Interesting perspective on the gun thing on the radio.
Interesting perspective on the gun thing on the radio. If I heard correctly, the number of guns sold since Obama became president is significantly up. According to some, it's because they are afraid he's going to take their guns away (I still wonder, if you didn't own one before, how could he have taken it away?). However, the discussion suggested that there could be other, less open things at play. For lack of a better way to put this, he's black/african-american. He's a face for the idea that the non-white people are coming to get you, which is not at all a new or original idea in this society. I never thought about it that way, but I wonder if that isn't some of what is going on with this.
I think they were suggesting that it's been an unusual spike, but I don't have numbers and didn't feel like looking. I still think it's interesting that when (for generalization purposes) nobody is "trying to take their guns away", people don't buy them so much, even though the implication is that they could be buying lots of them without any bother.
ReplyDeleteIt's like kids with toys. Honey, you haven't played with this since you were five! But mooom, it's my favorite! You could have been playing with it all this time, you're fifteen. It's going to Goodwill. Noooo! etc.
Breitbart, WND, Fox News et al. have described HHS 81 FR 382 [1] as, to borrow your words, a "snitching requirement". But if you actually read the text of HHS 81 FR 382, what you find is something a little different than what many sources have portrayed. For starters, the rule isn't even about individual doctors at all...
ReplyDeleteIndividuals involuntarily committed to mental health facilities, or found to be incompetent to stand trial secondary to insanity, or legally barred from making their own decisions because of lack of mental capacity, are not allowed to purchase firearms under current US Federal law. The decision that someone must be involuntarily committed, is incompetent to stand trial, or is incapable of legally managing their own affairs, is one made by the legal system, drawing from medical advice.
In some states, the official repository of that list of people determined by the legal system to fall under those defined categories is held completely under the judicial system. In other states, that official repository is part of a larger branch of state government which also handles public health duties, and thus as a whole is covered under HIPAA.
What HR 81 FR 382 says is that, if the state government organization which has the list of people involuntarily committed to asylums, etc., also happens to be involved in patient care, simply transmitting only the information needed to identify the person legally barred from buying guns under the narrow list above (name, SSN, weight/height/eye color), is not a violation of HIPAA. HR 81 FR 382 explicitly does not allow reporting of any aspect of the medical diagnosis. You are not allowed to share with the background check system why the legal system has determined someone is incompetent to stand trial or manage their own affairs; only that they have been.
Again: all HR 81 FR 382 says, is that if you are an organization who has been assigned by the state government to collect the list of people committed after legal review to insane asylums, determined by the legal system to be incompetent to stand trial because of insanity, etc.: simply reporting the identifying information - and only the identifying information - of people on that list to the national background check system is not a violation of patient privacy.
That's it. That's all. That's the whole rule.
This analysis on Lexicology [2] provides another analysis.
[1] https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/01/06/2015-33181/health-insurance-portability-and-accountability-act-hipaa-privacy-rule-and-the-national-instant
[2] http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e6b4ca86-7092-4fbd-94d5-605faa4f28c5
Or, for a snarkier debunking: "Obama's new gun rules don't mean your doctor will rat you out": http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/opinions/vox-misinformation-gun-action/
ReplyDeleteI actually hadn't heard about that one, so I will have to read it. There are already reporting laws about if you think someone is a danger to themselves or others. There's also reporting laws about if someone shows up with certain diseases. I mean, technically those are all violations of privilege, but I think they are regarded as situations where the good of society is placed above the good of an individual and their privacy.
ReplyDeleteIs there a suggestion somewhere in there that if someone has been convicted of a violent crime, or is on a terror watchlist that they should also not be allowed to buy guns? If you're gonna go there, presumably you've got a long list.
Oh, our actual mental/emotional health care situation is still mired in some pretty religious-y, judg-y, victorian-y badness, for certain.
ReplyDelete