[dbussone]

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.

One of the goals of the Feds requiring docs and facilities to use electronic medical records is the creation of a government controlled central medical record database. Hospitals had to have an EMR in place by 2013 or face reimbursement decreases. Docs must also meet an approaching deadline. This is not just Medicare, but an over-reaching action.

You should read the law that N. Pelosi said had to be passed before you could know what was in it.

[billethkid]

as long as we continue to operate this country and allow special interests to over rule the real needs required to keep this nation safe(r), there will be no progress.

There is far too much focus on whether an implementation or an enforcement will or might offend SOMEBODY! As a result nothing gets done....and those laws already on the books are not enforced all in the name of a FALSE EQUALITY.

Until that changes don't expect much different than we get.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by dbussone

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.

I believe that the various State and Federal statutes say that someone adjudicated to be mentally ill not that someone has had a mental illness cannot purchase a firearm and this does not cover most gun shows as far as I know. Again, people should look at the National Alliance on Mental Illness before posting generalities. http://www.nami.org/template.cfm?section=About_NAMI

[dbussone]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

I believe that the statutes say that someone adjudicated to be mentally ill not that someone has had a mental illness cannot purchase a firearm and this does not cover most gun shows as far as I know. Again, people should look at the National Alliance on Mental Illness before posting generalities.

I did not post a generality. You should check various state and federal laws.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by dbussone

I did not post a generality. You should check various state and federal laws.

I have. Look again about who may purchase a firearm.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-a...tally-ill.aspx

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/.../0790.065.html

[Dusty74]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

I believe that the various State and Federal statutes say that someone adjudicated to be mentally ill not that someone has had a mental illness cannot purchase a firearm and this does not cover most gun shows as far as I know. Again, people should look at the National Alliance on Mental Illness before posting generalities. NAMI | About NAMI

All federal, state, and local gun laws apply to gun shows the same as firearm purchases any other place. Actually, in some states, it is more difficult to buy a firearm at a gun show than outside of a gun show. The so-called "Gun show loophole" is a myth and always has been.

[TNLAKEPANDA]

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.

Are you kidding me? Obviously you do not believe in the Second Amendment.
Anyone can buy a gun at any time. Get real.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Dusty74

All federal, state, and local gun laws apply to gun shows the same as firearm purchases any other place. Actually, in some states, it is more difficult to buy a firearm at a gun show than outside of a gun show. The so-called "Gun show loophole" is a myth and always has been.

That probably depends on whom you talk to about this issue. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/us...ecks.html?_r=0

Personally, I would look for the least biased sources of information for the "gun show loophole". http://www.governing.com/gov-data/sa...-laws-map.html

[Dusty74]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

That probably depends on whom you talk to about this issue. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/us...ecks.html?_r=0

Personally, I would look for the least biased sources of information for the "gun show loophole". Gun Show Background Checks State Laws

Please read the website that you linked. It clearly states that they consider the "gun show loophole" to be transactions between individuals (Non Federal Firearm License (FFL) holders). When purchasing from an FFL holder, an individual goes through the same background checks, waiting periods, etc, whether the purchase is at a gun show or not. When purchasing from a private seller (Non FFL holder), the transaction is conducted exactly the same, whether the purchase is at a gun show or not. As I said previously, there is not and never has been a gun show loophole that allows an individual to purchase a firearm at a gun show to circumvent the law. Recently, many states have banned sales by private sellers at gun shows. In these cases, even though a private seller may have a table or booth with a few firearms he is trying to sell, the firearm is technically purchased by an FFL holder who then sells it to the buyer, usually for a $20-30 fee. In most states, an individual may still sell a firearm to another individual or pass it down to their children or grandchildren without a background check.

[PennBF]

Mental exams should be for ones who don't carry arms or try to outlaw them.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by PennBF

Mental exams should be for ones who don't carry arms or try to outlaw them.

It will probably be impossible to outlaw guns in the US. There are too many out there now and there are still a lot of protections from taking private property provided by the State and Federal Constitutions. In addition, the NRA will remain a very powerful force in the US.

Having grown up in Reno, Nevada I was rather familiar with guns and their use and abuse having a friend of one of my brother's blow off part of a hand after trying to shoot a gun he found buried in the desert. A very old revolver. Talk about stupid. And a neighbor put a bullet in his head in a suicide because he felt no one loved him. Tragic. If the gun had not been available he would have tried another way. A gun is just a tool like others many of which have been used to kill over the generations.

I still, however, see no reason for rifles and pistols designed for the military to be sold to private citizens. I know it is too late to get the ones that have been sold off the street. But, measures could be taken to control the ebb and flow of such weapons.

[Miles42]

Perhaps then we should do the same for those that drive a motor vehicle. Many more killed or maimed by folks who drive with their head up their butt.

[kittygilchrist]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Statistically, the mentally ill are usually the victims of crimes and not the perpetrators. Mentally ill likely to be victims

Mentally ill more likely to be victims, not perpetrators, of violence, study shows -- ScienceDaily

If there were indicators about who might go on a shooting spree, then I would be for evaluations to stop such actions. Life is never that simple though nor, of course, is the human mind.

I respect the opinions of experts in a field. In this case we are offering our opinions about when a psychiatric evaluation should be required, and few of us know much about the field.

Tal and I have in common desire to delve into research. Below is research into the most common mental disorder associated with crime. It's schizophrenia.

Before we give evaluations to people buying guns, why don't we build a system of mental health where people already known to be insane can be housed and treated? I worked at the Northeast Florida State Hospital where law enforcement would bring acutely ill dangerously insane persons mandated for admission, and the "system" would refuse because there were no beds. In one case I recall, the officer and the insane person spent the entire night in the car in the parking lot.

Rise in crime and premature death among those with schizophrenia in past 30 years – study

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

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.

I'm not sure that that is true. When I go to the doctor, if he determines that I need some sort of treatment, he must submit a treatment plan to the insurance company which they then must approve before I can receive the treatment. Wouldn't a single payer require that they approve all treatment plans ina similar way. if they would then wound't they have a record of everything that everyone had been treated for?

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by kittygilchrist

I respect the opinions of experts in a field. In this case we are offering our opinions about when a psychiatric evaluation should be required, and few of us know much about the field.

Tal and I have in common desire to delve into research. Below is research into the most common mental disorder associated with crime. It's schizophrenia.

Before we give evaluations to people buying guns, why don't we build a system of mental health where people already known to be insane can be housed and treated? I worked at the Northeast Florida State Hospital where law enforcement would bring acutely ill dangerously insane persons mandated for admission, and the "system" would refuse because there were no beds. In one case I recall, the officer and the insane person spent the entire night in the car in the parking lot.

Rise in crime and premature death among those with schizophrenia in past 30 years – study

I also believe and from very personal experience that the powerful in the US have used labels of mental illness to cover up wrongdoings of their own. One of these probably is "paranoid schizophrenic". For instance, starting around January 1991 I fought to be honest about my commitment to improving resources designed for survivors of crimes while still at the University of Minnesota Law Library. I was met with subtle suggestions that I see the University psychologist and then not so subtle. This had nothing to do with concern for my mental well-being but really only had to do with the image of the law library/law school. I sent the same documents that prompted the attack on my mental health to 100 US Senators, half the sitting US Representatives, all the US Governors in 1991, some law school deans, some law professors. I believe only three or four had the same response that, this interest in survivors rights with respect to access to practical information indicated that I needed to see a University psychologist.

The irony though is that after this fight of mine in 1991, there was a CBS National News Report around July 6, 1996 that they had made this approach to attacking internal critics a policy at the Library of Congress where the woman it had been used on had suffered greatly losing her home, job, and probably many friendships for fighting back.

As many know my interest in victims/survivors rights is based on the 2-24 murder of my then high school teacher's daughter Michelle Mitchell near the University of Nevada, Reno campus in 1976.

The CBS News Report of July 6, 1996 said that this policy of attacking critics in terms of the mental health rather than on their ideas originated in Stalin's Soviet Union. Hitler and his Nazi regime had a similiar kind of approach to undesirables. They would label them "paranoid schizophrenic" and just lose them in their mental health system.

I had covered my campaign about helping survivors/victims of crimes while in a study on stress on the unemployed at the University of California San Francisco School of Health Services in late 1992-1993. I was subject #613. The woman doing the interviews of me, Myra Young, waited until the end of the 17 week study and told me that this was a very worthwhile cause. She did seem a little worried about what would become of me though. As many should surmise, I lost any of the bridges I had made while working at the University of Minnesota Law Library as well as at the Legal Assistance to Minnesota Prisoners. Not much someone with no reliable references can do but attempt to fight back.

I will bet that if people searched they would see that this approach to attacking people who tried to improve things from inside the system probably shows up a lot more frequently than it should in what is supposedly a free open society.

My approach to fighting back was to spotlight this problem by getting everyone and anyone I could think of involved with fighting this despicable approach. It takes advantage of people's fear about mental illness a well as their lack of real knowledge of treatments and the like. Of course, who is better to spotlight such problems than the media in all its various forms? I spent a lot of time telling this story to writers, actors, journalists, screenwriters, comedians and anyone else who might listen. Having burned my bridges meant I had to rebuilt them myself piece-by-piece while often having to dodge things coming at me from various directions. For instance, Gary Corsair of the Villages Daily Sun had called me in May 2007 the Memorial Day weekend asking me if I were a "paranoid schizophrenic" because of what some smart alecs had said on Snopes Tinfoil Hat section about some of the more stupid attempts I had made to get more people involved with this struggle. Mr. Gary Corsair was writing a piece on my attempts to get the Florida Victim Services Directory linked to the Lake, Sumter, and Marion County public library websites.