Posted on 07/17/2012 9:08:06 AM PDT by GeorgeWashingtonsGhost
Edited on 07/17/2012 9:17:36 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse investigating Barack Obama
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I've been pretty busy - hence the screen name "sometime lurker."
Weren’t you one of the ones that said there was no evidence that Obama misled people as to the location of his birth?
I don't believe I ever said that. And I certainly have never posted that 0bama didn't mislead people on any issue. I said the evidence points to him being born in Hawaii, with no good evidence he was born elsewhere.
How do you feel now that his publisher’s biography of him lists Kenya as his place of birth? Care to admit you were wrong about this?
Since his literary agent has said she was in error placing that in the promotional brochure, and since I never commented about his literary agent in the past, I see nothing to correct on my part. As to how I feel, I feel that he and everyone associated with him are sloppy as well as numerous other negative adjectives.
I’m not suggesting Obama was born in Kenya. I find that notion to be completely unsupportable by the evidence,
We agree.
Sorry, but you are wrong about that, as the link I posted shows.
The log is only a log of the names of women taken into the delivery room. That’s it, according to what Zullo said. There’s NO REASON not to release this log book to the Cold Case Posse, given that Zullo also said that it was in the hospital library, which is ordinarily open to the public.
If you follow the link I originally gave to the HHS page, you'll see that HIPAA covers “Individually identifiable health information” which is information, including demographic data, that relates to:
It’s already published information, if it relates to 1961. The Health Dept. ALREADY published it in the newspapers because the HOSPITALS already sent the names to the Health Dept., which PUBLISHED THE NAMES in the newspapers.
In 1961 there was no HIPAAA, and this was legal. The hospital cannot now release ANY protected health information, past or present, except in certain very specific circumstances.
HIPAA also does not protect the names of people currently IN the hospital. Otherwise, of what use is the information desk, where one goes to find out the room of someone s/he wants to visit? Have you ever called the hospital to be connected to a patient’s room? Do they not connect you? That gives out the “name” of the person in the hospital.
You are confusing the meaning of the "directory exception." It provides for a directory of CURRENT patients, providing they allow it, and they must be given the chance to opt out.
The patient must be informed about the information to be included in the directory, and to whom the information may be released, and must have the opportunity to restrict the information or to whom it is disclosed, or opt out of being included in the directory.Since neither 0bama or his mama are CURRENT patients, this is moot.
there’s NO PRIVACY interest in the name of a person who was taken into delivery in 1961. I got the entire medical record, including pathology reports, of an ancestor. The person is deceased. The records were available upon request.
For this legally occur after HIPAA was implemented, you must be the patient's appointed personal representative, executor or next of kin, or have a legitimate medical reason to need this, such as a genetic disease. Otherwise, the hospital who gave you the information is liable for a whopping big fine.
As part of my job, I have to take a course and test on HIPAA compliance periodically. Do the research - patient logs are no longer public information and are HIPAA protected with certain limited exceptions.
Sorry, but you are wrong about that, as the link I posted shows.
The log is only a log of the names of women taken into the delivery room. That’s it, according to what Zullo said. There’s NO REASON not to release this log book to the Cold Case Posse, given that Zullo also said that it was in the hospital library, which is ordinarily open to the public.
If you follow the link I originally gave to the HHS page, you'll see that HIPAA covers “Individually identifiable health information” which is information, including demographic data, that relates to:
It’s already published information, if it relates to 1961. The Health Dept. ALREADY published it in the newspapers because the HOSPITALS already sent the names to the Health Dept., which PUBLISHED THE NAMES in the newspapers.
In 1961 there was no HIPAAA, and this was legal. The hospital cannot now release ANY protected health information, past or present, except in certain very specific circumstances.
HIPAA also does not protect the names of people currently IN the hospital. Otherwise, of what use is the information desk, where one goes to find out the room of someone s/he wants to visit? Have you ever called the hospital to be connected to a patient’s room? Do they not connect you? That gives out the “name” of the person in the hospital.
You are confusing the meaning of the "directory exception." It provides for a directory of CURRENT patients, providing they allow it, and they must be given the chance to opt out.
The patient must be informed about the information to be included in the directory, and to whom the information may be released, and must have the opportunity to restrict the information or to whom it is disclosed, or opt out of being included in the directory.Since neither 0bama or his mama are CURRENT patients, this is moot.
there’s NO PRIVACY interest in the name of a person who was taken into delivery in 1961. I got the entire medical record, including pathology reports, of an ancestor. The person is deceased. The records were available upon request.
For this legally occur after HIPAA was implemented, you must be the patient's appointed personal representative, executor or next of kin, or have a legitimate medical reason to need this, such as a genetic disease. Otherwise, the hospital who gave you the information is liable for a whopping big fine.
As part of my job, I have to take a course and test on HIPAA compliance periodically. Do the research - patient logs are no longer public information and are HIPAA protected with certain limited exceptions.
Have you seen today’s Ulsterman interview?
let me rephrase that:
The notion that Barack Stanley Ann’s child would have to have a great deal of supporting evidence in order for me to take a serious look at it.
The initial deception wasn’t to produce a future ruler of the world, it was to give a child an ID.
The evidence that he wasn't born in Hawaii is the mountain of stonewalling he has thrown up to prevent any scrutiny of his vital documents when the alternative was far easier.
Sure, it's circumstantial evidence, but it is what has fueled the entire issue from the beginning. People cannot help but feel he is hiding something crucial because his recalcitrance indicates he is hiding something crucial. He knew he had told people he was born in Kenya, and he knew it would be brought up as an issue. He had years to prepare for his Presidential run, and he could have gotten something that looked like a genuine Hawaiian original birth certificate back in 2006.
People had REMEMBERED he had claimed to be from Kenya, and so they were very interested in how he was going to square what they remembered of him with the requirement that he be a "natural born citizen." Presenting a computer print out in 2008 was a serious mistake on his part. (Assuming he really was born in Hawaii.) On the other hand, it is the only thing he could have done if he didn't actually have a good birth certificate.
So we are faced with two possibilities. He, and all his supporting legal staff are political and legal idiots, and they didn't bother heading off this obvious political and legal problem early, or He really can't prove he was born in Hawaii.
Obama and Co are very stupid, but his army of lawyers are not. I believe he consulted with them, explained his predicament, and they advised him to take the course of action he has followed; Stonewalling and obfuscation.
Ala Edgar Allen Poe's analysis of "The Mystery of Marie Rogêt", The best evidence he was born off the Island is his manner of dealing with the issue.
I think there is a strong possibility that Stanley Ann went to stay with one of two relatives, and ended up birthing him in Canada, but I don't dismiss the possibility that he was actually born in Hawaii. His actions just don't support this scenario, in my opinion.
The long game.
Recall in 2008 the unusual path the DNC, Pelosi, and Hawaii took to validate candidate Obama.
Sheriff Joe just removed the LFBC as a valid document, and he vaporized the credibility and completeness of any record released by the Government of Hawaii
“your link appears to refer to the RACE OF CHILD - not the RACE OF THE PARENT: “
That is correct. The birth certificate never listed the race of the child - that was determined by the coding of the parents. If both parents were one race the child was listed as that race in the US vital stats. If the parents were a different race than each other, the child was listed as the race of the father. With the exception that if one parent was “negro” and the other was a different race - the child would always be coded as negro. There was most defiantly a classification for “not stated” under race. And in 1962 NJ decided not to include any race identifiers on it’s birth reporting anymore. So every NJ birth was a “not stated”. Not - other non-white, or other, but specifically “not stated”.
I am aware that YOU know this - so this comment is for those that do not.
While I could not find the 1961 VS instruction manual online, I did find reference to it in a ‘62 Vital Stats summary.
http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/does-it-exist-the-1961-vital-stat-instruction-manual
Yup, Zullo did mention surprise at the extent of the poor and impovrished areas of Hawaii.
Sounds like he talked to 95 year old Verna Lee, and other persons of interest.
I am a bit of a pack rat. I keep sections of newspapers when relatives are born, get married, or pass away.
I would think other like minded pack rats live in Hawaii.
You would simply need a lot of man hours to track down everyone listed in the Birth/Death section of that newspaper
The hospital log would NOT be protected by HIPAA. It is standard directory information and FURTHER, the Obamas would have HAD to give permission before the birth could be listed in the newspaper. According to the DOH rules they have to get permission to disclose protected information, but ironically, the only specifically protected information in their rules is the parents’ address. That address was published, hence permission was given, hence that permission was obtained at the hospital and would exempt the Obamas from any disclosure restrictions regarding directory-style information. FURTHER, HIPAA ALLOWS disclosures to law enforcement agents. There is NO LEGAL REASON for the hospital to withhold information that would prove Obama was born there. If Obama wasn’t there, then there would no privacy violation anyway.
The redacted part most likely was a reference to the trouble in March 1964 regarding the possible impregnation by Obama Sr. of a Kenyan high school exchange student studying in Massachusetts. Probably redacted to protect the girl's identity.
The high school student had left the U.S. and the thinking was that she went to England to get an abortion.
The hospital log would NOT be protected by HIPAA.
Sorry, your assertion does not trump the clearly written information on the HHS HIPAA page. A hospital log is protected, because "the provision of health care to the individual," is protected health information. What do you think a log shows? It shows that health care was provided to an individual.
t is standard directory information and FURTHER, the Obamas would have HAD to give permission before the birth could be listed in the newspaper.
The amount of misunderstanding and time confusion here is staggering. Read the directory exception, and you will discover it is for patients CURRENTLY hospitalized, and that the patient must agree to be listed. Are you claiming that it is currently 1961? As to the Obamas giving permission to list in newspapers in 1961, HIPAA did not exist in 1961, so the information was legal to publish then, even if it came from the hospital. After HIPAA, it was no longer legal to disclose that information.
That address was published, hence permission was given, hence that permission was obtained at the hospital and would exempt the Obamas from any disclosure restrictions regarding directory-style information.
Again, HIPAA wasn't passed at that time. No permission was required then. It is now. And directory information is only permitted for currently hospitalized patients.
FURTHER, HIPAA ALLOWS disclosures to law enforcement agents.
Yes, in specific circumstances only, not just because they "really want to know." Here is what HIPAA says
Law Enforcement Purposes. Covered entities may disclose protected health information to law enforcement officials for law enforcement purposes under the following six circumstances, and subject to specified conditions: (1) as required by law (including court orders, court-ordered warrants, subpoenas) and administrative requests; (2) to identify or locate a suspect, fugitive, material witness, or missing person; (3) in response to a law enforcement official’s request for information about a victim or suspected victim of a crime; (4) to alert law enforcement of a person’s death, if the covered entity suspects that criminal activity caused the death; (5) when a covered entity believes that protected health information is evidence of a crime that occurred on its premises; and (6) by a covered health care provider in a medical emergency not occurring on its premises, when necessary to inform law enforcement about the commission and nature of a crime, the location of the crime or crime victims, and the perpetrator of the crime.Don't think any of those apply to Sheriff Arpaio's investigators.
There is NO LEGAL REASON for the hospital to withhold information that would prove Obama was born there.
Fines up to $250,000 and up to 10 years in prison seem like a darn good reason to me.
Sorry, but it doesn't say anything about being CURRENTLY hospitalized.
After HIPAA, it was no longer legal to disclose that information.
This is simply a ridiculous excuse. HIPAA didn't make previously disclosed information illegal to disclose. What a stupid, stupid, stupid thing to suggest.
No permission was required then.
I just told you the law in Hawaii required permission to disclose the address. That permission would have been obtained at the hospital if that was where the birth occurred. It's the exact same kind of permission that would be needed to disclose directory information under HIPAA.
Here is what HIPAA says
Thanks for biting the bullet and proving my point.
Don't think any of those apply to Sheriff Arpaio's investigators.
Only when you ignore the parts about administrative requests, identifying suspects and suspected victims of crime (which would include suspected birth certificate fraud) ...
Fines up to $250,000 and up to 10 years in prison seem like a darn good reason to me.
No one can be fined for permissible disclosures, so despite your melodrama, let's focus on the facts once again. There is NO LEGAL REASON this information cannot be disclosed to the investigators. And no government agency is going to fine a hospital for confirming the president was born there. You know this is true, so be honest and just admit it. Enough stupid excuses.
I wrote my comment before I saw the link you provided, which I did read. btw, I see nothing about the directory being “current” with respect to it restricting previously compiled directories of then-current patients. If directory information (that the person was in the hospital and where) is open to the public now, then it would seem logical that hospitals would not restrict past “directories” from the public, especially since the one under discussion was in the hospital library, according to Zullo. At the present time, there is said to be a book compiled by Dr. West that is in the State Archives. It contains information about children that he delivered. How can that information be in the state archives since it refers to medical treatment of individuals who probably are still living?
I wrote my comment before I saw the link you provided, which I did read. btw, I see nothing about the directory being “current” with respect to it restricting previously compiled directories of then-current patients. If directory information (that the person was in the hospital and where) is open to the public now, then it would seem logical that hospitals would not restrict past “directories” from the public, especially since the one under discussion was in the hospital library, according to Zullo. At the present time, there is said to be a book compiled by Dr. West that is in the State Archives. It contains information about children that he delivered. How can that information be in the state archives since it refers to medical treatment of individuals who probably are still living?
Thanks, Edge. I wrote my comment before I read yours.
Everybody: I have no clue why this system double posts. I make sure to click only once after the preview. I have tried every which way and combination I can think of but it still double posts. If anybody knows how to avoid this, I’d appreciate the tip.
As for the directories: As Edge says, it says nothing about “current” patients. The log discussed by Zullo is a directory. It is in the hospital library and was available to the public even after HIPAA laws.
There is an abundance of medical information on the Internet in the form of death certificates (with details of medical conditions), birth records, birth announcements, burial permit records (with causes of death), newspaper articles with medical information. We see news conferences all the time where doctors give out detailed information about crime victims’ medical conditions.
Vital records were published in newspapers regularly, directly from hospital information. If HIPAA grandfathered all this data out of public view, then why is it still on the Web, in libraries, in archives?
Why did the hospital give me my ancestor’s lab reports? Why do hospitals and doctors regularly give me information about a person’s medical status, when I’m only there visiting the patient when the doctor comes into the room?
There’s said to be a handwritten log of babies that Dr. Rodney West delivered, right in the Hawaiian state archives. That’s medical information. Probably most of these people are still living. Why is that log book in the archives?
There’s nothing in what you linked that talks about current patient directories. If a current directory is open to the public, then why wouldn’t a previous patient directory be open to the public, especially after it was open to the public for years?
As Edge pointed out, Stanley Ann gave permission for the fact of her child’s birth to be announced (snark), so there’s nothing private about that log of patients. Even if you’re going to argue that because it’s a log of mothers going into delivery, it discloses medical information that she was being “treated” for being “punished with a baby,” the FACT that she was in the hospital should not be private. It’s directory information at its scantest.
So the hospital ought to be able to disclose to anyone, but especially to law enforcement, whether or not she was there on August 4, 1961.
HIPAA was designed to try to assuage our concerns about having personal medical records stored in databases and transmitted to clerks at insurance companies. I’m not assuaged, especially now that Obamacare’s going to have this humongous database in DC. Are you comfortable knowing that your data will be there? I’m not. Do you believe it will be kept from prying eyes, especially politically motivated ones? I’m not.
Linda Tripp’s personnel records were protected, for all the good it did her. By the way, if Romney has anything in his IRS records that would damage him, do you think it wouldn’t have been leaked by now, especially considering Obama’s history with getting hold of his opponents’ divorce and custody records in IL? Ha! Dream on.
I should have remembered from our previous discussions that you read things to say what you want them to say, rather than what most people would see. Let’s break it down for you
This is simply a ridiculous excuse. HIPAA didn't make previously disclosed information illegal to disclose. What a stupid, stupid, stupid thing to suggest.
It seems stupid, but you don’t understand HIPAA – that’s the way it works. Hospitals are not allowed to disclose, whether it’s in the public domain or not. Even if the patient discloses the information, the health care entity is still not allowed to publicly release or discuss the information.
Healthcare providers have a continuing obligation to protect PHI following treatment of a patient, and this obligation is not destroyed by a patient’s self-disclosure of the PHI to an online audience. A provider who discloses PHI it obtained or created in treating the patient without the patient’s specific authorization to do so violates HIPAA, even if the patient has publicly discussed the same or similar information with numerous others.. So the fact that the information may have been previously disclosed, even by the patient, has no effect on the hospital’s duty to keep PHI confidential. Unless there is express written permission, it can’t be released.
I just told you the law in Hawaii required permission to disclose the address. That permission would have been obtained at the hospital if that was where the birth occurred. It's the exact same kind of permission that would be needed to disclose directory information under HIPAA.
Wrong. A release signed by a parent for the Hawaii DOH to release an address in 1961would not be sufficient for the hospital to now release information. The hospital would have to have a signed release form that was HIPAA compliant to release it now.
Only when you ignore the parts about administrative requests, identifying suspects and suspected victims of crime (which would include suspected birth certificate fraud) ...
Read a little more carefully, especially the part early on that says “subject to specified conditions” and think about what you read. Hospitals are very wary about disclosing PHI. They usually want a subpoena or court order. The posse has one of those? Has it been presented to an administrative tribunal? Try telling a hospital in Hawaii that a Sheriff’s posse from Arizona can make an administrative request that they should honor. Further, identifying a suspect is not persuasive – if forgery is proved, everyone knows quite well who the suspect is, and doesn’t need PHI. The hospital will be well within its rights to demand a court order, and this has ultimately been thrown out every time it’s brought to court. Good try. No one can be fined for permissible disclosures, so despite your melodrama, let's focus on the facts once again. There is NO LEGAL REASON this information cannot be disclosed to the investigators.
Wrong again. You obviously are not familiar with HIPAA, and how concerned hospitals are with regard to violations. You declare it legal – I’m sure hospitals are rushing to listen based on your well-known expertise litigating HIPAA… what’s that, you have none? Not surprising you don’t understand the law.
Present Kapiolani with a court order or subpoena, and they should comply. Absent that, I doubt they will disclose PHI, and are undoubtedly concerned about violating HIPAA and the fines.
To understand HIPAA better, look up the “Minimum necessary rule” which says that hospitals must only release the minimum necessary to perform the function. No way you can make the argument that over 50 years later it is “necessary” to release a directory from 1961.
It doesn’t matter what information is already out in the public domain. It doesn’t matter if the patient has already published the information himself. The hospital still can’t release PHI without express permission from the patient.
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.