The Gun Issue thread

[rickschoppers]

^
Not the context of the word solution I was using Mr G, but carry on.

[panama hat]

^ Too difficult for him to understand

compare Australia and the UK to America

America? You mean like Mexico, Venzuela etc....?

Was it the purpose when TD started to discuss valuable information that Thai expats could actually use?

Then show us where you post . . . and where you believe others may not post, seeing as you are the arbiter of these things

[MrG]

^
Not the context of the word solution I was using Mr G, but carry on.

It is precisely the right context. If it wasn't, you wouldn't have been on that thread posting those statements.
Another example. Chastity comes on here complaining about so many posts about American subjects, and how there is "no place for American diatribe on this forum." But look around, he can't stop blathering on about American issues the he admittedly doesn't care about and thinks there is too much of. Oh, and there is no place for it. Not just a post. Not just a thread. The whole bloody forum. Wow.
Anyway, now you.
How can I put it any more simply? You can't see the plain contradiction in your own statements on the same post and bow out on some contextual distortion...? Really?

Point made.

[rickschoppers]

My context of no clear solution was in reference to debating topics (usually American concentric) that have been hashed and rehashed without any agreement. Two sides that believe they are correct and never seem to meet in the middle. The NRA argument will never be resolved as long as they are in existance and to think they are the only force promoting gun possesion in the US is misguided. I have no probelm with debating, but when those debates turn to personal attacks on my profession and infantile insults, then that flaming.

To prove my point, I am sure Harry or PH will follow this post with more of their infantile idiocy.

[harrybarracuda]

I find it interesting how many here continue to compare Australia and the UK to America when it comes to gun control. Many state if it can be done in those countries, it can be done in the US. Everyone keeps overlooking an important detail which is total population.

Population of Australia approximately 24 million.

Population of UK approximately 64 million.

Population of US approximately 325 million.

For a group such as this that seems to focus on details, this is one that has been left out. Are these populations even close in number? Hardly. So how in the hell can everyone keep comparing the two and state if one country with 24 million can do something, then why can't a country of 325 million do the same? This does not even take into consideration the difference in government, judicial systems, cultures, etc., etc.

The other dynamic that interests me is the total amount of time and number of posts made on a topic that seems to disgust most members. Is it the drama? Is it because there is another chance to bash or flame Americans? I read in another thread where many complained about the amount of American topics in the SC. Simple solution, just don't post in them and they will die a natural death. Why not post in travel or picture threads, or even growing crops in Thailand that would be infinitely more worthwhile to TD members. Instead, there seems to be a lot of negative interaction between members and many do not even live in Thailand. Is this the purpose of TD? Was it the purpose when TD started to discuss valuable information that Thai expats could actually use?

I, for one, would prefer to see informative threads instead of topics that have no clear solution. Everyone complains about how TD is losing membership and this just might be one of the reasons.

I haven't seen anyone use straight numbers as a comparison on this thread, and if they had I would correct them myself.

Without finding current figures as of 2013 you were #15 in Gun homicides (and #1 in the developed world) with 3.5 homicides per 100,000. You are #3 globally for gun suicides with 6.7 per 100,000.

So one doesn't need to obfuscate with statistics to prove that the US is #1 in the developed world for gun violence, both in volume and per capita.

It is a simple, irrefutable fact.

[chassamui]

I find it interesting how many here continue to compare Australia and the UK to America when it comes to gun control. Many state if it can be done in those countries, it can be done in the US. Everyone keeps overlooking an important detail which is total population.

Population of Australia approximately 24 million.

Population of UK approximately 64 million.

Population of US approximately 325 million.

For a group such as this that seems to focus on details, this is one that has been left out. Are these populations even close in number? Hardly. So how in the hell can everyone keep comparing the two and state if one country with 24 million can do something, then why can't a country of 325 million do the same? This does not even take into consideration the difference in government, judicial systems, cultures, etc., etc.

The other dynamic that interests me is the total amount of time and number of posts made on a topic that seems to disgust most members. Is it the drama? Is it because there is another chance to bash or flame Americans? I read in another thread where many complained about the amount of American topics in the SC. Simple solution, just don't post in them and they will die a natural death. Why not post in travel or picture threads, or even growing crops in Thailand that would be infinitely more worthwhile to TD members. Instead, there seems to be a lot of negative interaction between members and many do not even live in Thailand. Is this the purpose of TD? Was it the purpose when TD started to discuss valuable information that Thai expats could actually use?

I, for one, would prefer to see informative threads instead of topics that have no clear solution. Everyone complains about how TD is losing membership and this just might be one of the reasons.

Ever heard of the term pro rata/ It means in proportion.
The US rarely follows others, it usually leads trends and tendencies in any number of fields.
Where other westernised countries like UK and Australia lag behind is in gun ownership and the ready avaiabily of class A drugs. The other area often overlooked is social media and the effect it has on the vulnerable and those with mental deficiencies. It is now so much easier to be nasty on twitter than it is face to face in the pub or coffee shop.
The USA has a politically polarised society with seemingly louder voices only on the hard left and extreme right, with little or no tangible support for the middle ground. The country has stifled concensus. You should check out how successful coalition politics is in a civilised country like Germany.
The big problem is that western society often follows the trends set by the US. The fact that you and many of your countrymen have left home disenchanted with where it is all headed does not mean you have the right to impose that failure on other expats in Asia. Your frustration and helplessness is no excuse for forcing all that empty rhetoric on us.
Are we interested, yes, do we care, yes because our country is probably headed the same way. When we tell you your country is broken it just means that pro rata, it is a bigger problem than you seem to think it is.

[rickschoppers]

Heh Chass, you do not even know who I am yet you are telling me why I moved to Thailand. Just shows your ignorance on the topic. Yes, the US does lead trends and there is a reason for that but I will leave that to your warped imagination. You would be better off sticking to topics you know something about, not just those discussed in the news.

[bowie]

So one doesn't need to obfuscate with statistics to prove that the US is #1 in the developed world for gun violence, both in volume and per capita.
It is a simple, irrefutable fact.

Ya' sure?...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...eath_rate#List

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a historical list of countries by firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population in one year.

It should be noted that the following list includes suicides, accidental fatalities, and justifiable homicides. Not included are suicides by other means, homicides by other means, accidental deaths by other means, and/or justifiable deaths by other means.

Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year

Argentina
5.8 (2012) 1.9 (2012) 2.79 (2001) 0.64 (2001) 3.62 (2001) Guns in Argentina[1][2]

Australia
0.86 (2011) 0.11 (2011) 0.62 (2011) 0.05 (2011) 0.08 (2011) Guns in Australia[3]

Austria
2.95 (mixed years) 0.18 (2010) 2.68 (2010) 0.01 (2009) 0.08 (2010) Guns in Austria[4]

Azerbaijan
0.04 (incomplete) 0.01 (2008) 0.01 (2007) 0.02 (2007) unavailable Guns in Azerbaijan[5]

Barbados
3.0 (incomplete) 3.0 (2000) unavailable unavailable unavailable Guns in Barbados[6]

Belarus
0.1 (incomplete) 0.1 (2009) unavailable unavailable unavailable Guns in Belarus[7]

Belgium
2.42 (2006) 0.29 (2006) 1.96 (2006) 0.01 (2006) 0.16 (2006) Guns in Belgium[8]

Brazil
19.03 (mixed years) 18.1 (2008) 0.74 (2000) 0.18 (2000) 0.01 (2000) Guns in Brazil[9]

Bulgaria
2.35 (2011) 0.23 (2011) 0.87 (2011) 1.14 (2011) 0.11 (2011) Guns in Bulgaria[10]

Canada
2.22 (2007-2011) 0.51 (2007-2011) 1.60 (2007-2011 avg) 0.04 (2007-2011) 0.02 (2007-2011) Statistics Canada [11]

Chile
3.73 (mixed years) 2.2 (2005) 1.09 (2002) 0.4 (2002) 0.04 (2001) Guns in Chile[12]

Colombia
28.14 (mixed years) 27.1 (2010) 0.87 (2009) 0.14 (1999) 0.03 (1999) Guns in Colombia[13]

Costa Rica
6.28 (mixed years) 4.6 (2006) 1.27 (2002) 0.07 (2002) 0.24 (2000) Guns in Costa Rica[14]

Croatia
3.54 (mixed years) 1.1 (2009) 2.35 (2010) 0.07 (2010) 0.02 (2010) Guns in Croatia[15]

Cyprus
0.96 (mixed years) 0.24 (2010) 0.48 (2010) 0.12 (2009) 0.12 (2010) Guns in Cyprus[16]

Czech Republic
1.76 (2010) 0.12 (2010) 1.39 (2010) 0.10 (2010) 0.15 (2010) Guns in Czech Republic[17]

Denmark
1.28 (2011) 0.22 (2011) 1.09 (2011) 0.04 (2008) 0.04 (2004) Guns in Denmark[18]

El Salvador
46.85 (incomplete) 39.90 (2008) 6.80 (2006) 0.15 (1999) unavailable Guns in El Salvador[19]

Estonia
2.54 (2010) 0.30 (2010) 1.57 (2010) 0.07 (2010) 0.60 (2010) Guns in Estonia[20]

Finland
3.64 (2010) 0.26 (2010) 3.34 (2010) 0.02 (2010) 0.02 (2010) Guns in Finland[21]

France
3.01 (2009) 0.22 (2009) 2.33 (2009) 0.05 (2009) 0.41 (2009) Guns in France[22]

Georgia
1.92 (mixed years) 0.60 (2010) 0.09 (2009) 1.00 (2009) 0.23 (2009) Guns in Georgia[23]

Germany
1.24 (2010) 0.20 (2010) 0.94 (2010) 0.02 (2010) 0.08 (2010) Guns in Germany[24]

Greece
1.64 (mixed years) 0.59 (2009) 0.97 (2009) 0.08 (2009) 0.00 (1998) Guns in Greece[25]

Guatemala
36.38 (incomplete) 34.8 (2010) 2.30 (2006) unavailable unavailable Guns in Guatemala[26]

Honduras
64.8 (incomplete) 64.8 (2010) unavailable unavailable unavailable Guns in Honduras[27]

Hong Kong
0.03 (mixed years) 0.00 (2004) 0.03 (1999) 0.00 (1996) 0.00 (1996) Guns in Hong Kong[28]

Hungary
0.87 (mixed years) 0.13 (2009) 0.72 (2009) 0.01 (2008) 0.01 (2002) Guns in Hungary[29]

Iceland
1.57 (mixed years, incomplete) 0.32 (2007) 1.25 (2009) unavailable unavailable Guns in Iceland[30]

India
0.48 (incomplete) 0.30 (2009) 0.14 (2008) 0.04 (2008) unavailable Guns in India[31]

Israel
1.87 (2009) 0.94 (2009) 0.71 (2009) 0.03 (2009) 0.19 (2009) Guns in Israel[32]

Italy
1.28 (2009) 0.36 (2009) 0.81 (2009) 0.08 (2009) 0.03 (2009) Guns in Italy[33]

Jamaica
39.74 (mixed years,incomplete) 39.40 (2009) 0.34 (1995) unavailable unavailable Guns in Jamaica[34]

Japan
0.06 (mixed years) 0.00 (2008) 0.04 (1999) 0.01 (1999) 0.01 (1999) Guns in Japan[35]

Kuwait
0.36 (mixed years) 0.36 (1995) 0.00 (1999) 0.00 (2000) 0.00 (2000) Guns in Kuwait[36]

Kyrgyzstan
1.01 (2010) 0.53 (2010) 0.07 (2010) 0.28 (2010) 0.13 (2010) Guns in Kyrgyzstan[37]

Latvia
1.43 2010) 0.18 (2010) 0.94 (2010) 0.04 (2010) 0.27 (2010) Guns in Latvia[38]

Luxembourg
2.02 (mixed years) 0.60 (2009) 1.00 (2009) 0.22 (2004)) 0.20 (2009) Guns in Luxembourg[39]

Macedonia
1.85 (mixed years) 1.07 (2010) 0.63 (2010) 0.15 (2010)) 0.00 (1997) Guns in Macedonia[40]

Mexico
11.17 (mixed years) 10.00 (2010) 0.69 (2001) 0.47 (2001)) 0.01 (2001) Guns in Mexico[41]

Moldova
1.03 (2011) 0.45 (2011) 0.42 (2011) 0.08 (2011)) 0.08 (2011) Guns in Moldova[42]

Montenegro
8.55 (2009, incomplete) 2.06 (2009) 6.49 (2009) unavailable unavailable Guns in Montenegro[43]

Netherlands
0.46 (2010) 0.20 (2010) 0.24 (2010) 0.01 (2010) 0.01 (2010) Guns in Netherlands[44]

New Zealand
1.45 (mixed years) 0.26 (2009) 1.14 (2007) 0.05 (2006) 0.00 (2006) Guns in New Zealand[45]

Nicaragua
7.29 (mixed years) 5.90 (2008) 0.46 (2002) 0.91 (2002) 0.02 (2001) Guns in Nicaragua[46]

Norway
1.78 (mixed years) 0.04 (2010) 1.72 (2010) 0.02 (2010) 0.00 (2008) Guns in Norway[47]

Panama
17.60 (mixed years) 16.10 (2010) 0.99 (2002) 0.06 (2002) 0.45 (2002) Guns in Panama[48]

Paraguay
8.16 (mixed years) 7.30 (2009) 0.58 (2000) 0.26 (2000) 0.02 (2000) Guns in Paraguay[49]

Peru
3.73 (mixed years) 2.60 (2009) 0.11 (2000) 0.90 (2000) 0.12 (2000) Guns in Peru[50]

Philippines
3.24 (incomplete) 3.24 (2002) unavailable unavailable unavailable Guns in Philippines[51]

Poland
0.25 (2010) 0.02 (2010) 0.12 (2010) 0.02 (2010) 0.09 (2010) Guns in Poland[52]

Portugal
1.77 (2010) 0.48 (2010) 1.09 (2010) 0.02 (2010) 0.18 (2010) Guns in Portugal[53]

Qatar
0.15 (incomplete) 0.15 (2004) unavailable unavailable unavailable Guns in Qatar[54]

Romania
0.19 (2010) 0.04 (2010) 0.06 (2010) 0.09 (2010) 0.00 (2010) Guns in Romania[55]

Serbia
3.90 (2010) 0.62 (2010) 2.81 (2010) 0.18 (2010) 0.29 (2010) Guns in Serbia[56]

Singapore
0.16 (mixed years) 0.02 (2006) 0.12 (1998) 0.02 (1998) 0.00 (1998) Guns in Singapore[57]

Slovakia
1.75 (2010) 0.18 (2010) 0.94 (2010) 0.39 (2010) 0.24 (2010) Guns in Slovakia[58]

Slovenia
2.49 (mixed years) 0.05 (2010) 2.34 (2010) 0.05 (2009) 0.05 (2010) Guns in Slovenia[59]

South Africa
21.51 (mixed years) 17.00 (2007) 3.81 (1999) 0.35 (1999) 0.35 (1999) Guns in South Africa[60]

South Korea
0.06 (mixed years) 0.00 (2006) 0.04 (2002) 0.01 (2002) 0.01 (2002) Guns in South Korea[61]

Spain
0.62 (mixed years) 0.15 (2010) 0.42 (2010) 0.05 (2010) 0.00 (2007) Guns in Spain[62]

Swaziland
37.16 (incomplete) 37.16 (2004) unavailable unavailable unavailable Guns in Swaziland[63]

Sweden
1.47 (2010) 0.19 (2010) 1.20 (2010) 0.06 (2010) 0.01 (2010) Guns in Sweden[64]

Switzerland
2.91 (mixed years) 0.23 (2013) 2.68 (2011) 0.10 (1998) 0.07 (1994) Guns in Switzerland[65]

Taiwan
0.87 (mixed years) 0.60 (2008) 0.12 (1994) 0.11 (1994) 0.04 (1994) Guns in Taiwan[66]

Ukraine
0.20 (incomplete) 0.20 (2009) unavailable unavailable unavailable Guns in Ukraine[67]

United Kingdom
0.26 (2010) 0.05 (2010) 0.17 (2010) 0.01 (2010) 0.02 (2010) Guns in the United Kingdom[68]

United States
10.64 (2013) 3.55 (2013) 6.70 (2013) 0.16 (2013) 0.09 (2013) Guns in United States[69]

Uruguay
14.01 (mixed years) 3.43 (2009) 7.03 (2000) 3.46(2000) 0.09 (2000) Guns in Uruguay[70]

Venezuela
50.90 (mixed years) 39.00 (2000) 1.10 (2000) 0.40 (2000) 10.40 (2000) Guns in Venezuela[71]

Zimbabwe
0.12 (mixed years) 0.03 (2007) 0.09 (1995) unavailable unavailable Guns in Zimbabwe[72]

[chassamui]

Heh Chass, you do not even know who I am yet you are telling me why I moved to Thailand. Just shows your ignorance on the topic. Yes, the US does lead trends and there is a reason for that but I will leave that to your warped imagination. You would be better off sticking to topics you know something about, not just those discussed in the news.

Once again you choose parts of the post to refute but ignore all the main pertinent issues, Anyone can nit pick on minor details.
Do you deny that scciety is broken and headed in the wrong direction due to polarised politics, drugs, guns and deterioration in menal health care?Is it true that if you continue to do nothing, then nothing will change, except perhaps things will get worse?
Ignoring or denying the problem won't make it go away, even if I am wrong about the solution.

[rickschoppers]

As you and many others nit pick Chass. Never recognizing facts that rebut comments made which is usually the reason for my posts. For you to say you do not nit pick would be a bold face lie.

Your solution is not a viable one especially when it comes to mental health. The HIPPA laws will prevent the public, other than that individual's physician, from knowing if a particular citizen of the US is mentally impaired. Do you even know what HIPPA is, or means? It is a point I brought forward that you ignored because you yourself were knit picking.

QED.

[MrG]

The HIPPA laws will prevent knowing if anyone, other than their physician, if a US citizen is mentally impaired.

I have heard that, but it seems to me that there should be work-arounds. For instance, a psychiatrist is legally obligated to inform police if they know a patient intends to kill someone...nurses are legally required to tell the police if they see evidence of physical abuse, etc.

[rickschoppers]

^
Neither of those are examples of HIPPA violations and would not fall under that law. If you are suggesting there should be a "work-around" for reporting the mentally ill, that idea would be very difficult to get past the law makers and health professionals.

It appears some here have not read the HIPPA law and how it affects having medical information released with regard to the mentally ill within the US.

[MrG]

It appears some here have not read the HIPPA law and how it affects having medical information released with regard to the mentally ill within the US.

Read away.

HIPAA Privacy Rule and Sharing Information Related to Mental Health

HIPAA Privacy Rule and Sharing Information Related to Mental Health
Background
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule provides consumers with important privacy rights and protections with respect to their health information, including important controls over how their health information is used and disclosed by health plans and health care providers. Ensuring strong privacy protections is critical to maintaining individuals’ trust in their health care providers and willingness to obtain needed health care services, and these protections are especially important where very sensitive information is concerned, such as mental health information. At the same time, the Privacy Rule recognizes circumstances arise where health information may need to be shared to ensure the patient receives the best treatment and for other important purposes, such as for the health and safety of the patient or others. The Rule is carefully balanced to allow uses and disclosures of information—including mental health information—for treatment and these other purposes with appropriate protections.

snip

Does HIPAA permit a doctor to contact a patient’s family or law enforcement if the doctor believes that the patient might hurt herself or someone else?
Yes. The Privacy Rule permits a health care provider to disclose necessary information about a patient to law enforcement, family members of the patient, or other persons, when the provider believes the patient presents a serious and imminent threat to self or others. The scope of this permission is described in a letter to the nation’s health care providers issued on January 15, 2013, and below.

Specifically, when a health care provider believes in good faith that such a warning is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety of the patient or others, the Privacy Rule allows the provider, consistent with applicable law and standards of ethical conduct, to alert those persons whom the provider believes are reasonably able to prevent or lessen the threat. These provisions may be found in the Privacy Rule at 45 CFR § 164.512(j).

Under these provisions, a health care provider may disclose patient information, including information from mental health records, if necessary, to law enforcement, family members of the patient, or any other persons who may reasonably be able to prevent or lessen the risk of harm. For example, if a mental health professional has a patient who has made a credible threat to inflict serious and imminent bodily harm on one or more persons, HIPAA permits the mental health professional to alert the police, a parent or other family member, school administrators or campus police, and others who may be able to intervene to avert harm from the threat.

In addition to professional ethical standards, most States have laws and/or court decisions which address, and in many instances require, disclosure of patient information to prevent or lessen the risk of harm.

[panama hat]

It appears some here have not read the HIPPA law

. . . . are pharmacists required to know HIPPA?

[MrG]

. . . . are pharmacists required to know HIPPA?

I would think so. Anybody in any part of the the medical field. It is the one thing you better think of before doing anything. I've seen more than one ass fired over a HIPPA breach.

[rickschoppers]

Yes, Mr G. this is only IF someone threatens others as dictated in your snippit, but how about those that do not threaten anyone before blowing people away? Do we issue crystal balls to all health care providers so they can keep them from committing a gun crime?

"The HIPPA law also protects the medical information from being shared with anyone other than those who have medical power of attorney.
However, medical information is private. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) protects health care privacy and prevents disclosure of health care information to unauthorized people. HIPAA authorizes the release of medical information only to a patient's "personal representative."
Make Sure Your Power of Attorney Complies with Federal Privacy Law | ElderLawAnswers

If the HIPPA law is not strictly follwed, there are substantial consequences.
HIPAA Violations and Enforcement

Failure to comply with HIPAA can result in civil and criminal penalties (42 USC § 1320d-5).

Civil Penalties
The “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009”(ARRA) that was signed into law on February 17, 2009, established a tiered civil penalty structure for HIPAA violations (see below). The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) still has discretion in determining the amount of the penalty based on the nature and extent of the violation and the nature and extent of the harm resulting from the violation. The Secretary is still prohibited from imposing civil penalties (except in cases of willful neglect) if the violation is corrected within 30 days (this time period may be extended).

HIPAA Violation Minimum Penalty Maximum Penalty
Individual did not know (and by exercising reasonable diligence would not have known) that he/she violated HIPAA $100 per violation, with an annual maximum of $25,000 for repeat violations (Note: maximum that can be imposed by State Attorneys General regardless of the type of violation) $50,000 per violation, with an annual maximum of $1.5 million
HIPAA violation due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect $1,000 per violation, with an annual maximum of $100,000 for repeat violations $50,000 per violation, with an annual maximum of $1.5 million
HIPAA violation due to willful neglect but violation is corrected within the required time period $10,000 per violation, with an annual maximum of $250,000 for repeat violations $50,000 per violation, with an annual maximum of $1.5 million
HIPAA violation is due to willful neglect and is not corrected $50,000 per violation, with an annual maximum of $1.5 million $50,000 per violation, with an annual maximum of $1.5 million
Criminal Penalties
In June 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) clarified who can be held criminally liable under HIPAA. Covered entities and specified individuals, as explained below, whom "knowingly" obtain or disclose individually identifiable health information in violation of the Administrative Simplification Regulations face a fine of up to $50,000, as well as imprisonment up to one year. Offenses committed under false pretenses allow penalties to be increased to a $100,000 fine, with up to five years in prison. Finally, offenses committed with the intent to sell, transfer, or use individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain or malicious harm permit fines of $250,000, and imprisonment for up to ten years.

Covered Entity and Specified Individuals
The DOJ concluded that the criminal penalties for a violation of HIPAA are directly applicable to covered entities—including health plans, health care clearinghouses, health care providers who transmit claims in electronic form, and Medicare prescription drug card sponsors. Individuals such as directors, employees, or officers of the covered entity, where the covered entity is not an individual, may also be directly criminally liable under HIPAA in accordance with principles of "corporate criminal liability." Where an individual of a covered entity is not directly liable under HIPAA, they can still be charged with conspiracy or aiding and abetting.

Knowingly
The DOJ interpreted the "knowingly" element of the HIPAA statute for criminal liability as requiring only knowledge of the actions that constitute an offense. Specific knowledge of an action being in violation of the HIPAA statute is not required.

Exclusion
The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has the authority to exclude from participation in Medicare any covered entity that was not compliant with the transaction and code set standards by October 16, 2003 (where an extension was obtained and the covered entity is not small) (68 FR 48805).

Enforcing Agencies
The DHHS Office of Civil Rights (OCR) enforces the privacy standards, while the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid (CMS) enforces both the transaction and code set standards and the security standards (65 FR 18895). Enforcement of the civil monetary provisions has not yet been tasked to an agency.
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/phys...orcement.page?

[MrG]

I figured you respond with that.
It is comforting to know that HIPPA laws and regulations are just that; regulations. They are not written in stone, and as they were created to keep private medical information private and safe, they can be ammended to accomodate the safety needs of society.
Simple, really.

[rickschoppers]

PH, even though I have you on ignore, I saw your question in Mr G's comment above. Every year that I worked as a pharmacist, or Director of Pharmacy since 2009, I was required to do HIPPA training as did all other emplyees of the hospital. I was required to complete written exams to assure I knew every aspect of the HIPPA law and how it impacted the handling of all patients medical information.

So the answer to your question is YES. How much HIPPA training have you had PH? Oh, you are on ignore, so unless MrG. includes your anwer in one of his comments, I will not see your response. I will assume you have had ZERO training on the HIPPA law.

[rickschoppers]

I figured you respond with that.
It is comforting to know that HIPPA laws and regulations are just that; regulations. They are not written in stone, and as they were created to keep private medical information private and safe, they can be ammended to accomodate the safety needs of society.
Simple, really.

Actually, not that simple or it would already have been done, no? I have also seen many fired for breaching the HIPPA law and many have been steeply fined.

[MrG]

I figured you respond with that.
It is comforting to know that HIPPA laws and regulations are just that; regulations. They are not written in stone, and as they were created to keep private medical information private and safe, they can be ammended to accomodate the safety needs of society.
Simple, really.

Actually, not that simple or it would already have been done, no? I have also seen many fired for breaching the HIPPA law and many have been steeply fined.

It's a matter of political will. Get past the Guns-at-any-Price crowd and the rest will follow.

[rickschoppers]

Since it touches on health care, things are a little more complicated. If you think dealing with political will is easy, try dealing with the myriad of health care regulations and regulatory agencies. A real nightmare.

[MrG]

Yes, Mr G. this is only IF someone threatens others as dictated in your snippit, but how about those that do not threaten anyone before blowing people away? Do we issue crystal balls to all health care providers so they can keep them from committing a gun crime?

And by the way, people can be declared "...a threat to themselves or others" and held for for 72 hrs. for observsation. They don't have to actively threaten anyone.
Is it a difficult call...a difficult definition...? Yes, absolutely. They won't get everyone. But you look at the case histories on some of these guys and the system missed them because it didn't have the filters in place. Such laws would put that filter in place. And if that's infringing on somebody's then we may as well sign a suicide pact with the NRA.

It's not an academic, legalistic game. The gun laws as they stand do not protect anybody from these dangerous machines. Society has a right to protect itself, even from a well organized militia.

[harrybarracuda]

So one doesn't need to obfuscate with statistics to prove that the US is #1 in the developed world for gun violence, both in volume and per capita.
It is a simple, irrefutable fact.

Ya' sure?...

Yes.

And I'm pretty sure you didn't understand the words I used, particularly the one that's spelt "developed".

[harrybarracuda]

Your solution is not a viable one especially when it comes to mental health. The HIPPA laws will prevent the public, other than that individual's physician, from knowing if a particular citizen of the US is mentally impaired. Do you even know what HIPPA is, or means?

Do you understand what "LAWMAKERS" do for a living?

[chassamui]

I figured you respond with that.
It is comforting to know that HIPPA laws and regulations are just that; regulations. They are not written in stone, and as they were created to keep private medical information private and safe, they can be ammended to accomodate the safety needs of society.
Simple, really.

No need to change the law, Why do people like Mr Schoppers have to use arcane laws to support a bone institution when it can be used against it?

Simple really, if you want to own a gun, you sign a waiver. No waver no gun. Ask a citizen which is more important to them, medical privacy or gun ownership?

This is an excuse for not doing something when you stake your entire argument on it. It sometimes takes an outsider to see through the fog of self justified reasoning.