LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

NRA and Florida gag pediatricians: no more firearm safety advice for parents

JenAltArmy said:
I think its bull shit that a DR would ask the question, do you or anyone in your family own a gun. this is bullshit
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Then you should choose a different doctor. Are you for or against the state interfering in this matter?
 
Peregrinator said:
Depends on who they pass it to.
Click to expand...


But Perg, if you work in my office, and you bring your child in today, and I'm not on staff today, my co-workers are to remain mute about the visit to me. Even though we are co-workers. It is a privacy violation.
Further, even my own records are off limits unless I fill out the appropriate paperwork. Either (and so much more) of the above is grounds for immediate dismissal. No questions asked, no second chances.

So again I ask. Why was this bill deemed necessary? Is there more to it than meets the eye?
 
Bidin~Time said:
But Perg, if you work in my office, and you bring your child in today, and I'm not on staff today, my co-workers are to remain mute about the visit to me. Even though we are co-workers. It is a privacy violation.
Further, even my own records are off limits unless I fill out the appropriate paperwork. Either (and so much more) of the above is grounds for immediate dismissal. No questions asked, no second chances.

So again I ask. Why was this bill deemed necessary? Is there more to it than meets the eye?
Click to expand...

Yes, an ant-gun group wants the freedom to pry into who has guns.
 
Bidin~Time said:
But Perg, if you work in my office, and you bring your child in today, and I'm not on staff today, my co-workers are to remain mute about the visit to me. Even though we are co-workers. It is a privacy violation.
Further, even my own records are off limits unless I fill out the appropriate paperwork. Either (and so much more) of the above is grounds for immediate dismissal. No questions asked, no second chances.

So again I ask. Why was this bill deemed necessary? Is there more to it than meets the eye?
Click to expand...
I think it was probably a paranoid "They're coming to take my guns" reaction to the AMA or some similar group saying that guns in the home are dangerous to children. It's more than likely pushback from some aggressive stance on their part. I think it seriously overreaches, though, and the hypocrisy of the libertarians in here who are willing to use the state as a bludgeon is astonishing.
JenAltArmy said:
the state has no right to ask. just like our founders, the less government we have the better!
Click to expand...

I agree. The state should have no knowledge or influence into conversations between doctors and patients. This law is as statist as it gets.
 
CrackerjackHrt said:
If I don't want a doctor to ask about or lecture about firearms, can't I just find another? That is the free market solution.

If I am a doctor and I don't want to see patients who use firearms, irrational as that may seem, shouldn't I be free to not do so?
Click to expand...
If you're a doctor and you don't want to see patients who are members of a particular political party or who adhere to a particular religion, or who dance in rainstorms or keep bees, irrational as that might seem, should you be free to not do so?

The State defines licensing requirements for medical practitioners. If you don't want to adhere to them, you're free to find another profession. How's that for a free market solution?
 
vetteman said:
I've read all I need to know about your fucked up "case" about government corruption and misuse of power.

Getting your dumb ass skewered by "justice tweedledumb" says a lot about your fucked up debating skills, which consists primarily of avoiding the question. I don't think I'll be wasting much more time on your disingenuous bullshit.
Click to expand...

you've never skewered my ass. you simply declare that you won.

speaking of avoiding the question, though, want to revisit perg's crickets in the other thread?

here's a cheat sheet for you, justice tweedledumb. :)

http://www.nlrb.gov/node/443
 
Byron In Exile said:
If you're a doctor and you don't want to see patients who are members of a particular political party or who adhere to a particular religion, or who dance in rainstorms or keep bees, irrational as that might seem, should you be free to not do so?

The State defines licensing requirements for medical practitioners. If you don't want to adhere to them, you're free to find another profession. How's that for a free market solution?
Click to expand...

Yes.


Fine.
 
Byron In Exile said:
If you're a doctor and you don't want to see patients who are members of a particular political party or who adhere to a particular religion, or who dance in rainstorms or keep bees, irrational as that might seem, should you be free to not do so?

The State defines licensing requirements for medical practitioners. If you don't want to adhere to them, you're free to find another profession. How's that for a free market solution?
Click to expand...

hey, i'm all for big government regulation of professions.

no skin off my back.

it's curious to see all the small government folks with twisted knickers, though.
 
CrackerjackHrt said:
hey, i'm all for big government regulation of professions.

no skin off my back.

it's curious to see all the small government folks with twisted knickers, though.
Click to expand...

the last thing we need in this country is big government. regulation is never a good thing
 
koalabear said:
Yes, an ant-gun group wants the freedom to pry into who has guns.
Click to expand...

But to be able to do so, would require a complete revamping if HIPAA. Under which, BTW, has been extended in scope to be able to hold not just the facility liable but an errant employee, criminally liable for infractions. Based upon this, and assuming the coming healthcare laws remain constant with the regulations of today, I'm not sure how this could happen. Ok, I can, but I refuse to put on my conspiracy theorists garb today.

Peregrinator said:
I think it was probably a paranoid "They're coming to take my guns" reaction to the AMA or some similar group saying that guns in the home are dangerous to children. It's more than likely pushback from some aggressive stance on their part. I think it seriously overreaches, though, and the hypocrisy of the libertarians in here who are willing to use the state as a bludgeon is astonishing.


I agree. The state should have no knowledge or influence into conversations between doctors and patients. This law is as statist as it gets.
Click to expand...

I really think people are giving doctors too much credit for giving a shit, myself. But I may be jaded, or naive, depending upon viewpoint.

How are the Lit libertarians guilty of using the state as a bludgeon? Do you mean they applaud the bill? or do you mean they don't? in the case of the latter, how would that constitute using the state as a bludgeon?

Gawd you people confuse me. . .
 
Bidin~Time said:
But to be able to do so, would require a complete revamping if HIPAA. Under which, BTW, has been extended in scope to be able to hold not just the facility liable but an errant employee, criminally liable for infractions. Based upon this, and assuming the coming healthcare laws remain constant with the regulations of today, I'm not sure how this could happen. Ok, I can, but I refuse to put on my conspiracy theorists garb today.



I really think people are giving doctors too much credit for giving a shit, myself. But I may be jaded, or naive, depending upon viewpoint.

How are the Lit libertarians guilty of using the state as a bludgeon? Do you mean they applaud the bill? or do you mean they don't? in the case of the latter, how would that constitute using the state as a bludgeon?

Gawd you people confuse me. . .
Click to expand...

What people? I think the law is an abomination, personally. The state is a big enough pain in the ass to me at my own level of medical practice. I am gratified by the exception for EMT's and paramedics, though. Nice to know if someone has a bunch of firearms in the house before I go in there.

Our resident right wingers are in here applauding the law, which is the state regulating what doctors can and cannot say to their patients. The libertarian crowd here has always referred to the rule of law with such language as "using the state as a bludgeon," "taking your money at the point of a gun (translation='taxes')," "tyranny of the majority," etc, etc. What's making some of us chuckle is that they're advocating the very "statist interventionist" stance they usually revile in the strongest terms.
 
Last edited:
Byron In Exile said:
You seriously don't see how your answers conflict?

Or that your first is an endorsement of discrimination?
Click to expand...

The first is an endorsement of the freedom to choose customers.

Your second is akin to saying "The state is already involved; why not let it have even more power? You don't like it, get a different job." I'd rather limit its power.

Also, licensure is controlled by a licensing body, not directly from the state house. How about we let doctors decide what doctors do?
 
JenAltArmy said:
when have I ever said that we need more government?

in this post, I said that it is none of the Dr's business as to who owns a gun
Click to expand...

You appear to be supporting a law governing what doctors can discuss with their patients.
 
Peregrinator said:
What people? I think the law is an abomination, personally. The state is a big enough pain in the ass to me in my own level of medical practice. I am gratified by the exception for EMT's and paramedics, though. Nice to know if someone has a bunch of firearms in the house before I go in there.

Our resident right wingers are in here applauding the law, which is the state regulating what doctors can and cannot say to their patients. The libertarian crowd here has always referred to the rule of law with such language as "using the state as a bludgeon," "taking your money at the point of a gun (translation='taxes')," "tyranny of the majority," etc, etc. What's making some of us chuckle is that they're advocating the very "statist interventionist" stance they usually revile in the strongest terms.
Click to expand...

If, you, as an EMT or Paramedic, go out on a call in which guns may be an issue, don't you know about it already?

I didn't see their remarks as applauding the law, except maybe tongue in cheek. i will concede in advance that I have not read the whole thread; and unless I have some break in my usual stubborn persona, i will not read the whole thread. There's just too large a ratio of name-calling posts to thoughtful posts to wade through the previously posted mess.

I personally think there are a multitude of issues where the government just needs to keep there gib completely out. doctor/patient relationships are among them, but not the least of them.
 
Last edited:
EllieTalbot said:
Weren't you just insisting the other day that you don't pay attention American politics?

Oh, wait. Never mind. I forgot for a moment that you never get sick of making as ass out of yourself.

Unimpressed in Uzbekistan,
Ellie
Click to expand...

No, I said I spend a minuscule amount of time taking notice of American politics. I find the analysis of simplistic tribalism really doesn't take up a lot of my processing power. Perhaps if you spent less time on retarded gimmicks and more time reading, little things like that wouldn't slip by you.

And pointing out the righties' hypocrisy on what is clearly a first amendment issue is making an ass out of me?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top