SO HERE AND NOW

Conservative Political Views

THE BLAZE by MIKE OPELKA

MY TWO SENSE

I have never signed a HIPAA form, EVER, and the reason for not signing is that I read the bill in full.  Whatever people were told about HIPAA protecting their right to privacy was a lie.  Everyone would know that, if everyone had read the document.  The facts are these:  One; doctor-patient confidentiality was fully in tact long before this government thought up HIPAA!  Even so, every time I needed to see a doctor, a HIPAA form was shoved under my nose, and I was told to sign it.  After I refused to sign, a nurse, office manager, or the girl answering the phone always explained to me, in all sincerity, “This is for your own protection, and it keeps your medical records private.”  My response was always, “Are you saying, that prior to HIPAA, this doctor wasn’t protecting the medical records of his patients?”  The results varied little, but suffice it to say that the “guardian angels” stomped away, angry, and despised me for ruining what was a perfect score of HIPAA signatures.

Fact two;  HIPAA, in reality, is a document that, when signed, allows one’s records to be shared with virtually any and all entities requesting the information.  That is, all but one’s spouse or nearest living relative.  Apparently I was not the only patient refusing to sign away my right to privacy because soon a digested version of the bill was slipped into other documents one might sign.  For instance, permission forms for specific treatment(s), releases for insurance companies to pay the providing doctor, and agreements that state patient is responsible for co-pay and balance.  Sneaking bastards!

Fact three; Medical records within an insurance data base were compromised by hackers bent on identity theft.

Fact three; EVERY SINGLE TIME ANY GOVERNMENT STEPS IN TO PROTECT THE CITIZENS, THERE IS A MAJOR LOSS OF FREEDOM!  Benjamin Franklin said, “They who can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Government

A Form of Gun Confiscation Has Reportedly Begun in New York State — Here’s the Justification Being Used

Apr. 9, 2013 6:30pm

Update: Hear an interview with the lawyer representing some of  the New Yorkers who were forced to surrender their guns and permits (at the end of this story).

Despite promises from the president and a host of other politicians who are pushing for more gun control that nobody is coming for your guns, the confiscation of guns and gun permits has apparently started in some form in New York State. One attorney representing several people who have been forced to surrender their guns spoke with TheBlaze and alerted us to some disturbing facts:

  • Gun owners are losing their 2nd Amendment rights without due process.

  • HIPAA Laws are likely being compromised and the 4th and 5th Amendments are being violated in some of these cases

How did confiscation start happening so quickly? Apparently the gun grabbing was triggered by something inside the NY SAFE Act — New York’s new gun law — that has a provision apparently mandating confiscation of weapons and permits if someone has been prescribed psychotropic drugs.

This is curious because in his January 9th address, Cuomo specifically addressed the issue of confiscation:

The Case:

On April 1st, a legal gun owner in upstate New York reportedly received an official notice from the state ordering him to surrender any and all weapons to his local police department. The note said that the person’s permit to own a gun in New York was being suspended as well. The gun owner contacted attorney Jim Tresmond (a specialist in gun laws in New York) and the two visited the local police precinct.

Mr. Tresmond reportedly went into the precinct and informed the officers that his client, waiting in the parking lot, was coming in to voluntarily surrender his weapons as requested. The local police were aware of the letter because they had already been contacted by the State Police. Apparently, if people do not respond to the initial mailing, local law enforcement is authorized to visit the gun owner at their home and demand the surrender of the firearms. In this case, the gun owner followed the request as written. The guns and permits were handed over and a receipt given to the client.

After the guns were turned over, a request for a local hearing was filed and the gun owner is expecting to have his Second Amendment rights restored. But there is more to this story.

In our conversation with lawyer Jim Tresmond, we learned that this client, who has never had a problem with the law — no criminal record and or violent incidents on record — did have a temporary, short term health issue that required medication. But how were his client’s private medical information accessed by the government? This appears to be a violation of HIPAA and Health Information Privacy policies at HHS.gov. If it is declared a violation, this becomes a civil rights issue.

Some claim that a broad interpretation of this statement from HIPAA might allow the government to have instant access to the medical records and gun ownership records of anyone who is prescribed psychotropic drugs.

A major goal of the Privacy Rule is to assure that individuals’ health information is properly protected while allowing the flow of health information needed to provide and promote high quality health care and to protect the public’s health and well being.

That short phrase, “protect the public’s health and well being” is probably going to be cited as the reason governments can require notification of any gun owner who is prescribed a class of drugs used to treat Depression and Anxiety known as SSRI ( Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors).

The Mental Health Law provision of the SAFE Act claims

The NY SAFE Act is designed to remove firearms from those who seek to do harm to themselves or others. This means keeping the minority of individuals with serious mental illness who may be dangerous away from access to firearms. This law should not dissuade any individual from seeking mental health services they need.

The law is clear on what it expects:

MHL 9.46 requires mental health professionals to report to their local director of community services (“DCS”) or his/her designees when, in their reasonable professional judgment, one of their patients is “likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others.”

The man who was asked/directed to turn over his guns reportedly did not exhibit any signs of violent or dangerous behavior. According to his attorney, the man’s doctor did not report any danger to the authorities. So, who did report it?

Also known as MHL 9.46, the law talks about who is supposed to report on mental health risks and which patients qualify:

  • The reporting requirement extends to “mental health professionals,” defined in the law as four professions – physicians (including psychiatrists), psychologists, registered nurses, or licensed clinical social workers.

In addition to what Mr. Tresmond called “the laughable diminution of our rights,” the lawyer speculated about additional unintended consequences of releasing this confidential patient information to law enforcement.

  • What if an employer learns that a worker had their firearms confiscated? Could that person’s employment be put at risk?

  • What if your neighbors saw police come to your home and leave with your guns? Could that compromise your safety?

  • Could this kind of confiscation also make people think twice about getting treatment for a temporary mental illness?

In an effort to learn how many permits and guns have been rescinded due to this medical exception, TheBlaze has made several attempts to contact the Erie County office over pistol permits where this one incident originated. We have yet to be connected with a real person who can answer these questions.

We have also reached out to the Albany office of the New York State Police, but no official response has been received.

Mr. Tresmond has also agreed to keep us posted on his client’s efforts to have his Second Amendment rights restored and get back his guns.

TheBlaze will continue to monitor this story and we are also interested in hearing from other New Yorkers who may have experienced this type of confiscation. Please send all emails to mopelka@TheBlaze.com.

Tuesday, Buffalo radio talk show host Tom Bauerle spoke with Jim Tresmond on WBEN radio:

<div>
// <![CDATA[
javascript” src=”http://audio.wben.com/widgets/595/frame.js?width=640&height=440&episode=73350381″>&#a0;
// ]]>
<br/>
<br/>
<a id=”ezEmbedSiteLink” href=”http://audio.wben.com/a/73350381/federal-vs-state-rights-gun-laws-paul-cambria.htm&#8221; target=”_blank”>Watch this at WBEN</a>
</div>

(H/T: ammoland.com)

Featured image via Getty

April 10, 2013 - Posted by | Home

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Political Vel Craft

Veil Of Politics

Political Film Blog

money, power, injustice, sex, violence, propaganda, anti-fascism...

@AMeansstotheend

Fighting Against Government Harassment

Constitutional Clayton

Politics surrounding the Constitution

mike884

Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

John Groves Art Stuff

Art from johngrovesart

swissdefenceleague

Swiss Defence League

the seaton post

A little bit of this and a little bit of that

Jericho777's Blog

Correcting Misinformation!

%d bloggers like this: