Comments
2,261 - 2,280 of 8,050 Comments Last updated 7 hrs ago
Adif understanding

United States

#2503 Jan 17, 2013
Pale Rider wrote:
<quoted text>
Would it be wrong to think that President Obama doesn't know more about the Constitution, has more knowledge than anyone on here?
Yes, it would be very wrong to think he knows more about the constitution. All you had to do is listen to his gun control speech the other day to clearly see this.

First, some set up. The US constitution is a document that constitutes the government of the governed. To put it bluntly, it lists the functions of government and restricts its actions to what was agreed to when the government was constituted. It does not grant you rights, it restricts the government from taking or weakening rights you already hold. In his gun control speech, the president attempted to claim that 9th amendment was violated when these mass shooting happened across the county by citizens. Only the government can violate a constitutional right. Private citizens regularly place limits on speech, religious expression, freedom to associate, require you to submit to searches as conditions to entering their property, force you to testify against yourself (mandatory lie detector or drug tests), and so on. If you hold a person as a slave, you do not get charged with a violation of their 13th amendment rights, you get charged with a violation or multiple violations of 18 USC sec 1581 through 1596 and probably a few other laws. This is because the constitution gave congress the ability to make law ensuring slavery was not in practice in any of the jurisdictions of the US.

Obama was probably high or sleeping during his constitutional law classes or he is deliberately misleading a nation of idiots trying to gank emotion and political leverage where none should exist. His statements in the gun control speech should be a WTF moment for any graduating high school senior and anyone else who was ever exposed to a civics class.

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#2504 Jan 17, 2013
Bubba Says wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really. If you say "I wanted to kill him!" when talking about an ex-husband, it wasn't reportable. Under today's mandate, it will be.
Talk about a knee-jerk reaction!
Well, if I hadn't read the mandate and knew not even the cursory basics of reporting, this would seem to make perfect sense to me too.
Bubba Says

Perrysburg, OH

#2505 Jan 17, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, if I hadn't read the mandate and knew not even the cursory basics of reporting, this would seem to make perfect sense to me too.
Lots of people use that expression and it's meaningless. The slippery slope is taking it at face value as a means of forced compliance.
Bubba Says

Perrysburg, OH

#2506 Jan 17, 2013
And if people are going to be afraid of being reported, they will shy away from seeking care.
Bubba Says

Perrysburg, OH

#2507 Jan 17, 2013
JEFFREY BROWN: I'm assuming, though, that you didn't like many of the legislative proposals, the ban, the assault weapon ban, for example?

DAVID KOPEL: Well, the Department of Justice conducted a study of the effectiveness of that ban, published it in 2004, after it had been in effect for nine years, and concluded it had done absolutely no good. No lives were saved. There weren't fewer shots fired in shoot-outs with police officers or anything else.

So it was -- it's a proven failure. Connecticut's had a ban on so-called assault weapons in effect since 1993. Obviously, that didn't do any good at Newtown.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/social_issues/...
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#2508 Jan 17, 2013
Bubba Says wrote:
<quoted text>
Only you would enjoy knowing that a physician is going to ask each patient if they own a gun. You'll probably be right behind them with your hand out. Be careful what you say out loud in the new Democratic Amerika.
"Mr. Obama, unveiling his gun proposals Wednesday barely a month after the deadly school shooting in Newtown, Conn., will make it clear that his health law, known as the Affordable Care Act, allows doctors to ask patients whether they have guns in their homes, and will tell them they are able to report any threats of violence they hear to police."
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/...
Follow us:@washtimes on Twitter
You make quite a jump from "allows a physician to ask patients if they have guns in their homes" to "a physician is going to ask each patient if they own a gun."
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#2509 Jan 17, 2013
Bubba Says wrote:
<quoted text>
Lots of people use that expression and it's meaningless. The slippery slope is taking it at face value as a means of forced compliance.
I think you missed her point.
WiseAmerican

Columbus, OH

#2510 Jan 17, 2013
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>Yet somehow Ohio is doing better under GOP control than most states. Imagine that...
Imagine how well Ohio would be doing if the auto bailout had been defeated by the Republicans. Aside from technology and warehousing, auto manufacturing is at the top of this states lifeline.
WiseAmerican

Columbus, OH

#2511 Jan 17, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
With respect to the first allegation, a challenge to the basic fairness and rationality of the exit exam, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized a property interest in receiving a diploma if students successfully complete the required number of years and courses. Based on this property interest, the Court held that a state cannot arbitrarily and capriciously deprive students of a high school diploma by conditioning receipt of that diploma on passing an exit exam that is fundamentally unfair. The Court emphasized that “[w]e do not question the right of the state to condition the receipt of a diploma upon the passing of a test so long as it is a fair test of that which was taught.”29 Reasoning that a test that is not fair cannot be said to be rationally related to a legitimate state interest, Debra P. held that “if the test is found to be invalid for the reason that it tests matters outside the curriculum, its continued use would violate the Equal Protection Clause.”30
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/events/Br...
That makes absolute sense. It's no different than a fireman studying for a test about fire fighting but is given a test that has multiple questions about police work that he has no knowledge of. The exit exams are biased in that sense.
WiseAmerican

Columbus, OH

#2512 Jan 17, 2013
Bubba Says wrote:
<quoted text>
Only you would enjoy knowing that a physician is going to ask each patient if they own a gun. You'll probably be right behind them with your hand out. Be careful what you say out loud in the new Democratic Amerika.
"Mr. Obama, unveiling his gun proposals Wednesday barely a month after the deadly school shooting in Newtown, Conn., will make it clear that his health law, known as the Affordable Care Act, allows doctors to ask patients whether they have guns in their homes, and will tell them they are able to report any threats of violence they hear to police."
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/...
Follow us:@washtimes on Twitter
And the patient has the option to tell the doctor nothing or be untruthful about his possessions.
WiseAmerican

Columbus, OH

#2513 Jan 17, 2013
Bubba Says wrote:
And if people are going to be afraid of being reported, they will shy away from seeking care.
Or not tell the truth in order to keep government out of their personal business.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#2514 Jan 17, 2013
Bubba Says wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really. If you say "I wanted to kill him!" when talking about an ex-husband, it wasn't reportable. Under today's mandate, it will be.
Talk about a knee-jerk reaction!
There is no new mandate. Just communication and clarifications of existing requirements.

And under existing law, "I wanted to kill him" is pretty distinctly different from "I bought a gun today because I intend to see him dead before sunset."

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#2515 Jan 17, 2013
Bubba Says wrote:
<quoted text>
Only you would enjoy knowing that a physician is going to ask each patient if they own a gun. You'll probably be right behind them with your hand out. Be careful what you say out loud in the new Democratic Amerika.
"Mr. Obama, unveiling his gun proposals Wednesday barely a month after the deadly school shooting in Newtown, Conn., will make it clear that his health law, known as the Affordable Care Act, allows doctors to ask patients whether they have guns in their homes, and will tell them they are able to report any threats of violence they hear to police."
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/...
Follow us:@washtimes on Twitter
Ferom the President's release:

"The President’s plan includes:(1) closing background check loopholes to keep guns out of dangerous hands; (2) banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and taking other common-sense steps to reduce gun violence; (3) making
schools safer; and (4) increasing access to mental health services."

A good bit of the meat of this requires Congressional action (including confirmation of a Director of BATF). However, the following are executive actions:

"Today the Administration is taking four actions to strengthen the system:
o Addressing unnecessary legal barriers in health laws that prevent some states from making information available about those prohibited from having guns.
o Improving incentives for states to share information with the system.
o Ensuring federal agencies share relevant information with the system.
o Directing the Attorney General to work with other agencies to review our laws to make sure they are effective at identifying the dangerous or untrustworthy individuals that should not have access to guns."

Feel free to read the entire document: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/16...

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#2516 Jan 17, 2013
Bubba Says wrote:
<quoted text>
Only you would enjoy knowing that a physician is going to ask each patient if they own a gun. You'll probably be right behind them with your hand out. Be careful what you say out loud in the new Democratic Amerika.
Because I have worked in doctor's offices, I know that such questions are frequently part of risk assessments that help guide a doctor in providing care, particularly preventive care. They also frequently ask about sexual practices and the use of prescription, over the counter and illicit drugs. That's their job.

I think that during some of the health care hysteria that accompanied the passage of the affordable care act someone may have attached a prohibition against docs asking such a question--or something that ensured that the answer could not be reported to the govt. Sorta like the last minute move to make sure that Viagra couldn't be prescribed to sexual predators. At any rate--I don't know who won on that one. But, if the AFA ended up prohibiting docs from asking patients about such things, I would agree. They should not be prohibited--evaluating risk factors should be up to the physician to determine.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#2517 Jan 17, 2013
Bubba Says wrote:
And if people are going to be afraid of being reported, they will shy away from seeking care.
You are attempting to ascribe rational thought to people with disordered thinking.

It doesn't work that way.

People as troubled as any of the recent mass killers may see dangers in many everyday things (suspicion that the television is recording their actions, that the radio is talking to them, that there are hidden messages in newsprint and the like--or that the government is trying to control their thoughts and actions). These kinds of fears tend to loom far larger than any concrete knowledge that a health care professional may intervene to prevent them from committing mass murder.
VADoc

United States

#2518 Jan 17, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
As I recall, she is a nurse?
This is similar to mandated reporting in cases of suspected child abuse, I believe. Can't use confidentiality to hide from that responsibility. I would imagine that there is some mandated involvement of law enforcement for gunshot wounds and the like, also.
Again you are treading in waters you know littl about reader. Neglect or abuse is reported but it becomes a matter between child protective services and the accused. No public record is made and still remains private information.

Now if I label a patient mentally ill then that is still private information and is still a protected medical diagnoses. What Obama wants is for a physician to break confidentiality and make mental illness public record. Sorry that's not something I would want to do. You wouldn't want it to be public knowledge if you had herpes (not saying you do) would you.

Also we know physicians can code for several diagnoses without a patient being sent to a specialist such as a psychiatrist. Also mental health issues wax and wane over time. As someone else mentioned what would happen if someone seeked mental health services due to depression or PTSD from a violent incident or loss of a family member and got a diagnoses. Now does that person lose a constitutional right because they did the right thing? What about children diagnosed at a young age who get the proper treatment? Should they lose a constitutional right? I don't think they should. I also don't think Obama should let one diagnosis take away someone's constitutional right. I don't want to be able to make such a call and the government force me to let them violate someone's constitutional rights. I mean if you allow this and think it's a good idea then how about people who are morbidly obese be denied the normal amount of food stamps and made to follow a diet to get their medical care or food stamps? You'd be totally against that and so would I. It's the same thing.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#2519 Jan 17, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
With respect to the first allegation, a challenge to the basic fairness and rationality of the exit exam, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized a property interest in receiving a diploma if students successfully complete the required number of years and courses. Based on this property interest, the Court held that a state cannot arbitrarily and capriciously deprive students of a high school diploma by conditioning receipt of that diploma on passing an exit exam that is fundamentally unfair. The Court emphasized that “[w]e do not question the right of the state to condition the receipt of a diploma upon the passing of a test so long as it is a fair test of that which was taught.”29 Reasoning that a test that is not fair cannot be said to be rationally related to a legitimate state interest, Debra P. held that “if the test is found to be invalid for the reason that it tests matters outside the curriculum, its continued use would violate the Equal Protection Clause.”30
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/events/Br...
As I said, after it is earned.

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#2520 Jan 17, 2013
WiseAmerican wrote:
<quoted text> Imagine how well Ohio would be doing if the auto bailout had been defeated by the Republicans. Aside from technology and warehousing, auto manufacturing is at the top of this states lifeline.
The bailout simply postponed the inevitable.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#2523 Jan 17, 2013
VADoc wrote:
<quoted text>
Again you are treading in waters you know littl about reader. Neglect or abuse is reported but it becomes a matter between child protective services and the accused. No public record is made and still remains private information.
Now if I label a patient mentally ill then that is still private information and is still a protected medical diagnoses. What Obama wants is for a physician to break confidentiality and make mental illness public record. Sorry that's not something I would want to do. You wouldn't want it to be public knowledge if you had herpes (not saying you do) would you.
Also we know physicians can code for several diagnoses without a patient being sent to a specialist such as a psychiatrist. Also mental health issues wax and wane over time. As someone else mentioned what would happen if someone seeked mental health services due to depression or PTSD from a violent incident or loss of a family member and got a diagnoses. Now does that person lose a constitutional right because they did the right thing? What about children diagnosed at a young age who get the proper treatment? Should they lose a constitutional right? I don't think they should. I also don't think Obama should let one diagnosis take away someone's constitutional right. I don't want to be able to make such a call and the government force me to let them violate someone's constitutional rights. I mean if you allow this and think it's a good idea then how about people who are morbidly obese be denied the normal amount of food stamps and made to follow a diet to get their medical care or food stamps? You'd be totally against that and so would I. It's the same thing.
Please substantiate your claims about what Obama wants to do. My reading is that there is no new mandate, however once things (such as ajudication) are entered into the public record, he is working with various agencies to make certain that those who are responsible for background checks have access to that information. Ohio went through this not to long ago in terms of teacher licensing by ensuring that school districts, county and state agencies were all communicating information as needed to keep folks who are convicted of things like child abuse out of the classroom. Didn't create any new information, simply smoothed reporting.

As far as a professional having credible information that a patient/client intends to commit an illegal act (particularly murder), I believe that they have been for some time culpable if they do not make a report of some kind to authorities. This was brought up in Aurora where the killer sent his counselor a journal that outlined his plans. Had the counselor opened and seen this, and not involved authorities, I believe that they would have been in trouble of some kind.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#2524 Jan 17, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Please substantiate your claims about what Obama wants to do.
There is no substantiation, because he LIES about what he really wants, same as most leftists lie about what they're really after. However, one of you DID slip up once and tell the truth....

http://www.ironicsurrealism.com/2012/12/31/di...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Bennett Smith gate stories from the victims poi... (May '13) 25 min grow up 2,289
Where are all the original legacy posters? 55 min Duke for Mayor 103
welfare nation 57 min Duke for Mayor 9
Do you agree with Obama's plan to fundamentally... 1 hr d pantz 263
RIP Joan Rivers 1 hr BizzyBee 16
Obama visits his "birth" state. 1 hr d pantz 1
We can't afford a war in Syria 1 hr d pantz 1
•••
•••
•••

Columbus Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••