Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

American Babies are Next
The Liberty Committee ^ | 24 Jan 2003 | Kent Snyder

Posted on 01/25/2003 3:36:53 PM PST by steplock

American Babies are Next
Kent Snyder
The Liberty Committee

Now that Hillary Clinton is in the U.S. Senate, she is in the perfect place to finish what she started in the White House.

The United Kingdom recently implemented the scheme Hillary Clinton has been planning for us since 1992. We need your help today to stop it. The next few days are crucial.

Here’s the story:
On October 30, 2002 in the United Kingdom, a new-born baby was assigned a new, permanent, government-mandated, medical identification number.

"Little Beth Atkinson's birth – at three minutes past midnight yesterday – made medical history. Beth, who came into the world at Newcastle's Royal Victoria Infirmary, became the first baby in the country to be given an NHS ‘lifelong’ identification number. The unique nine-digit reference number will stay with Beth for the rest of her life...."

October 30, 2002/The Journal/United Kingdom

Australia will also "provide a single, national database of patient health information" as reported by Kelley Mills of News Interactive on October 8, 2002.

The practice has started with "branding" U.K. babies with a universal, government-mandated number (with Australia to follow), and unless we act today...American babies will be next! This isn’t some far-in-the-future possibility. It will soon be a reality. The law is already on the books here in the U.S.

In fact, "branding" new-born American babies would be taking place today if it weren’t for the work of Congressman Ron Paul and thousands of Liberty Committee activists during the last four years.

With your help, Congressman Paul, a practicing obstetrician for over 30 years, got legislation passed each of the last four years to temporarily stop the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from issuing every American a “unique health identifier” (patient tracking number). Dr. Paul’s legislation was attached to the last four annual Labor/Health and Human Services appropriations bills and is attached to the pending 2003 omnibus appropriations bill that Congress will finalize within a matter of days.

But the health care industry and big-government fanatics are getting tired of us stopping the "unique health identifier." They don’t want their plan to number and track every American to be delayed any longer, by us or anyone else.

Their plan for us is the gradual implementation of the 1992 Clinton health care plan: Hillary Care. You might have forgotten about Hillary Care. You might even have thought Hillary Care was dead. But it’s alive and well and is being given to us in small doses instead of the original mega-dose.

What is Hillary Care? It is the complete management, administration and distribution of health care in the United States -- medical record keeping, payment systems and the provisioning of medical care itself – by federal bureaucrats.

Assigning every American a “unique health identifier” is necessary for Hillary Care’s new, centralized, medical database to work. Here is how it will likely be implemented:

1) New-born babies will be assigned this new federal number (as is done now in the United Kingdom and soon to be in Australia).
2) Senior Americans will be assigned a number when they first apply for Medicare.
3) The rest of us will then get our number.

The health care industry and lovers of big government want Hillary Care and they know they can’t have it without assigning every American this new government tracking number. During the next several days, they will have a prime opportunity to beat us.

Good News

Last night, the U.S. Senate approved the omnibus appropriations bill containing Congressman Ron Paul’s moratorium that will stop Hillary Care’s new federal “unique health identifier” for another year.

Bad News

The bill now goes to a House/Senate conference committee early next week for further work. It is in this committee, where Dr. Paul’s moratorium can be removed…and we won’t know who did it. Why? There is no record of the conference committee’s actions.

We’ve suffered this fate before...

Good News

Last year, the House passed an appropriations bill which contained Congressman Ron Paul’s provision opposing the United Nations’ International Criminal Court.

Bad News

The bill then went to a House/Senate conference committee where Dr. Paul’s anti-UN/ICC provision was stripped away...and we don’t know to this day who did it.

We are preparing for the worst. Hillary Clinton and her big-government cronies, along with a team of high-paid lobbyists for the health care industry, want to quietly remove Congressman Paul’s moratorium in the House/Senate conference committee next week…so we must fight them yet again.

But the fight is becoming a true “David vs. Goliath” and we need your help today.

We are fighting the largest industry in America (larger than the defense industry). We are fighting the politicians of both parties who feed from the establishment health care lobby. We are fighting the entrenched and faceless, government bureaucrats who want government to grow because they receive their livelihood from government programs and projects…and, We are even fighting the United Nations.

The United Nations? Yes, because the World Health Organization wants this numbering system to be worldwide. It started in the United Kingdom and it will soon be picked up in the United States with other countries to follow.

American babies are next…then senior Americans…then the rest of us.

We’ve fought off the Hillary Care “unique health identifier” for the last four years, but the battle from here on out will be much more difficult. The United Kingdom has already given up. The United Nations World Health Organization, the health-care industry and big-government politicians, such as Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy are preparing to beat us this time.

Your extra help is our only hope to meet the extra expense of this emergency. We must focus public opinion on the conference committee. Time is not on our side. Please contribute $25 or $50 or whatever you can spare now, while this important matter has your attention.

To make your donation, go to Libert Committee

Thank you.

Kent Snyder The Liberty Committee

This article comes from Focus on Freedom Focus on Freedom

The URL for this story is: American Babies


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: 666; babies; care; clinton; communism; hillary; idcard; liberty; medical; privacylist; ronpaullist; socialism; socializedmedicine

1 posted on 01/25/2003 3:36:53 PM PST by steplock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: steplock
A unique nine-digit lifelong identification code? And precisly how is this different from a Social Security number?
2 posted on 01/25/2003 3:41:52 PM PST by brbethke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brbethke
My thought exactly.....
3 posted on 01/25/2003 3:44:28 PM PST by netmilsmom (Partly cloudy because I'm a mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
That makes three of us.
4 posted on 01/25/2003 3:48:56 PM PST by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: *Ron Paul List; *Socialized Medicine; *Privacy_list; madfly; LibertarianInExile
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list
5 posted on 01/25/2003 3:49:48 PM PST by Libertarianize the GOP (Ideas have consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steplock
American babies have been branded with this number since about 1934. It's called a "Social Security Number." My son had one before he was circumsized.
6 posted on 01/25/2003 3:51:27 PM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steplock
Wait, wait, wait. Before you send that 25 or 50 dollars to this organization to stop Social Securtity numbers, you can just send it to my house. I'll make sure to count it and sort it then put it into the proper place. I swear I will keep it safe until they call me (my kids can use it more than these scammers).
7 posted on 01/25/2003 4:00:13 PM PST by netmilsmom (Partly cloudy because I'm a mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steplock
Yeah, maybe there's something to this "health identifier" -- or maybe not.

If they were just reporting and not asking for money I'd be more concerned. I'd like to hear more. I'm leery of anything that smacks of national health care -- not to mention her hinyness.

In the meantime, I'll sleep "easy" in the knowledge that the government's already been tracking me for nearly fifty years with my Social Security number.

8 posted on 01/25/2003 4:00:44 PM PST by BfloGuy (The past is like a different country, they do things different there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
I didn't get mine untill just after my 16th birthday.
9 posted on 01/25/2003 4:06:13 PM PST by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BfloGuy
Go to the website. Some real names there. I'm not sure about this. Can anyone bump it to someone in the know???
What is this Liberty deal???
10 posted on 01/25/2003 4:10:14 PM PST by netmilsmom (Partly cloudy because I'm a mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: steplock
About Us - A Message from Congressman Ron Paul
January 31, 2002

Dear friend of liberty,

You can make a difference.

Three years ago, a small group of men and women, united by their determination to restore liberty in the United States, formed The Liberty Committee. These men and women recognized that socialists have, for decades, been actively involved in our national legislative process; patiently, methodically, relentlessly working to make us subjects of the government, instead of the government being subject to us. The founding members of The Liberty Committee came together to fight these collectivists and reclaim our country from their clutches.

The national legislative process, I readily admit, can be complicated, frustrating and boring. The socialists, however, do not let this deter them from their objective. They understand that the legislative process produces the laws that we, believers in the rule of law, live by. Several years ago, a brazen socialist looked at me and quipped, "We know you freedom lovers respect the rule of law…and that’s why we use the law against you."

We freedom lovers are fighting back! Since the formation of The Liberty Committee, thousands of freedom lovers from every congressional district in the country have become actively involved with us in the national legislative process. Sixteen of my U.S. House colleagues have joined my liberty caucus. Together we are making a difference.

Only last month legislation was quickly moving through the House Committee on International Relations that would have accelerated the transformation of the United States military into the standing army of the United Nations – a long-sought goal of the world socialists. As a member of the committee, I strongly opposed the legislation as did thousands of freedom lovers throughout the country who told their U.S. representative "the US military is NOT the UN’s military." The legislation was changed. Battle won.

The success we will have in rolling back the socialists' authoritarian agenda is yet to be determined. You have a part in the outcome. You can join us. Then, together with my caucus of liberty-minded colleagues on Capitol Hill and freedom-loving Americans nationwide, you can have an effect on the legislative process. As our numbers grow, so grows our influence.

Together we can do much, but only you can take the first step. Your first step is to join us.

For liberty,

Ron Paul -
About Us
11 posted on 01/25/2003 4:13:55 PM PST by steplock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brbethke
A unique nine-digit lifelong identification code? And precisly how is this different from a Social Security number?

-----
ALL your health, medical history, records, tests, medications, etc. etc. will be attached to this nuber. It is part of the Clintons so-called, misleading "medical privacy act". It was already going to be implemented, but was stopped, as the article said. It is part of the HIPAA act passed in 1996, and signed into law by Clinton. Do a search on it, include "patient identifier"

I find it rather amazing that people are up in arms and against maintaining databases to be searched to detect terrorists, but have no problem or don't care about government databases that would track all your medical information.

This is RED ALERT time, and it seems most people are napping.

http://ncvhs.hhs.gov/app3.htm
12 posted on 01/25/2003 4:23:02 PM PST by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: steplock
Ahem, in case you didn't know ... in the U.S. we already have a life long number. It's called a SOCIAL SECURITY number and has been given out since God knows when. Whoever wrote this article is stupid and hysterical.
13 posted on 01/25/2003 4:28:23 PM PST by nmh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
This is RED ALERT time, and it seems most people are napping.

Here is another article on the site of AAPS. I strongly urge everyone to read that, read up on this topic and take it seriously, because it is, unless you don't care about your medical privacy.

Web site: http://www.aapsonline.org/newsletters/june01.htm

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc.
A Voice for Private Physicians Since 1943
Omnia pro aegroto

Volume 57, No. 6 June 2001



VIRTUAL EXPOSURE
Americans are not quite ready for airport x-rays capable of checking for contraband in their underwear. But what about an indelible virtual record that enables remote bureaucrats, years in the future, to inspect what is (or was) in their nightstand? Or what attitudes and thoughts are in their minds?

The lessons from the last century of murderous utopias should sensitize Americans to the vital importance of our Constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and forced self-incrimination. Medical records contain much information of potential use to blackmailers or law enforcers- and may soon contain much more, as we shall show (see p. 2).

Giving lip service to public concerns, politicians often declare their dedication to protecting privacy. So does President Bush, as he implements the Clinton Administration's medical records "privacy" regulations on schedule-despite a brief reprieve (see AAPS News April 2001). In 30 days, more than 24,000 written comments were received. (HHS counted the 13,535 names and addresses on the Liberty Committee's petition as one comment; the 27,000 signatories to a NewsMax.com petition were also not included in the tally.)

Industry groups were shocked by the President's decision. Scott Serota, president of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association called the rules an "operational nightmare," and two years far too short a time to reach compliance (Wall St J 4/13/01). BCBSA also argued that HHS grossly underestimated costs and inflated projected savings (BNA's HCPR 4/23/01). Senior editor John Perry states that the tab is $18 billion (the HHS estimate for 10 years) for a value of precisely $0 (NewsMax.com 4/18/01). Others estimate $40 billion in 5 years.

Secretary Thompson promised to make "common sense" alterations to the rules, so that patient care might continue. For example, he does not intend to let consent requirements interfere with the ability of friends or relatives to pick up prescriptions for a sick patient.

Reportedly, President Bush acted under pressure to avoid a lawsuit threatened by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Public Citizen. The ACLU acknowledges that the rule allows "virtually unfettered access to medical records by law enforcement agencies" and that "government data systems are notoriously susceptible to expansion and abuse." In its March 30 comments, the ACLU stated: "Officials may collect data for entirely benign goals, but once the data are collated and stored there is a temptation for the information to be used for invasive and illegitimate purposes" (search the archives at www.aclu.org/congress). Nevertheless, the ACLU has an overriding concern that, in the absence of the rule, parents may have access to data about their minor children's abortions, substance abuse, or mental health. This is, ironically, an aspect of the rule that the Administration has promised to change, in response to the objections of advocates for familial rights.

On May 2, House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) wrote a second letter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson, urging major changes to provisions that give the government unprecedented access to sensitive medical records ( www.freedom.gov/library/technology/medpriv2.asp).

"This startling provision grants federal agents the power to look into citizens' medical records without a warrant, `at any time and without notice'," Armey wrote. "Americans' medical records should be protected from all bureaucrats, not just corporate ones." He noted that federal agencies have a terrible record for protecting sensitive information: HHS received an "F" last year on computer security from the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee on Management and Information. A survey by the General Accounting Office (GAO) showed that 97% of all federal web sites failed to meet the privacy standards that Congress wants to impose on everyone else.

Congressman Ron Paul, M.D., has introduced House Joint Resolution 38, which would use the Congressional Review Act to repeal the rules. "Many things in Washington are misnamed; however, this regulation may be the most blatant case of false advertising I have come across in all my years in Congress," he writes in the April issue of Ron Paul's Freedom Report. "The only fail-safe privacy protection is for the government not to collect and store...personal information."

While killing the rules outright may not be feasible, there may be a chance to make the ban on the unique individual health identifier permanent and to delay implementation.

The response by the AMA and the Federation has been pathetically weak and focused solely on the administrative burden and the uncompensated cost of compliance. The AMA's advice to physicians: "Get used to details" (AM News 5/7/01). AMA Trustee Donald Palmisano, M.D., J.D., suggests getting a package price for a compliance plan, including the security component. It may be necessary to lock up the FAX machine and avoid placing print-outs of lab results on a desk, where they might be viewed (NY Times 3/1/01).

It is possible that the AMA actually favors expanded government access to medical records. This would enable its public partner to help enforce the Federation's public health agenda, which parallels the HHS Health People 2010 "leading health indicators." These include immunization; injury and violence; mental health; substance abuse; tobacco use; "responsible sexual behavior"; and access to health care. (Does your practice have a correct mix, and do you treat all your patients equitably, with due regard to the priorities of society?)

Those who object to total exposure may be asked, "What do you have to hide?" Today, perhaps nothing. But what might happen a few years from now, if vices and dissent become crimes, and everything that isn't forbidden is required?








The File

An essential tool of the totalitarian state is the collection of a dossier on anyone who might pose a threat to its power. In the pre-computer age, the Stasi (the East German secret police) used cross-indexed card files. After the Berlin wall fell, journalist Timothy Garton Ash was able to open his own Stasi file and interview the watchers. His observations are recorded in a remarkable autobiographical history, The File: a Personal History (New York, Random House, 1997).

The proportions of the Stasi and its "unofficial collaborators" dwarfed even the Gestapo. About one in every fifty East Germans had a direct connection with the secret police: "Wherever two or three are gathered together, there suspicion will be." Perhaps the most frightening aspect to Garton Ash was that, in all of his searching, he met not a single clearly evil person. "They were all just weak, shaped by circumstance, self- deceiving; human, all too human. Yet the sum of all their actions was a very great evil." He describes the "textbook example of the petty bureaucratic executor of evil....Proud of his correctness, loyalty, hard work, decency-...`secondary virtues' ... identified as a key to collaboration with Nazism."

The key to betrayal, Garton Ash concludes, is trust. Only a trusted person can carry out a good Absch”pfung, defined in a 1985 Stasi dictionary as "systematic conduct of conversations for the targeted exploitation of the knowledge, information and possibilities of other persons for gaining information."

Sample Resolution on Privacy

[A similar resolution will be submitted to the Arizona Medical Association by AAPS Executive Director Jane M. Orient, M.D.]


WHEREAS: (1) Keeping patient records confidential is an ethical duty of all physicians; (2) Patient care is compromised if patients withhold information due to fear that confidentiality will be breached; (3) It is technically impossible to guarantee the confidentiality of information once it is entered into a networked electronic data base; (4) The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"; (5) The American people strenuously object to the assignment of a unique individual health identifier and to unconsented access to their private medical records by government agencies and their designees....

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT: The State Medical Association demand that (1) the AMA inform the President that the HIPAA "privacy" regulations as currently written are unacceptable; (2) that the AMA lobby Congress aggressively to permanently repeal the unique individual health identifier and to require voluntary patient consent or a court order for government access to medical records; and (2) that the AMA inform its members of their ethical duties of noncompliance with data requirements that violate patients' rights.



14 posted on 01/25/2003 4:32:46 PM PST by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
I have donated to the Liberty Caucas for several years
Ron Paul is very careful to protect the Constitution at all times. He Has voted by himself for years and is now getting more people to vote with him.
15 posted on 01/25/2003 4:36:30 PM PST by The UnVeiled Lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: The UnVeiled Lady
Seems that everytime I fill out a form, medical, financial, insurance, employment, or to register to take a class, my SS is required. This, it seems to me, is far more invasive that a single number for a single purpose. The only thing preventing the government from knowing almost everything there is to know about me is a system that ties all this information together.
16 posted on 01/25/2003 5:27:49 PM PST by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: steplock
The difference between SS and the "Rodham ID" scheme is Hillary's Phase II - tattooing a barcode on everyone's forearm.
17 posted on 01/25/2003 6:24:33 PM PST by Mentos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brbethke
Here is a newsmax article on the subject. It's not "just" the issuance of medical ID numbers, it's that part of the legislation is that the government can have unlimited access to peoeple's personal medical histories. I personally would rather have them keep track of what books I buy, or whether or not someone buys explosives, which at least may help catch terrorists, than have them keep track of people's personal medical records, which serves no useful purpose, other than having the information to use against people.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/8/3/131226.shtml

Medical 'Privacy' Regulations Destroy Privacy
Charlotte Twight
Monday, Aug. 5, 2002
Editor's note: This is part one of an article on how federal regulations that purportedly protect medical privacy have in fact done the opposite.

Federal privacy regulations issued by the Clinton administration on Dec. 28, 2000, and adopted by the Bush administration on April 14, 2001, perpetrate a fraud on the American people, proclaiming privacy as their goal when ever-wider access to individual medical records is their actual and intended effect.

The federal legislation underlying the new regulations is part of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), commonly known as the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill (Public Law 104-191, Aug. 21, 1996). Enacted in 1996 with virtually no opposition, HIPAA seemed to foreshadow only good things - at least, it did so if one listened only to government officials and to the popular press. Members of Congress, the president and the news media repeatedly emphasized HIPAA's appealing objectives, chief among them reduction of the "job lock" that tied many workers to their existing employment for fear of losing insurance coverage if they switched jobs.

Prior to HIPAA's passage, however, lawmakers and the press seldom told the public about the act's more ominous side - privacy-threatening provisions buried in a section entitled "Administrative Simplification," which included some of the most feared elements of the rejected 1993 Clinton health security bill.

Hillary's National ID Nightmare Returns

Copied almost verbatim from the 1993 bill were HIPAA's requirements for uniform electronic databases of personal medical information nationwide and for the creation of a "unique health identifier" for every American. The 1996 act empowered the federal government, at its discretion, to require detailed information on what lawmakers called "encounters" between doctors and patients.

The secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was to adopt standards to enable "health information" that is, everything a doctor, employer, university, or life insurer ever learns about an individual - "to be exchanged electronically." The legislation aimed to create a "health information system" through the "establishment of standards and requirements for the electronic transmission of certain health information" by medical practitioners (Public Law 104-191, Title II). The issuance of privacy regulations to protect this new electronic flow of personally identifiable medical information was not required until three and a half years after the passage of HIPAA.1






18 posted on 01/25/2003 9:09:53 PM PST by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: steplock
Assigning every American a “unique health identifier” is necessary for Hillary Care...

The Bible has a name for it..."the mark of the beast".

19 posted on 01/25/2003 9:45:54 PM PST by JimRed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimRed
The Bible has a name for it..."the mark of the beast".

The medical ID is going to be required in order to buy and sell? The SS number fits the Biblical prophecy better.

20 posted on 01/26/2003 10:18:54 AM PST by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson