[ilovetv]

I think most of us love the country, but not how its bureaucracies grow bigger and bigger, while being less and less accountable to constituents:

"The Department of Veterans Affairs' promise to end by 2015 its massive, benefits backlog for disabled veterans has "stalled," according to an analysis released Monday by a leading veterans' organization.

After slicing its glut of pending claims from a peak of 600,000 cases in March 2013 to 400,000 in November, the VA has been unable to budge below that threshold this year, according to "The Red Tape Report," authored by the group Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.

Consequently, hundreds of thousands of veterans who were permanently disabled or made ill by their military service are waiting months for their compensation checks to arrive to help pay bills and, in some cases, to buy food. Some of those veterans are physically unable to hold jobs....

...In addition to those 400,000 ex-service members with backlogged claims, another 265,000 veterans have filed appeals with the VA, asserting their disability benefits were erroneously denied or cut, the report states...."

VA backlog again gnarled in red tape, report claims - U.S. News

[wendyquat]

Originally Posted by Golfingnut

I am concerned about what is happening far to often now, killing in mass by mentally ill Americans that in too many cases bought the weapon in the last few days. Not a conspiracy theory that MAY happen someday in the far fetched future.

It has always happened. We just did not have so much media to sensationalize the event and encourage "copycats" all seeking to get their names memorialized on their way "out"!

[Carl in Tampa]

Originally Posted by Golfingnut

When my wife and I decided it was time to have a vasectomy back in the 70's, I was required to have an evaluation from a physiatrist at Fort Belvoir, Virginia before the operation could be performed. The reason given was I had to be emotionally and mentally stable enough to make that decision.

Perhaps, it would be a good idea to require that same evaluation to determine emotional and mental stability prior to the purchase of a weapon.

Until YOU disclosed it, your medical experience was private and protected by federal privacy laws regarding medical treatment. The same is true of psychological evaluation or treatment.

The only question regarding mental illness on the federal gun purchase application form is whether not you have been adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution.

If you have not been adjudicated or committed you cannot be prevented from buying a gun, so a simple "evaluation" would be insufficient

Other posters have given a long list of very valid reasons showing that your suggestion is impractical.

Besides which, a recent Gallup poll discloses that 60% of all Americans already own guns.

Pew Research claims that only 37% of households have guns, but estimates there are 270 million to 310 million guns in the United States.

Some ideas sound good, but are impractical. Your suggestion is impractical.

.

[golf2140]

Originally Posted by Golfingnut

I will make it easer to understand.

Please read this and disregard my personal experience.



Perhaps, it would be a good idea to require a psychiatric evaluation to determine emotional and mental stability prior to the purchase of a weapon.

Box cutters killed more people in one day then all the guns did.

[buggyone]

Originally Posted by billethkid

sticking to the question of the thread.....NO!
Impossible to define/develop criteria to measure with.
Impossible for lawmakers to reach agreement on what the measurements could be.
Virtually impossible to administer/enforce with any degree of effectiveness

The most readily available gun control actions are to enforce the laws already on the books.

The military base issue is an easy one to solve if it isn't made a platform for anti-gunners again......just go back to the rules of military being able to be armed on base as it was for many years. The current criteria have only created another gun free zone providing easy pickings for those who do not follow the rules......as proven time and time again.

In what time period were soldiers on US bases allowed to be armed? I was in the Army in 1966 in the US at Fort Jackson and at Fort Benning. All firearms were kept double-locked in the Arms Room. That also went for privately owned firearms. MPs were armed and still are armed.

What are feelings about soldiers returning to US from overseas tours having psych evals to detect warning signs of PTSD or other mental issues?

[Carl in Tampa]

Originally Posted by buggyone

What are feelings about soldiers returning to US from overseas tours having psych evals to detect warning signs of PTSD or other mental issues?

Impractical and ineffective.

Reportedly, the shooter at Ft. Hood had self-reported that he had PTSD and the Army hadn't even gotten through evaluating him.

How long does it take?

How much more difficult would it be to complete the evaluation of a returning trooper who denies PTSD?

Not enough psychologists and too many returning troops.

In addition, we have thousands of civilian contractors in combat zones providing security for the troops who are also exposed to PTSD conditions. Who would evaluate them?

.

[Golfingnut]

Y'all have better solutions than I can think of, so I will leave this topic to those of you better equipped to come up with the answer. In the interim, I will be cleaning my guns and spending as much tine on the range as I can afford.

Lou

[SantaClaus]

Why not require a competency test before being allowed to vote, or take an infant home from the hospital? Not saying I disagree, just reminding that similar things have been tried (and decried!).

[DaleMN]

Originally Posted by getdul981

I love it the way it was.

I love it the way it should be.

[blueash]

Originally Posted by ilovetv

It seems like a good idea. But be careful what you wish for.

If the government were to become the single-payer of all healthcare services, and has every psychiatrist and psychologist session notes and prescriptions in their electronic medical records database, it can be misused to deem political opponents and dissidents as "mentally unfit" to do many things, like getting and keeping a job and owning a firearm.

.

Your posting does not correctly reflect the way health care coverage operates. A single payer system, such as Medicare, means that the rules, formularies, coverages, exclusions, etc. would be the same for all of us. The payer then pays the provider for covered services in a uniform and predictable manner. The payer does NOT provide the medical record nor have access to the medical record without the consent of the patient. The only part of the medical record which might be made available would be that pertinent to paying for a claim to see if the doctor or hospital actually did perform the service for which the carrier is being billed or to see if the patient's illness justifies a requested medication or intervention. If you believe that seeing a doctor who operates under a government run health care is a risk to your privacy, then don't use your Medicare insurance. If you like Medicare, you like government run health care, plain and simple.

[buggyone]

Originally Posted by blueash

Your posting does not correctly reflect the way health care coverage operates. A single payer system, such as Medicare, means that the rules, formularies, coverages, exclusions, etc. would be the same for all of us. The payer then pays the provider for covered services in a uniform and predictable manner. The payer does NOT provide the medical record nor have access to the medical record without the consent of the patient. The only part of the medical record which might be made available would be that pertinent to paying for a claim to see if the doctor or hospital actually did perform the service for which the carrier is being billed or to see if the patient's illness justifies a requested medication or intervention. If you believe that seeing a doctor who operates under a government run health care is a risk to your privacy, then don't use your Medicare insurance. If you like Medicare, you like government run health care, plain and simple.

This is an excellent post!

[ilovetv]

Originally Posted by blueash

Your posting does not correctly reflect the way health care coverage operates. A single payer system, such as Medicare, means that the rules, formularies, coverages, exclusions, etc. would be the same for all of us. The payer then pays the provider for covered services in a uniform and predictable manner. The payer does NOT provide the medical record nor have access to the medical record without the consent of the patient. The only part of the medical record which might be made available would be that pertinent to paying for a claim to see if the doctor or hospital actually did perform the service for which the carrier is being billed or to see if the patient's illness justifies a requested medication or intervention. If you believe that seeing a doctor who operates under a government run health care is a risk to your privacy, then don't use your Medicare insurance. If you like Medicare, you like government run health care, plain and simple.

You're talking about Medicare up until now, but I'm talking about the system in the future, with the huge, octopus involvement of the IRS and its involvement and knowlege of our medical records, as sanctioned by the ACA.

Add to that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms granted their tentacles access to citizens' medical records, and it is gargantuan.

[patfla06]

Interesting question!
I don't know if it would be able to be done.

We have a case here in Tampa of a Mom with a long history of mental illness was able to buy a gun and shot and killed her 2 children.
We could start, at least, with anyone who has a history is not eligible to
Buy a gun.
Her trial starts this month. Very sad story.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by patfla06

Interesting question!
I don't know if it would be able to be done.

We have a case here in Tampa of a Mom with a long history of mental illness was able to buy a gun and shot and killed her 2 children.
We could start, at least, with anyone who has a history is not eligible to
Buy a gun.
Her trial starts this month. Very sad story.

That's interesting. A careful assessment of why various patients have had to be adjudicated mentally ill would have to be taken into this. My initial assessment though would be that most people Baker Acted here in Florida and then adjudicated as mentally ill are probably people with alcohol, drug, or other addictions. And, most of these probably would never become violent unless they come from an environment of domestic violence or so other kind of cyclical violence.

Take media cases involving mothers who murder kids-- most mothers never have any problem with post partum depression leading to violence. There are the rare exceptions.

The media cover the extreme cases of mental illness pushing someone to violence. They rarely cover though just how many people in the US suffer from some kind of mental illness. It is one in four the last I looked. http://www.nami.org/template.cfm?section=About_NAMI

http://www.nami.org/factsheets/menta..._factsheet.pdf

[dbussone]

Originally Posted by patfla06

Interesting question!

I don't know if it would be able to be done.



We have a case here in Tampa of a Mom with a long history of mental illness was able to buy a gun and shot and killed her 2 children.

We could start, at least, with anyone who has a history is not eligible to

Buy a gun.

Her trial starts this month. Very sad story.

Someone with mental illness cannot legally purchase a gun. There is a specific question on the purchase application.

A check is made to determine if that individual has been in a mental health facility in that specific state. However states do not share that information or provide it to a central data base where it could be checked.

An individual could also falsely respond to that question.