Posted on 07/01/2009 8:49:11 AM PDT by dvan
How you can send me to jail
I've made a lot of enemies through the years because of my fight for medical freedom. Unfortunately, my fight for freedom is about to get a lot harder. In fact, if the new universal medicine legislation making its way through Washington becomes law, I could go to jail.
Here's why: Imagine coming to me for treatment and you get better. That's great, right? Of course it is. But if you don't tell the government what you saw me for, then I go to jail. It's that simple. And it's coming.
The Obama Administration wants to put all of our medical records in a computer database. It sounds good. After all, it would help doctors see all of your medical records, which would reduce mistakes. But the government ultimately wants a "certified electronic health record" for everyone in the country by 2014. And the government will control all of these records. The government is spending lavishly to this end.
Of course, the government promises it will maintain scrupulous privacy practices. The Washington Times shows why this is a problem: "The issue is not whether the personal health information government commandeers will be abused. Instead, it is simply a question of when, where, and how it will be exploited."
And who are the sponsors of this draconian piece of work? Those who take huge contributions from Pharma's blood money. You can well imagine that the FDA and its cronies will use this database of 300 million Americans to return the favors to Big
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Unless people pay exclusively with cash, that information is pretty much available now.
ping
Link does not work?
LINK ISN’T WORKING.
It’s dated March 13, so I think you have to go into their archive.
I know a guy who went to jail because he raised hell in an emergency room one night when they refused to treat his critically injured 8 year old son, because he had no insurance.
The link no longer works
You're welcome!
I’ve known about this for some time. All commercial insurance companies are required to submit a complete claims feed to Uncle Sugar on every man, woman, and child covered by their insurance plan. That includes name, date of birth, address, SSN, dates of service, services received, diagnoses, amount paid, servicing provider, etc. In all about 50 data elements on each transaction. Billions of transactions per year.
That nagging vaginal infection that won’t go away, or stubborn rash? Everyone will know.
Once you put everyone’s medical records in a central database then it’s only a matter of ‘when’ and not ‘if’ someone hacks into the system. Imagine what someone can do with all that information.
"Any guns in the house?"
Camel, nose, tent.
Isn’t this the very issue upon which Roe vs. Wade was decided? That the privacy between a person and their doctor cannot be violated? That the government cannot decide on medical treatment decided on by a person and their doctor?
How do these medical non-privacy rules pass constitutional muster?
When is a reporter going to ask that question of any of these politicians?
Are these liberals in favor of repealing the "Right to Privacy" as enunciated in Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut? If not, then how can the mandate Government healthcare? This would involve an wholesale violation of the right of privacy of every American, not merely those who seek abortions.
Your link is broken, go here:
http://www.secondopinionnewsletter.com/scripts/previewArchive.aspx?AID=451
The answer is always no.
I recently took my 9 year-old daughter for her annual check-up. After being offered a Guardasil pamphlet (and me refusing it), came the Q&A.
“How much sleep does she get a night?”
“How many people live in the home?”
“Do you have working fire alarms?”
“Does anyone in the home smoke?”
“Are there firearms in the home?”
Camel, nose, tent indeed.
As far as claiming the law only targets women, the draft is Constitutional, although it only targets men.
The legal underpinnings of the ruling are non-existent. Abortion is supposedly a medical act. The Federal Government, as well as many states, and the FDA, outlaw and regulate many medications. The transfer of money to perform the procedure means it's an act of commerce (everybody knows how much commerce is regulated.) The claim of privacy is not upheld for manufacturing of methamphetamine or other illegal drugs, prostitution, drug use or gambling, although these go on behind closed doors.
Summarizing, Roe v. Wade does not stand up under any legitimate review, except by first deciding that abortion should be legal and then looking for "any clause in a storm" to justify it. The reasoning used in Roe v. Wade is inconsistent with the reasoning of all other decisions based on the cited clauses.
The primary reason for the Equal Rights Amendment was to create a legal underpinning for Roe v. Wade. The Court knew one didn't exist when they adopted it.
I went into an emergency room in 1988 on a gurney after a wreck. They wheeled me first to the Insurance window and I was asked to show my insurance card. My wrist and several ribs were broken and I asked the EMT to get my wallet out of my pocket because I could not. The EMT just stood there and the clerk repeated the request twice more and then waved her hand and I was pushed out of the way and lay there by the wall for several hours until my wife could get there and I was carried to the car. I had internal bleeding and it took two days and some chicanery to get me admitted. The doc who took out my spleen said I was within three hours of expiring.
It was the Burger Court.
Burger died repenting of Roe v. Wade, clutching a Rosary. (He was not a Catholic, but his daughter, who told me this, was.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.