[Wondergirl]

There is no such thing as Dr-Patient confidentiality . It really is Dr-Insurance Company- Patient confidentiality.

Throw in the entire hospital medical staff, and I'm right there with you. (I was in the hospital three times between 09/01/09 and 12/18/09, so sit down with snacks and a stiff drink while I tell you all about it.)

[spitvenom]

Throw in the entire hospital medical staff, and I'm right there with you. (I was in the hospital three times between 09/01/09 and 12/18/09, so sit down with snacks and a stiff drink while I tell you all about it.)

I forgot about them my cousin is a RN and the stories she tells are just wrong. She doesn't use a names in her story but that doesn't make it right.

[Wondergirl]

I forgot about them my cousin is a RN and the stories she tells are just wrong. She doesn't use a names in her story but that doesn;t make it right.

In each patient's room there is a medical-staff-use-only (I wasn't allowed to check my email) computer that contains any patient's "chart."

[excon]

Which Article? What Section?

Maybe my copy got edited. I always thought the right to privacy was found to be "implied" in the Roe v. Wade decision.

Hello Cats:

Although the word "privacy" isn't used, the Fourth Amendment says, "The right of the people to be SECURE in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable search and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Now, I don't know how YOU interpret that amendment, but I think it says your papers and stuff shall remain PRIVATE, unless there's probable cause that something untoward is going on. In fact, I don't see how it could be clearer... I even say that, knowing that some people (smoothy and maybe even yourself) have a TOTALLY different viewpoint about what the words mean.

excon

[tickle]

He brought change all right. The unemployment rate is at near record levels....our debt is now at record levels....he has made a laughing stockl out of our country.

And the arrogant SOB is obsessed with having his face and dumbo ears on the TV every day.

Any time he shows his face on TV I want to turn the channel. Thank GOD for cable TV I can find a channel he's NOT on spouting his BS and lies.

Can't you people be happy with any President you get? I rather like him. We don't like Stephen Harper, but we got to live with him for now.

Tick

[smoothy]

Smoothy one of my first jobs out of college was for an Insurance company. Everything you listed here they do. If the underwriter was having a bad day your claim was not getting approved. In the break room they would bring the most embarrassing claims and read them to the other employees. So my question is what is the difference if it is a government employee laughing at medical conditions or an employee of an insurance. There is no such thing as Dr-Patient confidentiality . It really is Dr-Insurance Company- Patient confidentiality.

We aren't talking about Insurance companies... we are talking Government Bureaucrats. Who coincidently are also the prosecution for the state. Exactly what will prevent them from using that confidential information against anyone running against them... YOu do remember Filegate... Where Hillary Clinton had political files created to smear the opposition... then was in contempt of court for 9 months refusing to produce them... and of course Janet Reno would not throw a fellow democrat in jail... incidently those files miraculously appeared in the White house residence... one of the most tightly controlled places in the USA... and nobody knew how they got there? Yeah right... they knew Hillary had them, nobody could have possible planted them yet nothing was ever done.


I'm not excusing insurance people from doing that... but at least those records stayed in that office. The contents weren't used to smear or blackmail patients. That's exactly what Politicians with access to records WILL do.


Also... Why are Obamas College transcripts such a national secret... yet my medical records (along with everyone else's ) has every bit of information any identity thief in the world drools over having acess too. And you trust people in the civil service to keep it secret.

And when it gets out... who do you sue for the privacy breach. How do you find out who did it when its acessible from literally most of the federal government? Ever try to sue the Federal Government? Good luck if you aren't Bill Gates.
Who pays you for the grief and loss WHEN your identity is stolen as a result. And I do know people that this has happened to... you can't imagine what they go through and what it costs if you didn't know a victim.

Hope you are happy paying higher taxes to provide healthcare to illegals, Viagra to sex offenders and rapists, because you will be.

Are insurance companies perfect? Nope... but they go out of business if they screw up bad enough... not so with the feds... they need more money... they raise your taxes... you have no alternative. And unless you are connected the IRS takes everything and sends you to Jail. Unless you are Tim Geitner, or Charles Rangle as two examples.

Ever deal with the INS? Let me tell you, the Post office wins the award for best Costomer service and efficiency compaired to them. The INS is staffed with idiots, and lazy people, none of which have a clue as to what their job is.

Dealt with three INS offices in 2 states... for 2 straight years... didn't meet one person with the brains to tie their own shoes at any of them.

But they know how to take your money... not how to give you the right forms after spending 4 hours in line and 45 minutes talking with them... but they know how to take and cash that check.

Where will the savings be... the IRS is hiring 16,000 new workers to make sure everyone complies with the latest extortion scheme.

That's 16,000 salaries, 16,000 pensions, 16,000 benefit packages... and not a single thing toi do with health care.

Plus... how many of you that want this Government health care have ever been overseas to live nad work and not on vacation only... has ever been in a hospital in Europe, has known many people that have been... or knows many who have died in them and known their families were blocked from sueing for malpractice, no matter how obvious it was?

See... I do.. European hospitals scare the hell out of me... I've known far too many people die there or come out worse than they went in... and I know at least 4 of them were OBVIOUS malpractice.

I've been a patient in American hospitals several times and they are far better. That WILL change. They WILL keep score and use that to determine if you get treatment or not... thats what Obama politicians do.

[smoothy]

In each patient's room there is a medical-staff-use-only (I wasn't allowed to check my email) computer that contains any patient's "chart."

Now give that to every politician with an axe to grind... or who wants to forward all the personal information to an identity thief...

[smoothy]

cant you people be happy with any President you get? I rather like him. We dont like Stephen Harper, but we gotta live with him for now.

tick

He is better than Pol Pot... but then... give him time... he hasn't set up the gulags like Stalin did to send people that disagreed with him... YET.

He crys like a damn 2nd crade school kid whining that the mean kid over there won't agree with me... waaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Yeah that's real mature and presidential. I keep waiting for him to burp then lift his leg and fart for an encore at his next speech.

I have a 6 year old nephew that exhibits more maturity than Obama. He doesn't cry and complain everyone doesn't agree with him like Obama has been doing.

[smoothy]

Hello Cats:

Although the word "privacy" isn't used, the Fourth Amendment says, "The right of the people to be SECURE in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable search and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Now, I dunno how YOU interpret that amendment, but I think it says your papers and stuff shall remain PRIVATE, unless there's probable cause that something untoward is going on. In fact, I don't see how it could be clearer... I even say that, knowing that some people (smoothy and maybe even yourself) have a TOTALLY different viewpoint about what the words mean.

excon

Um... that doesn't apply outside of the USA... and calls to overseas ARE open to evesdropping. DO you honestly believe any call YOU make overseas isn't intercepted by other countries? Or do you only worry that OUR people might catch a terrorist before he can act? That's taken place since Jimmy Carter was in Office. Or does it only matter that a REPUBLICAN president can't do it but its OK for DEMOCRAT presidents to do it... Still waiting for you to chastise Obama for doing it... Or Bill CLinton for Doing it... or Jimmy Carter for Doing it.

I've known for decades... anything said over the phone or via computer is open to interception... and you have to behave accordingly.

Its common knowledge and searchible they did it as well. YOU do know Bush has been out of office for 15 months now... Obams has been doing it the last 15 months... He will be doing it for almost 3 more years before he is replaced... so why is it OK for him to do it... why does HE need acess to everyone's medical records too? Bush didn't want or need that... but Obama does. Say, have the FBI evesdrop on anyone ever treated for drug addiction, etc... Have the IRS whatch them closer etc...

Why does the Government want or NEED this info... it can't possibly be for anything good.

[galveston]

An aside observation.

To all you left wingers. LOSE the tea bagger thing.

That is as offensive to our side as it would be to your side for us to refer to you as queers.

Let's keep the disagreements agreeable.

[galveston]

As to the OP.

I can't say what change every conservative thought Obama would bring.

As far as I am concerned, he is proceeding pretty much as I expected.

You mean, you got fooled?

[Stringer]

cant you people be happy with any President you get? I rather like him. We dont like Stephen Harper, but we gotta live with him for now.

tick

Tick it is something that ingrained into the American culture. :)

[smoothy]

As to the OP.

I can't say what change every conservative thought Obama would bring.

As far as I am concerned, he is proceeding pretty much as I expected.

You mean, you got fooled?

I know what you mean... he's doing exactly what I expected... giving the sun and moon to the lazy... and expecting those who earn it to hand it over or else.

He did say he wanted to Redistribute the wealth. After all, the Welfare queen in the housing projects who is on crack and averages one new baby a year by different men deserves the same amount of money a woman who got her PHD and works her butt off 12 hours a day has.


He told Joe The Plumber that on public TV remember?

[smoothy]

Tick it is something that ingrained into the American culture. :)

I can say a thing or two about Canadian hypocrisy (well one thing here anyway)... recently Ann Coulter was accused of violating Canadian hate laws at a university (London, Ontario)... and was attacked and called names by idiots in Canada which somehow they don't think what THEY did is hate speech...

Really... Liberals can bash whomever they want, they get violent, rude and threatening... but that not hate speech... yet let a conservative say something that isn't lovey dovey and suddenly its hate speech.


Now I will openly admit... not all Canadians are like that. Thank god... I've visited Canada... its generally mostly nice people, (where I went anyway), and most Canadians I know are nice, (I have IN-Laws in Canada) but the universities there (much like they are here) are full of rude jerks that think the rules apply to everyone but them.


And Odd that the WONDERFUL Canadian health system which the left here thinks is so wonderful (but have never seen first hand)... wasn't good enough for the Canadian Premier who flew to Florida recently for surgery... or the thousands of Canadians that head south to pay cash for procedures they can't get in Canada without a long wait.


We don't wait months for procedures here... if you need something NOW... you get it NOW. Before you die from it. Nor do we have rationing like Canada, The UK or Europe.


Well we didn't before anyway... thats about to come to an end... Obama doesn't think its fair we have something better than someone else... so he is set on ruining it for everyone.


Everyone BUT himself... or Congress... who not surprisingly exempted themselves from this WONDERFUL system they are dead set of ramming down our throats by force...

If it was so freaking good... why did they exempt themselves. They REFUSE to answer THAT question... I'd rather have Congresses health care plan... they can take this one.

[excon]

Um......that doesn't apply outside of the USA....and calls to overseas ARE open to evesdropping.

Hello again, smoothy:

Again, you are misinformed. If an American is on ONE end of the conversation, and the call emanates from the US, the Constitution applies.

You don't have constitutional rights because of WHERE you call, or don't call. You have constitutional rights, because the Constitution says you do. I don't know why you'd think YOUR Fourth Amendment rights go away because of WHERE you call. You should read the Fourth Amendment again. I posted it in its entirety. It's pretty absolute, in my view. It says NOTHING about any exceptions. It is NOT a guideline. As you said earlier. It means what it says and it says what it means.

I say again, you cannot successfully argue constitutional law with me. I DO agree with you though, that our "papers and effects" are being searched every day. You say it's constitutional (even though you read the words). I say it's not.

excon

[smoothy]

Hello again, smoothy:

Again, you are misinformed. If an American is on ONE end of the conversation, and the call emanates from the US, the Constitution applies.

You don't have constitutional rights because of WHERE you call, or don't call. You have constitutional rights, because the Constitution says you do. I dunno why you'd think YOUR Fourth Amendment rights go away because of WHERE you call. You should read the Fourth Amendment again. I posted it in its entirety. It's pretty absolute, in my view. It says NOTHING about any exceptions. It is NOT a guideline. As you said earlier. It means what it says and it says what it means.

I say again, you cannot successfully argue constitutional law with me. I DO agree with you though, that our "papers and effects" are being searched every day. You say it's constitutional (even though you read the words). I say it's not.

excon

WRONG...

If you called me... for example I can legally record our phone call and there is nothing you can do about it even if you don't like it. Doesn't matter if Your state permits it or not without consent.

Because Part of that call resides in a place that only requires one party to be aware of it.

International calls do not enjoy the same status as domestic calls do... and that's been upheld by the courts for decades.

It all falls back to common sense... you don't say what you don't want heard in any place or location... At the mall, on the phone... on the street corner. You might have the expectation of privacy IN your house... but you see... those wires LEAVE your house... and placing a bug on your handset... or a central office... are Not legally the same thing. Because you don't own or even rent the lines this transpires upon. They are the property of the Telco companies. Your physical PHONE is your property... but once that line hits the street... its ours.


Example... don't pay your bill... we don't NEED court appoval to cut off your service unlike a renter in a residence. A few key strokes and your portion of the circuit ceases to connect to anything else immediately. Nobody even has to show up at your house to do it.


THey aren't watching what YOU do... they are monitoring what going to and coming from the other end... which is NOT protected.

[excon]

If you called me....for example I can legally record our phone call and there is nothing you can do about it even if you don't like it. Doesn't matter if Your state permits it or not without consent.

Hello again, smoothy:

Again, you are misinformed.

The Constitution doesn't protect you from what private people can do. It protects you from what the GOVERNMENT can do. I say again, you cannot successfully argue constitutional law with me.

As a matter of fact, your lack of constitutional scholarship is becoming more and more evident. It's a simple document. It's as clear as a bell. The amendments are short and concise. It means what it says, and it says what it means. The federal government may NOT search you without first obtaining a warrant that is only issued after sworn testimony in front of a judge, that something untoward is going on.

THAT'S what the words say.

excon

[tomder55]

Ex one problem with Wiiki... or perhaps I didn't see it as I normally don't use them as a primary source...

An appelate court already ruled that the Bush adm did not excede it's constitutional authority when conducting it's surveillance program.

Intelligence Court Releases Ruling in Favor of Warrantless Wiretapping - washingtonpost.com

[smoothy]

Hello again, smoothy:

Again, you are misinformed.

The Constitution doesn't protect you from what private people can do. It protects you from what the GOVERNMENT can do. I say again, you cannot successfully argue constitutional law with me.

As a matter of fact, your lack of constitutional scholarship is becoming more and more evident. It's a simple document. It's as clear as a bell. The amendments are short and concise. It means what it says, and it says what it means. The federal government may NOT search you without first obtaining a warrant that is only issued after sworn testimony in front of a judge, that something untoward is going on.

THAT'S what the words say.

excon

I've read the constitution... English is my first language.


Just because YOU wish it said something else... doesn't change what it says.

I'm not a constitutional scholar... and I admit it... but neither are you.

There is a danger in twisting the words... you start to believe what you want... lots of people been convicted of crimes they honestly believed were not crimes for example.

[tomder55]

Tick it is something that ingrained into the American culture. :)

After Washington read the Declaration of Independence to the troops they celebrated by bringing down a statue of King George III and melting it down to make bullets. They said they'd return them to the King "one soldier at a time" .

Since then we have pretty much followed the template of extreme mistrust of central authority .Presidents being the closest we have to putting a face on it usually get the brunt of it.