NRA Celebrates "Victory" - HR 2640 Awaits President's Signature

(1) IN GENERAL- No department or agency of the Federal Government may provide to the Attorney General any record of an adjudication related to the mental health of a person or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if--

The following statement precedes the two statements. To me this says your records will not be forwarded to the Attorney General (The guy who runs nics) for the following reasons.

(B) the person has been found by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that was the basis of the adjudication or commitment, respectively, or has otherwise been found to be rehabilitated through any procedure available under law; or

I think this statement's vagueness is empowering for you. It makes it so that the state must accept any legal authority to remove your name. It doesn't say you must have a district court hearing, or a civil court hearing.

Lets switch tracks and i'll try and think of this in another light. I once heard a quote, don't read the bill and think what it can do. Look at a bill and imagine what will happen when people abuse it.

After this bill passes a big wave of psycologists get on the mentally adjudicated bandwagon. Over a 200k in people are put on the list, and lets even say most of these people aren't even dangerous. The doctors just pick and choose who goes on the list from a knee jerk reaction. So now you are sent this little note that says "Your on the list, your guns will be taken." So you rush down to the local gun store and sell/store your stuff. The sole reason people are getting put on the list is because it takes upwards of a year to get them back.

So now the burden of proof is on the other foot. You have to go before a civil court, council, whatever the state has decided to use for removing people from the list. You convince them your not crazy, or a danger to anyone and within 30 days your name is expunged from the records.

That is pretty nasty, but then again i think the domestic abuse thing is gay as well. So yes if left to abuse the state could just throw out blanket lists of patients. Its up to them to get off the list. Even with the possibility of abuse i think there is a way out. I still gotta support the bill, it ain't perfect but its vastly better than before.

Click to expand...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/12/27/mental_screening_for_young_to_begin?mode=PF

Mental screening for young to begin Mass. doctors to offer questionnaires for children on Medicaid By Carey Goldberg, Globe Staff | December 27, 2007
As of Monday, annual checkups for the nearly half a million Massachusetts children on Medicaid will carry a new requirement: Doctors must offer simple questionnaires to detect warning signs of possible mental health problems, from autism in toddlers to depression in teens.
The checklists vary by age but ask questions about children's behavior - whether they are spending more time alone, seeming to have less fun, having trouble sleeping - that are designed to trigger discussion between parents and doctors. The conversations may or may not lead to a referral to a specialist.
Over the last several years, such questionnaires have increasingly become the standard of care in pediatric practices, but - spurred by legal action - Massachusetts is jumping ahead of other states by requiring the screens for all its young Medicaid recipients.
The new requirement represents "a huge step forward in a direction that is a national trend," said Dr. Robin Adair, a University of Massachusetts Medical School pediatrician and screening specialist.
Supporters say the screening can catch issues earlier, before they develop into hard-to-manage crises.
Skeptics warn that more children could end up on heavy-duty medications that they don't really need.
"In a more perfect world, screening for mental illness amongst children would clearly be a good idea," said Dr. John Abramson, a clinical instructor at Harvard Medical School and author of "Overdosed America."
"But let's look at the realities of the world we live in," he said. "What happens is that there's a very quick translation of mental health symptoms into drug treatment."
Others wonder how Massachusetts' overburdened mental health system for children will handle the new patients the screening is expected to identify.
Already, children's psychiatrists and psychologists are often overbooked. Children with serious mental illness sometimes end up stuck in psychiatric hospitals for lack of mental health services in the community.
If, as expected, the new screening requirement turns up more children with mental health problems, "I do think it creates a potential additional access problem," said Dr. David DeMaso, chief of psychiatry at Children's Hospital Boston.
The new screening requirement stems from a lawsuit, Rosie D. v. Romney, that accused the state of falling down on its obligations to poor, mentally ill children. The federal judge in the case ruled in January 2006 that Massachusetts must improve its care, and the new requirement is the first step in the state's court-ordered remedy plan.
Families may decline the screening if they wish. If a screen turns up signs of potential trouble, it is also up to the family whether to pursue further help and an official diagnosis.
The new requirement applies to the 460,000 children and young adults covered by MassHealth, the state Medicaid program, at annual checkups from birth to age 21.
The state's private insurers generally already reimburse children's doctors for such written screens, and Medicaid will now pay $9.73 to cover the testing.
The majority of pediatricians still rely on conversational questions such as "How are you doing in school?" or "Does your child have friends?" But research shows that written questionnaires are more accurate at picking up potential problems.
The tests can also home in on children whose problems might otherwise be missed. According to national estimates, about 10 percent of children have some sort of significant psycho-social problem, from hyperactivity to anxiety to stress from living amid domestic violence.
"The earlier we intervene, the more impact we can have on brain development," DeMaso said.
The screening is not meant to produce a diagnosis, but rather to act as a "check engine light," calling attention to a potential problem, said Lisa Lambert, executive director of the Parent/Professional Advocacy League, which represents families with mentally ill children.
"If it lights up, you need to call your mechanic, find out what the problem is and if it needs to be repaired," she said.
One of the league's family support specialists, Kathy Hamelin of Fitchburg, said her own experience as the mother of an autistic son has convinced her that expanded early screening is one of the best things to come out of the Rosie D. case.
When her now 17-year-old son, Kevin, was a toddler, she said, he would scream and cry all the time, smash his head against the wall when frustrated, and flap his hands bizarrely. When she asked her pediatrician about the hand-flapping, he said, "That's nothing. That's just an excitement reflex and he'll outgrow it." In fact, she said, it is a classic autism trait. Kevin's diagnosis and treatment came only years later.
If the pediatrician had used an autism screening tool, it might have sounded an early alarm.
"Our family suffered tremendously because of this," she said, "and I just feel like if he had had early diagnosis, not only the pain and frustration we felt as overwhelmed parents would have been less, but we would have received early intervention," which "would have put him in a much better position than he is now."
As the routine screening gets underway, the state will be tracking how many children are tested and how many screens indicate a need for follow-up, said Emily Sherwood, who is overseeing the state's remedy for the Rosie D. case as director of its Children's Behavioral Health Interagency Initiatives. The state also plans to expand mental health services for children and make them more family friendly.
She said parents and clinicians may decide on a variety of responses to worrisome scores: to wait and watch a while. To handle the problems themselves. Or to seek a referral to a mental health specialist.
The screenings in doctors' offices "help us understand mental health as a part of health," she said. "It's really up to parents and primary care clinicians how they want to use this tool."
Medicaid law already requires that children be screened annually for various problems, such as hearing and vision loss, as well as for mental illness. This new requirement specifies the method of screening for mental health problems, asking clinicians to choose from among eight standard tools for the screening. Each screen is geared toward a target age; some look for specific problems, such as substance abuse and autism.
Research suggests that the screens will boost the number of children referred to mental health providers - but not overwhelmingly.
Dr. Karen Hacker, executive director of the Institute for Community Health at Cambridge Health Alliance, has used and researched mental health screening for four years, and has found that between 5 percent and 7 percent of children score high enough to cause concern. Other practices have found rates as high as 12 percent.
But, she pointed out, many of those children were already in counseling. Some families decided not to pursue further help, and of those who did, many did not show up at appointments. She has not seen a dramatic uptick in the use of psychiatric medications since the screens were added to routine care, she said, though she understands that is a cause for concern.
"We're going to have to see how this unfolds," she said.

Click to expand...

I'd say it's related.

Massachusetts is trying to get people elligible for this 2640 list as soon as possible.

Never mind the fact they are also potentially putting these kids on all kinds of pills before they are even done growing.

Click to expand...

Cite?

Click to expand...

imperialism2024 wrote:

Cite?

Click to expand...

Four-five posts up, depending on how you count.

Click to expand...

...is it mere speculation?

Click to expand...

Cite specifics, please.

HOW can people get taken off the list? Does it involves thousands of dollars in litigation to restore wrongfully-lost rights?

Is there any reimbursment malicious gun-haters?

Will the VA help?

Click to expand...