continuing proofs America is wacko [3]

It's actually a legal requirement for buying a gun from a shop- David

{{What about at a gun show? Or online? Or from a neighbour?

'many gun owners support it.'


{{I struggle to see why that isn't 'ALL gun owners'?! }}

'hose are medical records and they're confidential here'

{{Same here- our medical records are not on public record- they are private data, protected by the data protection act. There are very strict rules about who can see them and they have to have a good why and usually either a court order from a judge, or in the case of legislation such as gun law, it gives the police the legal right to access of specific information pertinent to the law.
I dont see why the same cant be done in the US whilst protecting medical records from public scrutiny. }}

So every time some one tries to buy a gun they need a court order to release medical records?

{{{{No. Every time someone wants a license to own a gun the law gives the police the right to ask their GP for that information as part of the application process. But its still private protected data- the police cant give it out either, no more than a GP can, and they can only use it as far as its pertinent to gun law. And then the police inform the GP once a license is given- so that the GP knows their patient own a gun and can report any behaviour or illness that might be of concern afterwards through the same channels. }}}

I'm not an expert, but I think that would require a complete rewriting of our civil liberties laws.

{{But surely in the US whenever you change health insurance you need to provide them with your medical history?- if you are happy to give unscrupulous private enterprises your private details why would you be hesitant for legal authorities like the Police to be able to when its relevant and for the safe-guarding of all society in general?
And I assume that when you apply for what passes for social security help in the US- Medicare or whatever you need to give over private information too do you not? }}

I see you don't understand the sometimes paranoid fear of government knowledge here. Even if seen as currently benevolent it apparently can morph into a malevolent big brother at the drop of a hat.

{{yeah well if Americans think its ok to give their info to private enterprises who will sell it for a dime at the first opportunity, rather than those authorised with court scrutiny and who are accountable and who need the information to better safeguard the populace- then I fear we are right back at the title of this thread! You lot are wacko! Just keep handing the guns out to anyone that wants them- I'm sure you wont have any more gun massacres ever!}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{But surely in the US whenever you change health insurance you need to provide them with your medical history?}}

I'm not sure how that would work. I know when you go to another doctor, a specialist for example, there's a whole lot of authorization paperwork to allow the second doctor to see your records from the first doctor, even if they're two doors down and play golf together. Often it's easier for everybody if you ask for a copy of your file yourself, then carry it over and hand it directly to the second doctor. Because of this, many of us don't have a single medical history anywhere. Instead we have dozens of individual folders in a dozen different offices, each on different forms in different handwritten notations. I know that's what my medical history looks like.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:yeah well if Americans think its ok to give their info to private enterprises who will sell it for a dime at the first opportunity

Merely being careless with people's health care information is illegal under HIPAA, and selling such information is punishable by fines of up to $250,000 and up to 10 years in federal prison. (And people do get convicted under this law so it's not just there for show.)

https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/hipaa-violations-enforcement

{{{ Well if that the case why cant the information be protected the same way so the police can know it before granting a gun license?!!! What the hells the problem then?!! }}}}

Governments can operate above the law....at least that's the impression if your system is predicated upon mistrust of government, as nearly all gun laws are.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{{ Well if that the case why cant the information be protected the same way so the police can know it before granting a gun license?!!! What the hells the problem then?!!   }}}}

Background checks are generally done by the FBI, which maintains a national database that does indeed include mental health information about people who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health institution (not including those held for observation), have been found incompetent to stand trial, have been found not guilty by reason of insanity (in some states this is called "guilty but insane") in a criminal trial, have been placed under guardianship due to mental incompetency, or have been deemed a danger to themselves or others by a court. There have been recent moves to increase the number of reasons why people might be added to the database (eg, those directed by a court to seek outpatient treatment). However, this database relies on reporting by the states, not all of which participate, and as you alluded to above not all gun sales are legally required to have a background check performed first.

http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/mental-health-reporting/

Eldorion wrote: However, this database relies on reporting by the states, not all of which participate, and as you alluded to above not all gun sales are legally required to have a background check performed first.

http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/mental-health-reporting/

Nor are all gun sales legal by any means. There's an argument that goes that the more restrictive you make the legal process the more the grey market and black market will pick up the slack. Not sure I totally believe this, but I know of a healthy grey market in guns. Just like the marijuana industry. Our state legalized it but mostly for the high dollar customers.  But the grey market is still coexisting nicely, mostly because of lower cost and less paper trail.  In practice it's not so easy to shut down grey markets as you might think, especially in rural areas with very little policing.

Here's a good quote for you to help understand a small but still significant segment of the American population, Petty:

These purist Obamacare haters are a minority, but they are an insistent and provocative one. The mere whiff of socialized medicine has a strange effect on some Americans. Since 2009, when a New Hampshire man showed up outside an Obama town hall health care event with a weapon strapped to his leg, and then when dozens more armed men protested another Obama health care town hall in Phoenix, it has been clear that this particular policy issue makes people crazy.

The AR-15s and ankle-holstered Glocks outside the 2009 town halls signaled a visceral connection between opposition to gun control and to public health care, with its menacing government caches of personal information and patient data. At the time, Larry Pratt, director of Gun Owners of America, connected the dots: “If this becomes law, there’s no place to escape” if the government wanted to use federal medical records to deem citizens “medically unfit” to carry a gun, says Mr. Pratt. “No trial, no due process—just gone.”

http://www.newsweek.com/who-wants-rid-obamacare-541678?rx=us

This maybe should go in the election thread, but I think it's broader than that and the election is over. Republicans obstructed Obamacare when it first came out, so we ended up with a plan quite a bit creakier than we deserved. Now they want to rush repealing it before having anything ready to replace, so what we end up with can't help but be a total mess. It would help a lot if Trump wasn't pushing for instant action. Thanks, folks.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-01-13/gop-leaders-say-obamacare-repeal-bid-to-advance-despite-jitters?cmpid=yhoo.headline&yptr=yahoo

GOP Leaders Say Obamacare Repeal Bid to Advance Despite Jitters
by Billy House
January 13, 2017, 5:00 AM EST
Rank-and-file Republicans fret about lack of replacement plan

House leaders predict the chamber will approve a measure Friday to enable a swift repeal of Obamacare, but their confidence belies the deep confusion and skepticism among Republicans about the risky path to enacting a replacement.

“This is the first of several steps that we will be taking to deliver relief to Americans who are struggling under this law,” House Speaker Paul Ryan told reporters Thursday.

There were still some doubts Thursday evening about whether the measure would advance, with several Republicans saying they intended to oppose the budget resolution, legislation that allows a repeal bill to evade a filibuster in the Senate. With all Democrats likely to oppose the measure, Republicans can afford to lose fewer than two dozen Republicans.

But the narrow 51-48 Senate vote to adopt the budget resolution early Thursday morning intensified the pressure on House Republican holdouts to begin delivering on something the party has been promising for the past seven years.

“We spent 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016 talking about ‘repeal and replace.’ So, no one really wants to stop the momentum on that,” Representative Warren Davidson of Ohio said Thursday.

Trump Pressure

President-elect Donald Trump has also put added pressure on Republicans to act swiftly, although his pronouncements have scrambled GOP leaders’ plans to delay a replacement for as long as two or three years. Trump this week called for a replacement to occur "simultaneously, essentially," prompting Ryan to insist that congressional leaders are “in sync” with Trump.

Davidson may end up voting for the resolution, but he says he still has concerns about "the way we’re being forced to go about this," since they have yet to lay out any specifics about their replacement plan. Even so, he said he is confident that, ultimately, "we are going to land a good replacement plan."

Not all House Republicans agree. Some conservatives, including Representative Tom Massie of Kentucky, say they will vote against the resolution Friday, echoing fiscal concerns that had been voiced by Senator Rand Paul. They are unhappy that the underlying budget envisions adding trillions of dollars to the deficit in the next decade, even though leaders insist the numbers are just placeholders.

Others, including Representative Dave Brat of Virginia, question why Ryan and other Republican leaders haven’t provided a "fuller" description of what the replacement plan will be -- and how it will improve the deficit.

Budget Chairman Diane Black of Tennessee on Thursday presented various potential replacement plans during a Rules Committee meeting, but members haven’t coalesced around any of them.

‘Parallel Tracks’

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows of North Carolina wouldn’t say how many of the group’s members will oppose the bill, or whether he will. But he has been lobbied heavily by Republican leaders.

"What I’ve been told is there will be a replacement bill plan that gets voted on at the same time we vote on repeal -- by same time, plus or minus a week or so," he said. "So, that would mean they are going on parallel tracks, not necessarily the same vehicle, but on two separate vehicles, it appears." That likely means some of the plan will be outside of the reconciliation bill, and could face a filibuster in the Senate.
He said he believes a repeal could still happen in February, but that it could also bleed over into March.

"Do I believe we can get consensus in the Senate? Not very optimistic that we could get 60 votes in the Senate," he said.

Among the questions Republicans are struggling to resolve are how to treat states that expanded Medicaid under Obamacare and whether to immediately repeal all of the Obamacare taxes or keep some of them in place for now to ensure funding for a robust replacement

"The American people are saying, slow down and let’s figure out what’s going on here," said Brat.

‘What’s the Rush?’

"What’s the rush?" said Representative Glenn Thompson of Pennsylvania.

Adding to the angst is the conflicting language used by Ryan and other leaders to explain the strategy.

In his press conference Thursday, Ryan said Republicans are trying to "deliver relief as soon as possible" for a system that is "collapsing." At the same time, he said he envisioned "a thoughtful, step-by-step process."

"That’s going to take time," he added.

And while Ryan promised work on the replacement plan will be a "bottom-up" process using congressional committees, he also said much can be accomplished through executive action by the incoming Trump administration.

Tom Price, the president-elect’s pick to run the Health and Human Services Department, faces a hearing next week in front of the Senate’s health committee, although the key hearing for his confirmation hasn’t yet been scheduled. His confirmation could be delayed well into February.

Democrats, meanwhile, are lining up against the GOP tactics. Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts says that by moving forward without telling members what their replacement plan is, Republican leaders are "running the House of Representatives like a Kremlin." He joked that "the plan is to take two tax breaks and call me in the morning."

"Quite frankly I am disappointed in some Republicans who said they did not want to repeal until they see a replacement," McGovern said. "Apparently they are caving, and, you know, that is tantamount to being a cheap date."

Yeah, they rushed O-care through without reading all 1,000 plus pages in it. "We have to pass it to find out what's in it." I think that's what Pelosi said. They need to get something in place before taking actions that can't be reversed.

Yep, the original wasn't done well and was a ramrod job. I was hoping the fix could be done better, but doesn't look like it. Damn broken politics.

{{{Looking from the outside many of the issues the Republicans complain about Obamcare for seem to me to stem from things the Republicans originally blocked in the law in the watering down process.
I have no idea what Trumps actual position is- the one and only unequivocal clear statement on Health I can recall Trump making was in the very first Republican debate where he cited the Scottish NHS as something which seems 'to work well'. Well our NHS is even more 'socialist' from a US pov than the English version is!

But looks to me like the Republicans are running into the same problem the Tories here have. Ideologically they oppose socialised health care and favour private companies and investment- but to say so publicly is electoral suicide because you are taking away something people already have. In the UK the people who you'd be taking away from would be everyone- so its a nonstarter.

So instead what has happened is that the English NHS has been privitised in bits from the sidelines- private/public partnerships to build hospitals, farming cleaning services and cooking ect out to private tender. That sort of thing.

The result in England however appears to be disastrous to the fabric of the NHS- with it at the moment struggling very badly and with bodies like the Red Cross describing the situation in some English hospital trusts as a 'humanitarian disaster.'
Whilst the Scottish NHS is not without issues it is however performing significantly better than its English counterpart and is getting better all the time. The reason? Its all one body, it can coordinate between creating trauma centres (four new ones in major cities) that elevate accident emergency and increase survival chances and at the other end connection to social services to guarantee at risk patients can be cared for in the community and so remove the pressure on beds.

What the Republican seem to be trying to propose is something along the Tory model- some tax funded cover to keep some of the obamacare provisions that are popular and private sector to do the rest. I dont fancy your chances going on what the Tories have done by applying right wing market logic to a socialised health care program. }}}

Here's where I'm hoping that Trump, who is not truly Democrat or Republican, will actually DO something rather than just spout off. He has a chance to make a difference by putting together a well-crafted plan that Republicans wouldn't accept from anyone else, and that Democrats will likely go along with if it has some basic precepts.

But we haven't heard anything from the Trump team. As soon as the election was over he should have locked a committee in a room to draft legislation. Never happened. This is a wasted opportunity.

http://www.teenvogue.com/story/donald-trump-is-gaslighting-america

From CNN.

It's a paradox for the gun industry: Their pick for president, Donald Trump, is no good for gun sales.

President Barack Obama was the greatest gun salesman in America -- until Hillary Clinton ran to replace him. Sales soared to records because gun owners feared they would impose tougher gun restrictions.

Now that a Republican endorsed by the National Rifle Association is in the White House, those supposed villains have disappeared. Sales of guns and ammo are falling, right along with the stocks of gun makers.

"I think the entire gun industry was planning on, and I think the entire country was thinking, that Hillary was going to win," Brian Skinner, the CEO of Kalashnikov USA, said in a recent interview with CNNMoney.

"And I know there was huge demand, all the manufacturers had huge orders, and then the day after the election, distributors were canceling orders left and right just because they realized Trump's coming in now."

Since Election Day, the two publicly traded gun manufacturers -- Sturm Ruger (RGR) and the former Smith & Wesson, which rebranded itself as American Outdoor Brand (AOBC) -- have suffered declines of more than 20% in their stock prices.
Background checks, which are conducted by the FBI for most gun purchases, dropped by 20% in January compared with a year earlier. And they were down 16% in December. Background checks do not precisely track gun sales, but they serve as the closest nationwide proxy.

Background checks do not precisely track gun sales, but they serve as the closest nationwide proxy. Ammunition sales are down, too.

Demand was so strong in recent years that manufacturers couldn't keep up, helping to boost imports to record levels last year. But Olin (OLN), the conglomerate that owns Winchester Ammunition, reported Wednesday that ammo sales plunged 20% in the fourth quarter last year compared with the quarter before. That reflects a buildup in the months leading up to the election, followed by a drop.

"I think people are going to slow down and the industry as a whole is going to adjust," Skinner said from Kalashnikov USA's sleek white booth at the SHOT Show, the annual gun industry conference in Las Vegas. "Some of them are going to die off because the demand is not going to be like they thought it was going to be the next four years."

Donald Trump is the NRA's chosen one. So why are gun stocks falling now that he's president?

The past eight years will be a hard act to follow for the gun industry.
Gun production more than doubled during Obama's tenure in the White House, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. And the FBI conducted more than 27 million background checks in 2016, breaking the previous year's record.

The end of the spike in "political sales" weighs heavily on the industry, said Robert Spitzer, a political science professor at the State University of New York and the author of the book "Guns Across America."

Because of Trump's election, "there is no political incentive to buy guns, and, as a consequence, we've seen a drop in gun sales," he said, projecting that "gun sales will be flat" going forward, as the manufacturers and retailers are now "a victim of their success."

Gun makers Vista Outdoor and Sig Sauer recently branched into ammo production, prompted by the boom in demand the last few years. It's a way of hedging their production: Ammo sales might be slowing, but at least bullets are products that get used up and replenished.

Guns, of course, last for years or generations. So gun makers and sellers must rely on collectors who buy more than one gun, and newly minted enthusiasts buying guns for the first time. The bad news for manufacturers is that there's already a stockpile of inventory.

"The landscape of the gun industry has changed dramatically," said Louis Frutuoso, owner of Standard Manufacturing, a gun manufacturer in New Britain, Connecticut. "All the gun manufacturers were essentially hedging their bets on Hillary getting in. To that end, all the gun manufacturers produced and produced and produced a lot of guns."

Frutuoso makes the DP-12, an unusual pump-action double-barrel shotgun that reporters were lining up to shoot at the SHOT Show's desert range in Boulder City. He also makes AR-15s, military-style rifles whose sales spiked because of fears that Clinton would impose an assault weapon ban, as Obama tried and failed to do. Frutuoso said this resulted in an inventory glut at warehouses and gun shops.
"President Trump won the election, and now people aren't compelled to purchase firearms because now it's a pro-gun kind of government," he said, over the boom of the DP-12 being fired nearby. "There's going to be a lot of guns in the pipe for a great long period, simply because of the course of events leading to this."

{{I think Kelly-anne Conway is either insane or just going slowly mad. Now as well as alternative facts we also seem to have alternative history, or maybe alternative events in alternative dimensions only known to Trump and his followers.

In an MSBN interview she tried to excuse Trumps ban by bringing up Obamas ban on Iraq's for six months (though it only affected new applicants in that time period, not existing card holders or those in the process) saying the following-

“President Obama had a six-month ban on the Iraqi refugee program after two Iraqis came here to this country, were radicalized, and they were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green* massacre,” Conway said. “Most people don’t know that because it didn’t get covered.”

Except there was no Bowling Green massacre. The two men were caught and convicted of trying to buy weapons in the US and send them back to terrorist cell sin Iraq- they weren't planning anything in the US let alone a massacre. And the actual true story- them being caught, convicted was in the press- it wasn't a huge story because it wasn't a huge story. They never actually managed to do anything at all except get caught.

Of course this 'alternative history' was picked up on and Conway responded in Trump admin fashion via Twitter to clarify, claiming-

'On @hardball @NBCNews @MSNBC I meant to say "Bowling Green terrorists" '

Um problem is if she meant to say terrorists then the sentence she meant to say makes no sense whatsoever. The Bowling Green terrorists are the two Iraq's- if you make the correction for her and change the 'slip' from massacre it reads-

'“President Obama had a six-month ban on the Iraqi refugee program after two Iraqis came here to this country, were radicalized, and they were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green terrorists,” Conway said. “Most people don’t know that because it didn’t get covered.”

In that sentence the masterminds behind the two terrorists, are the two terrorists! They would have to be masterminding themselves! From behind! Its insane none of it makes any sense- and the true events were covered- which means the end statement makes no connective sense with the opening if you change the word massacre, she just spews words she thinks will solve the dilemma she faces in the interview in that moment, them being true or even based in reality doesn't seem to matter- anything it seems will do, even gibberish!



* For Brits, as it momentarily confused me I should point out that ridiculously enough, and with the usual American cavalier attitude to what things actually mean- see gas for petrol- gas is not a liquid America!!!- Bowling Green is, against all probability the name of an actual place in America, not as you may have otherwise thought from the actual words a green on which bowls is played! Bloody yanks   Bad enough they couldn't think up their own place names without reusing just about every town and city in the UK first but they also name towns and cities after bowling greens too!    I mean would you call a town Bowling Alley? You probably have haven't you?    
}}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{ Bloody yanks   Bad enough they couldn't think up their own place names without reusing just about every town and city in the UK first    
}}}

Not true. There are long lists of UK place names that we've never been tempted to use, like Brokenwind, Twatt, Shitterton... need I continue?

Whats wrong with Shitterton ? How about these doozies as well ..........
Bell End....   Worcestershire
Brown Willy...  Cornwall
Nob End....   Lancashire
Scratchy Bottom..... Dorset,
Boggy Bottom, Minge Lane, Fanny Barks ( I kid you not,) Crotch Crescent in Oxford... ( I can produce photo's ! )
Oh the list is a long & winding road  What a lurid sense of humour us Brits have, & no doubt the Scots, Irish & Welsh too !

http://www.anglotopia.net/ultimate-list-of-funny-british-place-names/

And then we have oddly weird & yet sometimes sweet names for places Honestly, what are we like

http://mentalfloss.com/article/69445/43-charmingly-odd-british-town-names

http://britainexplorer.com/funny-place-names/

azriel wrote:Whats wrong with Shitterton ? How about these doozies as well ..........
Bell End....   Worcestershire
Brown Willy...  Cornwall
Nob End....   Lancashire
Scratchy Bottom..... Dorset,
Boggy Bottom, Minge Lane, Fanny Barks ( I kid you not,) Crotch Crescent in Oxford... ( I can produce photo's ! )
Oh the list is a long & winding road  What a lurid sense of humour us Brits have, & no doubt the Scots, Irish & Welsh too !

http://www.anglotopia.net/ultimate-list-of-funny-british-place-names/

And then we have oddly weird & yet sometimes sweet names for places Honestly, what are we like

http://mentalfloss.com/article/69445/43-charmingly-odd-british-town-names

http://britainexplorer.com/funny-place-names/

love it. Fanny Barks!