Just read this on Fox News

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/19/florida-doctors-can-ask-patients-about-guns-court-rules.html

Hmmmm well no problem. Just tell your doctor what I told mine when she asked about a year ago....

"None of your business, understand"

Subject was closed immediately and the rest of the vist went on as usual... 

Just read this on Fox News

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/19/florida-doctors-can-ask-patients-about-guns-court-rules.html

Hmmmm well no problem. Just tell your doctor what I told mine when she asked about a year ago....

"None of your business, understand"

Subject was closed immediately and the rest of the vist went on as usual... 

None of mine ever asked. 

I will answer, "Does that have any bearing on my health or the purpose of my visit today?"

If they can't justify the question beyond, "We were told to ask," or "It's on the list of questions," then no answer is required.

The government is taking great pains to paint gun ownership as a health-related issue so they can backdoor the second amendment.

I take two glocks every morning for health and vitality.

The government is taking great pains to paint gun ownership as a health-related issue so they can backdoor the second amendment.

As U. S. Attorney Eric Holder explained in 1995,  there needs to be a public campaign to "really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way."

Holder was addressing the Woman's National Democratic Club. In his remarks, broadcast by CSPAN 2, he explained that he intended to use anti-smoking campaigns as his model to "change the hearts and minds of people in Washington, DC" about guns.

"What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that's not cool, that it's not acceptable, it's not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we changed our attitudes about cigarettes."

Not possessing guns can also be detrimental to health.

Looking forward to medical practitioners who will advise their patients: "Now, let's talk about firearms. Has anyone mentioned to you how important they are to your well-being?"

(Yeah right).

Not possessing guns can also be detrimental to health.

Looking forward to medical practitioners who will advise their patients: "Now, let's talk about firearms. Has anyone mentioned to you how important they are to your well-being?"

(Yeah right).

There ARE some doctors who are educated on the issues and thus advocates for firearm ownership, or at least the freedom to choose to be an owner of a firearm.

https://drgo.us/

We were asked during physicals for our young boys. We were prepared for it and just said no, and moved on.

There is a good reason for the question. The healthcare provider is often dealing with reasonable people like us, but also the lowest common denominators at times. Some people they see may have guns in the house, and simply have never thought about a youngster gaining access to it. Just like when they ask the question about how much TV your kid watches. Some people have no idea that it's bad to let the TV babysit all day while you smoke, Facebook, and eat bon bons. 

Of course, now that the gov't is all over healthcare, I'm sure there's a way for them to get a hold of the electronic records to see which way you answered.   

My kid's pediatrician asked about guns. When I said yes she gave a short spiel about safe storage, etc. I am going to steer clear of the government conspiracy train for now.

This was a stupid lawsuit to begin with, to suggest that doctors could legally be prevented from asking such a question is ridiculous.

My kid's pediatrician asked about guns. When I said yes she gave a short spiel about safe storage, etc. I am going to steer clear of the government conspiracy train for now.

This was a stupid lawsuit to begin with, to suggest that doctors could legally be prevented from asking such a question is ridiculous.

Do you also answer general health questions at the gun shop when buying a gun, too? 

Are you over-weight?
Do you smoke?
How often do you exercise?
Have you ever been diagnosed with HIV, Hepatitis, or any STD?

I mean, if the doctor has no expertise in guns or gun safety (evidenced by having to read you a general safety "lecture"), then the gun store should also be allowed to ask medical questions and offer general advise from flash cards.

I don't go to my doctor for gun safety training, because they are not trained or experienced enough to analyze my situation and provide tailored advice and answer specific questions I might have.  Same reason I don't ask OGC for training on preventing, identifying or treating diseases.

It's not a conspiracy theory (favorite label of the Left to dismiss concerns of government overreach).  It's about giving personal, private information to the people who do not need it and who do not have the training to properly advise you in those areas.  We live in a world where the more information you allow to be stored in one place, the greater the chance the information can be abused or stolen. 

Do you also answer general health questions at the gun shop when buying a gun, too? 

Are you over-weight?
Do you smoke?
How often do you exercise?
Have you ever been diagnosed with HIV, Hepatitis, or any STD?

I mean, if the doctor has no expertise in guns or gun safety (evidenced by having to read you a general safety "lecture"), then the gun store should also be allowed to ask medical questions and offer general advise from flash cards.

I don't go to my doctor for gun safety training, because they are not trained or experienced enough to analyze my situation and provide tailored advice and answer specific questions I might have.  Same reason I don't ask OGC for training on preventing, identifying or treating diseases.

It's not a conspiracy theory (favorite label of the Left to dismiss concerns of government overreach).  It's about giving personal, private information to the people who do not need it and who do not have the training to properly advise you in those areas.  We live in a world where the more information you allow to be stored in one place, the greater the chance the information can be abused or stolen.

Doctors ask because enough kids die from unsecured guns. Pediatricians are doctors for children. Getting shot ends up being an issue involving doctors. Do I have to spell it out for you or can you get it through your thick skull yet?

If you don't want to answer then don't, no one is forcing you to do so.

Doctors ask because enough kids die from unsecured guns. Pediatricians are doctors for children. Getting shot ends up being an issue involving doctors. Do I have to spell it out for you or can you get it through your thick skull yet?

If you don't want to answer then don't, no one is forcing you to do so.

I'll ignore your attempt to be offensive and insulting. 

ONCE AGAIN ..... Doctors are not experts in the storage or use of firearms by trade.  Saying they see the aftermath, which gives them some special right to be involved in something they are not qualified to do, is ridiculous.

Cops see the effects of drug abuse daily.  Does that give them the right to randomly stop your kids on the street and question them about any drugs they might be carrying or abusing without probable cause? 

I'll ignore your attempt to be offensive and insulting. 

ONCE AGAIN ..... Doctors are not experts in the storage or use of firearms by trade.  Saying they see the aftermath, which gives them some special right to be involved in something they are not qualified to do, is ridiculous.

Cops see the effects of drug abuse daily.  Does that give them the right to randomly stop your kids on the street and question them about any drugs they might be carrying or abusing without probable cause?

The freedom of speech gives them the right to ask about firearms. The freedom of speech gives you the right to refuse to answer.

Regardless, one does not need to be an expert to remind a parent about the danger of an unsecured firearm. They don't need to be a driving instructor to tell you not to drink and drive, they don't need to be a chemist to tell you to lock up your anti-freeze, etc etc.

The freedom of speech gives them the right to ask about firearms. The freedom of speech gives you the right to refuse to answer.

Regardless, one does not need to be an expert to remind a parent about the danger of an unsecured firearm. They don't need to be a driving instructor to tell you not to drink and drive, they don't need to be a chemist to tell you to lock up your anti-freeze, etc etc.

Once again, you still don't get it .....

The doctor can SAY anything the doctor wants.  For example, "If you ever decide to buy a gun, here is a list of safety tips which are also on our website.  We want to make this available to all our parents, both current gun owners and those who might be friends with gun owners.  You should make sure your child is safe even when visiting their friends homes."

Nothing wrong with that.

"Mr. Fish, do you, or does anyone else in your home, own, possess, or in any way have access to firearms stored there?"  That is specific information that's not necessary for your doctors to collect.

Once again, you still don't get it .....

The doctor can SAY anything the doctor wants.  For example, "If you ever decide to buy a gun, here is a list of safety tips which are also on our website.  We want to make this available to all our parents, both current gun owners and those who might be friends with gun owners.  You should make sure your child is safe even when visiting their friends homes."

Nothing wrong with that.

"Mr. Fish, do you, or does anyone else in your home, own, possess, or in any way have access to firearms stored there?"  That is specific information that's not necessary for your doctors to collect.

Fine, don't answer then.

Also, you are assuming that they collect data, as opposed to merely using your answer in guide their next set of comments.

If there is evidence that they are reporting numbers to the government then by all means don't answer. If you are paranoid that they might be collecting data for the government then don't answer. But bottom line is the doctor is free to ask and comment based on the answer. You can try to dictate medical doctor morality if you want, I am not going to go down that topic, but bottom line is that they are free to ask and you are free to refuse to answer. There is nothing to "get" beyond that.

Fine, don't answer then.

Also, you are assuming that they collect data, as opposed to merely using your answer in guide their next set of comments.

If there is evidence that they are reporting numbers to the government then by all means don't answer. If you are paranoid that they might be collecting data for the government then don't answer. But bottom line is the doctor is free to ask and comment based on the answer. You can try to dictate medical doctor morality if you want, I am not going to go down that topic, but bottom line is that they are free to ask and you are free to refuse to answer. There is nothing to "get" beyond that.

Spoken exactly like someone who doesn't get it, and refuses to get it.

"If there is evidence?"  The evidence will be after the information is abused/misused/used against you.  Then it's too late to fix.  You can't unring tat bell.

Unless, of course, some anonymous person told you there is a process to take your information out of the records, just like RAPBACK!   

Spoken exactly like someone who doesn't get it, and refuses to get it.

"If there is evidence?"  The evidence will be after the information is abused/misused/used against you.  Then it's too late to fix.  You can't unring tat bell.

Unless, of course, some anonymous person told you there is a process to take your information out of the records, just like RAPBACK!   

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't get it. Non Sequitur.

You know what the simple solution to the hypothetical situation of doctors gathering gun data for the government? Don't answer the question. The answer is right there in front of you.

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't get it. Non Sequitur.

You know what the simple solution to the hypothetical situation of doctors gathering gun data for the government? Don't answer the question. The answer is right there in front of you.

Hypothetical?  The OP's comment says it's real, not hypothetical. 

The answer is, you trust the system -- any system -- in spite of a multitude of examples of information being stolen, leaked, sold, abused, and used against the owner of that information.

It's great you have an opinion, but the purpose of these discussions is not to win (which you seem to have an obsession over).  The purpose is to back up your opinions with real facts.  That way others reading it can make a better informed decision on who they agree with. 

Being this is Hawaii, I know there are many who agree with you, that information collected by doctors is perfectly safe.  I take the more informed approach -- that any information stored anywhere is subject to abuse and should therefore only be collected and stored if there is a specific need related to the purpose of your relationship with the collector.  In this case, the need should be healthcare.

But, you just don't get any of that.  Move along....

Hypothetical?  The OP's comment says it's real, not hypothetical. 

The answer is, you trust the system -- any system -- in spite of a multitude of examples of information being stolen, leaked, sold, abused, and used against the owner of that information.

It's great you have an opinion, but the purpose of these discussions is not to win (which you seem to have an obsession over).  The purpose is to back up your opinions with real facts.  That way others reading it can make a better informed decision on who they agree with. 

Being this is Hawaii, I know there are many who agree with you, that information collected by doctors is perfectly safe.  I take the more informed approach -- that any information stored anywhere is subject to abuse and should therefore only be collected and stored if there is a specific need related to the purpose of your relationship with the collector.  In this case, the need should be healthcare.

But, you just don't get any of that.  Move along....

There is nothing in the original article to prove or even suggest that the question is being recorded and sent to the government so yes, hypothetical.

I am backing up my opinion with facts. Specifically the 1st amendment. That is all the fact that is relevant, that is what you don't seem to get.

There is nothing in the original article to prove or even suggest that the question is being recorded and sent to the government so yes, hypothetical.

I am backing up my opinion with facts. Specifically the 1st amendment. That is all the fact that is relevant, that is what you don't seem to get.

So is the claim that the government is collecting information on every single electronic communication (as per Snowden, et al.) "hypothetical" or "a fact"?

Please outline in detail what you see as examples of speech that could legally be censored or abbreviated despite the existence of the First Amendment. And I don't care, either "subjective" or "objective", whichever side of fence you are arguing on today.

My doc should know the answer since his office has gotten all the questionnaires by HPD about me over the years.  Never did ask me anything and I wouldn't answer anyway..