Agree on Guns? Wrong."
    By JonInNY in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: January 19th, 2011, 01:23 PM
  3. Vermont l: Maslack recently proposed a bill to register "non-gun-owners"
    By mi2az in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: March 21st, 2010, 05:18 PM
  4. "No Guns"- sign an insult...What if it said "No Jews"?
    By goawayfarm in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: November 4th, 2009, 02:38 AM
  5. Funny thing in the film "The Life Aquatic" with Bill Murray
    By peacefuljeffrey in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: October 12th, 2007, 05:11 AM

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors