Republican lawmakers cried foul Friday night over an Obama administration proposal to cut payment rates to private insurers who administer Medicare Advantage, a popular alternative to the government-run health program for seniors.
Although not a surprise, the proposed cut come after an intense lobbying effort by the insurance industry against slashing rates, citing the potential for higher costs to seniors, and GOP lawmakers this year are sure to use the cuts as further ammo against the Affordable Care Act and its Democratic supporters.
“The health law cut more than $300 billion from the popular Medicare Advantage program, potentially forcing hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries to find new health care plans, despite the president’s promise,” said Rep. Joe Pitts, Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of a House panel on health. “The cuts announced today will only exacerbate the effect this will have on the health care of millions of our nation’s seniors, leaving them with higher costs and fewer choices.”
About 15 million people, or slightly less than a third of all Medicare recipients, are enrolled Medicare Advantage plans, while the rest rely on the government’s fee-for-service model to reimburse doctors.
CMS officials insisted late Friday that the program is on the right course. It said Medicare Advantage premiums have fallen by 10 percent since the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010, while enrollment has increased to an all-time high 15 million enrollees.
“We believe that plans will continue their strong participation in the Medicare Advantage program in 2015 and beneficiaries will continue to have a wide array of high quality, high value, low cost options available to them while at the same time we are making certain that plans are providing value to Medicare and taxpayers,” said Jonathan Blum, CMS’s principal deputy administrator.
But top Republicans like House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia jumped all over Friday’s proposal, saying Democrats are taking another swipe at a popular program after Obamacare ushered in a first round of cuts.
“ObamaCare has already caused millions to lose the healthcare plans they liked, and now it is directly harming seniors who rely on the care they have through Medicare Advantage,” he said. “Our nation’s grandparents should not have to wake up tomorrow worried they no longer can access the care they want because of ObamaCare.”
The move is also a setback to trade groups who lobbied hard against the cuts in TV ads and through other means, arguing the cuts could destabilize rates.
“You know, we vote,” an elderly woman says in one frequently aired ad.
America’s Health Insurnace Plans has frequently warned the government not to slash Medicare Advantage payments and will likely redouble their efforts to combat Friday’s proposal.
“Another round of payment cuts would be devastating to the more than 15 million seniors and people with disabilities that have chosen to enroll in Medicare Advantage for the better benefits and higher quality coverage these plans provide,” AHIP President and CEO Karen Ignagni said.
(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama’s Treasury Department issued a new regulation today that for the second time directly violatesthe plain and unambiguous text of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by allowing some businesses to avoid the law’s Dec. 31, 2013 deadline to provide health insurance coverage to their employees.
Initially, on July 2, 2013, the administration unilaterally delayed the deadline for the employer mandate until 2015. Now, the administration is unilaterally delaying it for some businesses until 2016.
n its official summary of PPACA, the Congressional Research Service said: “(Sec. 1513, as modified by section 10106) Imposes fines on large employers (employers with more than 50 full-time employees) who fail to offer their full-time employees the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage or who have a waiting period for enrollment of more than 60 days.”
The text of the law itself describes an “applicable large employer” as follows: “The term ‘applicable large employer’ means, with respect to a calendar year, an employer who employed an average of at least 50 full-time employees on business days during the preceding calendar year.”
The final words in the section of PPACA mandating that employers with more than 50 full-time employees provide their employees with “minimum essential coverage” imposes a specific statutory deadline for doing so. It says: “EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.”
Last summer, the administration unilaterally moved this hard statutory deadline back one year to 2015 for all employers with more than 50 full-time employees. Now, without any action by Congress, the administration is moving it back again for some employers—despite the plain language of the law.
The Treasury Department has issued a fact sheet explaining how the Obama administration’s new declaration changes the meaning of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
“To ensure a gradual phase-in and assist the employers to whom the policy does apply, the final rules provide, for 2015, that: The employer responsibility provision will generally apply to larger firms with 100 or more full-time employees starting in 2015 and employers with 50 or more full-time employees starting in 2016.”
The fact sheet goes on to say:
“To avoid a payment for failing to offer health coverage, employers need to offer coverage to 70 percent of their full-time employees in 2015 and 95 percent in 2016 and beyond, helping employers that, for example, may offer coverage to employees with 35 or more hours, but not yet to that fraction of their employees who work 30 to 34 hours.”
It further says:
“While the employer responsibility provisions will generally apply starting in 2015, they will not apply until 2016 to employers with at least 50 but fewer than 100 full-time employees if the employer provides an appropriate certification described in the rules.”
“Employers that are subject to the employer responsibility provisions in 2015 must offer coverage to at least 70 percent of full-time employees as one of the conditions for avoiding an assessable payment, rather than 95 percent which will begin in 2016.”
In sum, the law says that employers with “at least 50 full-time employees” must provide “minimum essential coverage” in the “months beginning after December 31, 2013” or pay a fine. The new declaration from the Obama administration’s Treasury Department says this part of the law no longer applies. It says employers with between 50 and 99 employees need not provide coverage until 2016 and larger employers need only provide coverage to 70 percent of their employees next year.
After 3-4-5 years of setting up the ObamaCare website, with the greatest minds money could buy from Belarus, I can only come to one conclusion. This was designed to fail on purpose. No other company in the history of the world has been so inept. The kids on the corner selling lemonade have a better business model. So might I say to all those in charge, I mean this from the bottom of my heart..
And I mean it.
HealthCare.gov can’t handle appeals of enrollment errors
Tens of thousands of people who discovered that HealthCare.gov made mistakes as they were signing up for a health plan are confronting a new roadblock: The government cannot yet fix the errors.
Roughly 22,000 Americans have filed appeals with the government to try to get mistakes corrected, according to internal government data obtained by The Washington Post. They contend that the computer system for the new federal online marketplace charged them too much for health insurance, steered them into the wrong insurance program or denied them coverage entirely.
For now, the appeals are sitting, untouched, inside a government computer. And an unknown number of consumers who are trying to get help through less formal means — by calling the health-care marketplace directly — are told that HealthCare.gov’s computer system is not yet allowing federal workers to go into enrollment records and change them, according to individuals inside and outside the government who are familiar with the situation.
“It is definitely frustrating and not fair,” said Addie Wilson, 27, who lives in Fairmont, W.Va., and earns $22,000 a year working with at-risk families. She said that she is paying $100 a month more than she should for her insurance and that her deductible is $4,000 too high.
When Wilson logged on to HealthCare.gov in late December, she needed coverage right away. Her old insurance was ending, and she was to have gallbladder surgery in January. But the Web site would not calculate the federal subsidy to which she knew she was entitled. Terrified to go without coverage, Wilson phoned a federal call center and took the advice she was given: Pay the full price now and appeal later.
Now she is stuck.
“I hope,” she said, “they really work on getting this fixed.”
The Obama administration has not made public the fact that the appeals system for the online marketplace is not working.
In recent weeks, legal advocates have been pressing administration officials, pointing out that rules for the online marketplace, created by the 2010 Affordable Care Act, guarantee due-process rights to timely hearings for Americans who think they have been improperly denied insurance or subsidies.
But at the moment, “there is no indication that infrastructure . . .necessary for conducting informal reviews and fair hearings has even been created, let alone become operational,” attorneys at the National Health Law Program said in a late-December letter to leaders of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the agency that oversees HealthCare.gov. The attorneys, who have been trying to exert leverage quietly behind the scenes, did not provide the letter to The Post but confirmed that they had sent it.
A CMS spokesman, Aaron Albright, said, “We are working to fully implement the appeals system.”
Three knowledgeable individuals, speaking on the condition of anonymity about internal discussions, said it is unclear when the appeals process will become available. So far, it is not among the top priorities for completing parts of the federal insurance exchange’s computer system that still do not work. Those include an electronic payment system for insurers, the computerized exchange of enrollment information with state Medicaid programs, and the ability to adjust people’s coverage to accommodate new babies and other major changes in life circumstance.
The exchange is supposed to allow consumers who want to file appeals to do so by computer, phone or mail. But only mail is available. The roughly 22,000 people who have appealed to date have filled out a seven-page form and mailed it to a federal contractor’s office in Kentucky, where the forms are scanned and then transferred to a computer system at CMS. For now, that is where the process stops
The part of the computer system that would allow agency workers to read and handle appeals has not been built,
according to individuals familiar with the situation.
In the meantime, CMS is telling consumers with complaints about mistakes to return to the Web site and start over. “We are inviting those consumers back to HealthCare.gov, where they can reset and successfully finish their applications without needing to complete the appeals process,” said Albright, the agency spokesman. The rationale is that, since the computer system is working better now, it’s less likely to make mistakes.
Agency officials have no way of knowing how many people have taken that advice, according to two individuals familiar with the situation. The computer system containing the scanned appeals forms cannot yet communicate with HealthCare.gov’s enrollment database, so it is impossible to cross-check the information.
Across the country, a few specialists trained to help people enroll in the health plans point to examples in which withdrawing an application and starting over has solved the problem. But that is not a solution for everyone.
Starting over would not help Addie Wilson, for example, because she has already begun to pay for her new insurance and would have no way to get her money back. A few days before Christmas, Wilson was hospitalized with what turned out to be a gallbladder so infected that doctors inserted a drain so it would be safer by the time they operated — the first surgery of her life. She needed a health plan because her employer, the organization Home Base, was cutting off the Blue Cross-Blue Shield coverage she and her co-workers had, reasoning that they could find better choices on the new marketplace.
Given her salary, Wilson knew she was eligible for federal subsidies to help pay for her coverage. She was discharged from the hospital on Dec. 23, the insurance sign-up deadline; she did not yet know that CMS had quietly reset its computers to give people one more day to enroll. It had been weeks since the Obama administration had announced that the system was working smoothly, so she could not understand why the HealthCare.gov screen on her laptop, which should have calculated her subsidy, stubbornly refused to appear. She asked her boyfriend to try on his computer and her father to try on his. Nothing worked.
She called HealthCare.gov’s toll-free number, where, she said, a woman on the other end tried typing and then told her, “Well, it’s not working for me either.” The woman recommended that she choose a health plan at the too-high price and file an appeal. Since her Blue Cross coverage would end Dec. 31, she went back onto HealthCare.gov and picked a plan.
A failure to compute a subsidy is among a variety of mistakes the computer system has made. Another involves what some CMS and state Medicaid officials refer to as “loopers.” These are people who applied for coverage on HealthCare.gov and were told that their income was low enough to qualify for Medicaid. But when they went to their state Medicaid agency, they were told they were not eligible after all, and should get a private health plan through the marketplace. So they have “looped” back to the federal system, which is unable to fix the mistake.
The letter from the National Health Law Program describes families who are appealing for other reasons. In one instance, a North Carolina couple were told that they were eligible for subsidies to buy private policies and that their son was eligible for the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which is public insurance for children of working-class families. But the computer told them that their daughter was eligible for nothing — an obvious mistake. At the time of the letter, the family was uninsured while waiting for a decision on its appeal.
In Fairmont, Wilson is waiting, too. In early January, she contacted her new health plan about her missing subsidy and asked what to do. She was told to pay the full insurance premium — $215 a month. She did. The next day, Brandon Williams, an enrollment counselor at a local health clinic, helped her check HealthCare.gov again. This time, the computer worked properly and showed that, with the subsidy, her monthly premium should be just $106 and her yearly deductible $617, not $4,750.
Wilson and Williams called the online marketplace and, after three hours on the phone, got only a promise from a supervisor that Wilson would hear from CMS’s “advance resolution team” within five days. The call didn’t come.
Wilson’s scheduled outpatient surgery turned into an expensive, five-day hospital stay after her doctors discovered her gallbladder had gangrene. Home after the ordeal, and dreading the hospital bill and her big deductible, Wilson called Williams, and they tried to reach the advance resolution team. They couldn’t get through. When the call from the team finally came, she said, a knowledgeable-sounding man told her, “The system is not set up to go into someone’s account and correct a mistake.”
With Williams’s help, she has filed an appeal. And she is waiting — waiting to be healed enough to drive so she can go back to work, waiting for someone to decide that she deserves her money back.
“These little kinks should have been worked out prior to this thing being launched,” she said. “This is one more thing stressing me out.”
Happiness is always there within reach, no matter how long it lasts. Let’s enjoy life and don’t live a complicated life. Life is too short. Work as if it was your first day. Forgive as soon as possible. Love without boundaries. Laugh without control and never stop smiling. Please pray for those suffering from cancer. Keep this going .
After delivering a speech at an elementary school, the president lets the kids ask a few questions. One little boy, Joe raises his hand and asks, “How come you invaded Iraq without the support of the United Nations?”
Just as the president begins to answer, the recess bell rings and he says they’ll continue afterward. 25 minutes later the kids come back to class.
“Where were we?” says the president. “Oh, yes… do you kids have any questions?”
Another boy raises his hand and says, “I have three questions: First, why did you invade Iraq without support from the U.N.? Second, why did the recess bell go off 30 minutes early? And third, where is my buddy Joe?”
Trainee Blondes Detectives
A policeman was interrogating 3 blondes who were training to become detectives. To test their skills in recognizing a suspect, he shows the first blonde a picture for 5 seconds and then hides it. “This is your suspect, how would you recognize him?
The first blonde answers, “That’s easy, we’ll catch him fast because he only has one eye!” The policeman says, “Well…uh…that’s because the picture shows his side profile.”
Slightly flustered by this ridiculous response, he flashes the picture for 5 seconds at the second blonde and asks her, “This is your suspect, how would you recognize him?”
The second blonde giggles, flips her hair and says, “Ha! He’d be too easy to catch because he only has one ear!” The policeman angrily responds, “What’s the matter with you two?!? Of course only one eye and one ear are SHOWING because it’s a picture of his side profile!! Is that the best answer you can come up with?
Extremely frustrated at this point, he shows the picture to the third blonde and in a very testy voice asks, “This is your suspect, how would you recognize him?” He quickly adds”… think hard before giving me a stupid answer.”
The blonde looks at the picture intently for a moment and says, “Hmmmm…the suspect wears contact lenses.” The policeman is surprised and speechless because he really doesn’t know himself if the suspect wears contacts or not. “Well, that’s an interesting answer…wait here for a few minutes while I check his file and I’ll get back to you on that.”
He leaves the room and goes to his office, checks the suspect’s file in his computer, and comes back with a beaming smile on his face.
“Wow! I can’t believe it…it’s TRUE! The suspect does
in fact wear contact lenses. Good work! How were you able to make such an astute observation? “That’s easy,” the blonde replied. “He can’t wear regular glasses because he only has one eye and one ear.
~Steve~ H/T https://dailyjokes.co
Life is sexually transmitted.
Good health is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.
Men have two emotions: Hungry and Horny. They can’t tell them apart. If you see a gleam in his eyes, make him a sandwich.
Give a person a fish and you feed them for a day. Teach a person to use the Internet and they won’t bother you for weeks, months, maybe years.
Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in the hospitals, dying of nothing.
All of us could take a lesson from the weather. It pays no attention to criticism.
In the 60’s, people took acid to make the world weird. Now the world is weird and people take Prozac to make it normal.
And The Number 1 Thought
Life is like a jar of Jalapeno peppers–what you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow. – – – and as someone recently said to me: “Don’t worry about old age–it doesn’t last that long
This is a follow up to a post I did the other day about gun’s and permit’s being taken in N.Y. because of certain medications people have taken. While there may be a correlation between a few mass shooter’s ( Adam Lanza) and Med’s, I don’t think that justifies pulling someones permit or weapons without other factors. https://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/new-york-police-confiscating-firearms-from-people-taking-anti-anxiety-medication/ I’ve found More details and a list of med’s. I would venture to say that at one time or another many , many people have taken one or more drugs on this list. Ever have trouble sleeping say 3-4 yrs ago and had your Doc write you a Prescription for something to sleep? Say Ambien, Lunesta
————————————- ~ Steve ~ —————————————–
Apr. 9, 2013 6:30pm Mike Opelka Despite promises from the president and a host of other politicians who are pushing for more gun control that nobody is coming for your guns, the confiscation of guns and gun permits has apparently started in some form in New York State. One attorney representing several people who have been forced to surrender their guns spoke with TheBlaze and alerted us to some disturbing facts: Gun owners are losing their 2nd Amendment rights without due process. HIPAA Laws are likely being compromised and the 4th and 5th Amendmentsare being violated in some of these cases How did confiscation start happening so quickly? Apparently the gun grabbing was triggered by something inside the NY SAFE Act— New York’s new gun law — that has a provision apparently mandating confiscation of weapons and permits if someone has been prescribed psychotropic drugs. Chapter 55.01 Definitions. (6s) “Psychotropic medication” means a prescription drug, as defined in s. 450.01 (20), that is used to treat or manage a psychiatric symptom or challenging behavior. Some psychotropic medications fall into specific medication classes like antipsychotics or antidepressants. In other cases, the medications may be primarily used for other diseases but have been found effective in controlling behaviors thus making that specific use a psychotropic medication. Below is a list of psychotropic medications or medications with psychotropic uses. This list is not intended to be all-inclusive, however it can act as a resource to alert you to psychotropic medications where regulations like psychotropic monitoring, informed consent or guardianship may impact. If you have any questions about the medication, its intended use or adverse effects please contact the prescribing physician, pharmacist or nurse. Brand NameGenericName Class
Abilify Aripiprazole Antipsychotic
Ambien Zolpidem Sleep Medications
Amytal Amobarbital Sleep Medications
Anafranil Clomipramine Antidepressants
Aricept Donepezil Other
Asendin Amoxapine Antidepressants
Atarax Hydroxyzine Antianxiety Short Acting Ativan Lorazepam Antianxiety Short Acting
Ativan Lorazepam Sleep Medications
Benadryl Diphenhydramine Antianxiety Short Acting
Benadryl Diphenhydramine Sleep Medications
Buspar Buspirone Antianxiety Short Acting
Butisol Butabarbital Sleep Medications
Celexa Citalopram Antidepressants
Chloral Hydrate Chloral Hydrate Sleep Medications
Clozaril Clozapine Antipsychotics
Cognex Tacrine Other
Cylert Pemoline Other
Cymbalta Duloxetine Antidepressants
Dalmane Flurazepam Antianxiety Long Acting
Depakote Valproic Acid Other
Desyrel Trazadone Antidepressants
Doral Quazepam Antianxiety Long Acting
Doriden Glutethimide Sleep Medications
Effexor Venlafaxine Antidepressants
Elavil Amitriptyline Antidepressants Exelon Rivastigmine Other
Gabitril Tiagabine Other
Geodon Ziprasidone Antipsychotics
Halcion Triazolam Sleep Medications
Haldol Haloperidol Antipsychotics
Inderal Propranolol Other
Invega Paliperidone Antipsychotic
Klonopin Clonazepam Antianxiety Long Acting
Lamictal Lamotrigine Other
Librium Chlordiazepoxide Antianxiety Long Acting
Lithium Lithium Other
Loxitane Loxapine Antipsychotics Ludiomil Maprotiline Antidepressants
Lunesta Eszopiclone Sleep Medications
Luvox Fluvoxamine Antidepressants
Marplan Isocarboxazid Antidepressants
Mellaril Thioridazine Antipsychotics
Miltown Meprobamate Sleep Medications
Moban Molindone Antipsychotics
Namenda Memantine Other
Nardil Phenelzine Antidepressants
Navane Thiothixene Antipsychotics
Nembutal Pentobarbital Sleep Medications
Neurontin Gabapentin Other
Noludar Methprylon Sleep Medications
Norpramine Desipramine Antidepressants
Pamelor Nortriptyline Antidepressants
Parnate Tranycypromine Antidepressants
Paxil Paroxetine Antidepressants
Paxipam Halazepam Antianxiety Long Acting
Phenobarbital Phenobarbital Sleep Medications
Placidyl Ethchlorvynol Sleep Medications
Pristiq Desvenlafaxine Antidepressant
Prolixin Fluphenazine Antipsychotics
Prosom Estazolam Antianxiety Short Acting
Prosom Estazolam Sleep Medications
Prozac Fluoxetine Antidepressants
Razadyne Galantamine Other
Remeron Mirtazepine Antidepressants
Restoril Temazepam Sleep Medications
Risperdal Risperidone Antipsychotics
Ritalin Methylphenidate Other
Rozerem Ramelteon Sleep Medications Serax Oxazepam Antianxiety Short acting
Serax Oxazepam Sleep Medications
Serentil Mesoridazine Antipsychotics
Seroquel Quetiapine Antipsychotics
Serzone Nefazodone Antidepressants
Sinequan Doxepin Antidepressants
Sonata Zaleplon Sleep Medications
Sparine Promazine Antipsychotics
Stelazine Trifluoperazine Antipsychotics
Surmontil Trimipramine Antidepressants
Taractin Chlorprothixene Antipsychotics
Tegretol Carbamazepine Other
Thorazine Chlorpromazine Antipsychotics
Tindal Acetophenazine Antipsychotics
Tofranil Imipramine Antidepressants
Tranxene Clorazepate Antianxiety Long Acting
Trilafon Perphenazine Antipsychotics
Tuinal Secobarbital Sleep Medications
Valium Diazepam Antianxiety Long Acting
Vesprin Triflupromazine Antipsychotics
Vistaril Hydroxyzine Antianxiety Short Acting
Vivactil Protriptyline Antidepressants
Wellbutrin Bupropion Antidepressants
Xanax Alprazolam Antianxiety Short Acting
Xanax Alprazolam Sleep Medications
Zoloft Sertraline Antidepressants
Zyprexa Olanzapine Antipsychotics
Updated thru 1/09
https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/rl_dsl/MedManagement/psychMeds.pdf This is curious because in his January 9th address, Cuomo specifically addressed the issue of confiscation: The Case: On April 1st, a legal gun owner in upstate New York reportedly received an official notice from the state ordering him to surrender any and all weapons to his local police department. The note said that the person’s permit to own a gun in New York was being suspended as well. The gun owner contacted attorney Jim Tresmond (a specialist in gun laws in New York) and the two visited the local police precinct. Mr. Tresmond reportedly went into the precinct and informed the officers that his client, waiting in the parking lot, was coming in to voluntarily surrender his weapons as requested. The local police were aware of the letter because they had already been contacted by the State Police. Apparently, if people do not respond to the initial mailing, local law enforcement is authorized to visit the gun owner at their home and demand the surrender of the firearms. In this case, the gun owner followed the request as written. The guns and permits were handed over and a receipt given to the client. After the guns were turned over, a request for a local hearing was filed and the gun owner is expecting to have his Second Amendment rights restored. But there is more to this story. In our conversation with lawyer Jim Tresmond, we learned that this client, who has never had a problem with the law — no criminal record and or violentincidents on record — did have a temporary, short term health issue that required medication. But how were his client’s private medical information accessed by the government? This appears to be a violation of HIPAA and Health Information Privacy policies at HHS.gov. If it is declared a violation, this becomes a civil rights issue. Some claim that a broad interpretation of this statement from HIPAA might allow the government to have instant access to the medical records and gun ownership records of anyone who is prescribed psychotropic drugs. “A major goal of the Privacy Rule is to assure that individuals’ health information is properly protected while allowing the flow of health information needed to provide and promote high quality health care and to protect the public’s health and well being”.
That short phrase, “protect the public’s health and well being” is probably going to be cited as the reason governments can require notification of any gun owner who is prescribed a class of drugs used to treat Depression and Anxiety known as SSRI ( Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors). The Mental Health Law provision of the SAFE Act claims The NY SAFE Act is designed to remove firearms from those who seek to do harm to themselves or others. This means keeping the minority of individuals with serious mental illness who may be dangerous away from access to firearms. This law should not dissuade any individual from seeking mental health services they need. The law is clear on what it expects: MHL 9.46 requires mental health professionals to report to their local director of community services (“DCS”) or his/her designees when, in their reasonable professional judgment, one of their patients is “likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others.” The man who was asked/directed to turn over his guns reportedly did not exhibit any signs of violent or dangerous behavior.According to his attorney, the man’s doctor did not report any danger to the authorities. So, who did report it? Also known as MHL 9.46, the law talks about who is supposed to report on mental health risks and which patients qualify: The reporting requirement extends to “mental health professionals,” defined in the law as four professions – physicians (including psychiatrists), psychologists, registered nurses, or licensed clinical social workers. In addition to what Mr. Tresmond called “the laughable diminution of our rights,” the lawyer speculated about additional unintended consequences of releasing this confidential patient information to law enforcement. What if an employer learns that a worker had their firearms confiscated? Could that person’s employment be put at risk? What if your neighbors saw police come to your home and leave with your guns? Could that compromise your safety? Could this kind of confiscation also make people think twice about getting treatment for a temporary mental illness? In an effort to learn how many permits and guns have been rescinded due to this medical exception, TheBlaze has made several attempts to contact the Erie County office over pistol permits where this one incident originated. We have yet to be connected with a real person who can answer these questions. We have also reached out to the Albany office of the New York State Police, but no official response has been received. Mr. Tresmond has also agreed to keep us posted on his client’s efforts to have his Second Amendment rights restored and get back his guns. TheBlaze will continue to monitor this story and we are also interested in hearing from other New Yorkers who may have experienced this type of confiscation. Please send all emails to mopelka@TheBlaze.com. Interview with Jim Tresmond the Atty below. Tuesday, Buffalo radio talk show host Tom Bauerle spoke with Jim Tresmond on WBEN radio. https://audio.wben.com/a/73319182/bauerle-with-jim-tresmond.htm —————————————————————————————————- So let me ask you, if this is the road the Gov tries to go down, just how long before we have our first, second , third,…. Ruby Ridge’s? This could go real bad real Fast.