Posted on 11/29/2010 11:40:47 AM PST by RobinMasters
Watch how fast the Fox puppets change the subject. What are they so afraid of ?
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
...at baskin Robbins...... with a CT SSN.....hmmmmm, hmmmmmm
It is not even the same as someone like Nixon if he had been removed after he legally became President because of actually being convicted of a felony. Ford would then have taken his place because Nixon was legally President and fell from the position.
There is no way an usurper's accomplice should inherit the usurper's position because the usurper was found out. There is no way that this is what the Founding Fathers would have wanted. There is also a reason that the Speaker of the House is the next in line.
Re: “...there were not computerized records at that time...”
Of course there were — especially in government agencies. They had the money and were early innovators.
You’re correct about Iron Mountain, where they probably have the original paper documents, and certainly microfiche/film copies — oh, and electronic media copies.
Even now, hospitals are slow to adopt.
Using a recent survey of U.S. hospitals, we found that the share of hospitals that had adopted either basic or comprehensive electronic records has risen modestly, from 8.7 percent in 2008 to 11.9 percent in 2009. Small, public, and rural hospitals were less likely to embrace electronic records than their larger, private, and urban counterparts.I recognize that hospitals have instituted some computerized records earlier than they instituted electronic medical notes, but in 1961 most records were still on paper. The earliest I could find was 1967. If you know something about the original Kapiolani hospital being a very early adopter, please cite. You may also find this computer timeline helpful.
Mechanics aside.
The records are there. It’s what governments do.
Now whether individuals with the government share those records, or lose those records, or change those records is another question.
We’re talking about Obama, after all.
His shit just keeps disappearing!
I wholeheartedly agree.
I believe the preponderance of the evidence points toward Barry being an illegal alien squatting in the White House. I believe Barry proves the wisdom of our Founding Fathers in requiring natural born citizenship for the presidency — to prevent exactly the kind of anti-American shenanigans Barry pulls day after day.
A news story about Barry’s trip to Pakistan:
http://www.pak-times.com/2008/07/10/obamas-larkana-cnnection/
To me, her statement, “EVEN the US PRESIDENT passed through my hands,” might be a Freudian slip. It’s been reported that she has handlers with her whenever she speaks to the media, starting back during the campaign, designed to keep her from blurting out what she’s not supposed to say. She doesn’t seem senile to me. She seems pretty spry and feisty. But like a lot of us when we age, we lose that inner monitor that reminds us to apply discretion.
autumnraine suggests, if I understand correctly, that perhaps because she doesn’t speak English, the reporter mistranslated her statement.
Do we know that she CANNOT speak English? Many in her family do speak English and are university-educated people. The country has English as well as Kiswahili as official languages. Kenyan law still, even after the new Constitution, recognizes English as the only language of the High Court and the Court of Appeal. My guess is that English is routinely taught in school. Does she watch TV? My guess is that she can understand English and perhaps even speak it a little, but is far more comfortable in her native tongue.
However, it’s LIKELY that reporters speak both official languages and maybe other African dialects as well. If they don’t, then a reporter would bring along a good interpreter when interviewing a non-English, non-Kiswahili speaker, or a tape recorder.
Even if Sarah spoke in another tongue, it’s likely that the words “US PRESIDENT” were spoken by Sarah in English. All around the world, people say, “US”. And they use his title “president” just as we say “sheik”, “rajah”, etc.
But even if Sarah spoke the Luo/Kiswahili equivalent of “US president”, it’s unlikely that would sound to the reporter like “Barack Hussein Obama” (first or second).
If she said, “Barack Hussein Obama”, then that’s likely what the reporter would have written in the QUOTE from her statement. It is clearly in quotes. It is clearly an exact quotation of what she said in her speech. A transcript of the speech may have been provided to reporters.
Then you have that pesky word “even”. If she were speaking about “Barack Hussein Obama” and meant her stepSON and not her stepGRANDSON, would she use the word “even”? Not likely. Rationalization is ineffective in trying to do away with this clear statement by Sarah.
autumnraine has mysteriously disappeared, upon being challenged about this issue and also on claims about Scott Inoue—personally knowing Scott; that Scott’s a Christian and conservative; that he doesn’t so much support Obama as enjoy the association; that he went to Punahou; that the 3rd grade photo was taken at Punahou, etc.
One would hope that upon making such claims and also upon admonishing others on “our side” to deal in facts, autumnraine would have the intellectual gonads to respond to the questions I raised on this page:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2631130/posts?q=1&;page=201
Employees who have merely looked at celebrity records have lost their jobs; one got a four month sentence just for looking. One employee who sold information to the press was facing a 10 year prison term, but died before she could be incarcerated. Hospitals guard protected health information carefully since HIPAA, sometimes absurdly so.
It’s ridiculous to pretend the Federal government is going to prosecute the hospital where the POTUS was born for confirming that he was born there (IF he was born there). This isn’t about employees snooping in files or inadvertently or maliciously releasing sensitive information. Plus, if Obama wasn’t born there, no part of the law prevents them from saying so.
It is illegal to release any information, including the fact that was someone was a patient. May sound crazy, but that's the way HIPAA was written. It's illegal, and people have been fired, fined or imprisoned in a few cases just for looking at records that they had no reason to look at. You may want to look at this article on the matter from WND.
The confirmation that an individual was a patient or was not a patient is indeed covered by the statute," said Helen Oscislawski, a Princeton, N.J., attorney who represents hospitals.
So it's your belief that Kathleen Sebelius, the director of Health and Human Services, whom Obama personally selected and appointed, would fine Kapiolani Hospital for saying Obama was or was not born there because of a presumed HIPAA violation?? Honestly???
"We can't confirm or deny it — even though all the information out there says he was born at Kapiolani Hospital. And that's because of the HIPA law."
Tong acknowledged that the center has received daily inquiries from news agencies far and wide asking for confirmation of Obama's birthplace. Much as she wishes she could do it, Tong said it's not possible. "Our hands are tied," she said.People may not realize how concerned hospitals are about HIPAA, but I can tell you they are very, very careful. No one wants to risk the fines, prison sentences, and bad publicity; they do all they can to stay far on the legal side of the line. Sometimes stupidly so - like absurdly short security time lockouts on computers, sign in sheets with peel off labels so no one sees another patient's signature, etc. In the early days, some hospitals would refuse to share medical information with other hospitals or doctors taking care of the patient - fortunately most of that has been corrected.
Of course they are. They can't confirm something that never happened. HIPAA is a convenient excuse, albeit a poor one since there are plenty of exemptions for different types of disclosures, including the seemingly impossible task of getting permission from the person in question.
They are concerned with violating HIPAA. You propose that is only “a convenient excuse,” but do you have evidence to back that up?
I can tell you from experience with hospitals that they are all careful to avoid violations. Yes, there are exemptions, but this situation does not fit any of them. They would need authorization to disclose from the patient.
This all started because someone referred me to a site that claimed all hospitals in Honolulu had confirmed that Obama was not born in any of them. I have shown reasons why that site’s claim is bunk.
You posted a lawyer quote from a WND article making an unsupported statement. There’s nothing that prevents a hospital from saying they did NOT admit or treat someone.
I posted a quote from a lawyer who represents hospitals. In her opinion, confirming or denying someone was a patient could be a HIPAA violation. Just the possibility of that would prevent many hospitals from confirming or denying.
If you google it, you'll see that several medical organizations have a "don't confirm or deny" policy, unless the person making enquiries can be confirmed to be authorized to receive the information. Here's one example, and I found several others: Wisconsin, Ohio, etc.
# Agency staff shall not discuss individually identifiable health information (e.g., client's diagnosis or condition) until the following can be confirmed:
- 1. Identity of the caller (e.g., a "call back" to validate the number called or voice recognition) and
- 2. Verification that the caller has a need to know, and the use or disclosure of confidential information is permissible.
If confirmation cannot be made, the agency shall not confirm or deny that the client has in the past or is currently receiving services from the agency. The caller's information can be recorded and provided to the client for disposition.
This doesn’t say it applies to people who have not been clients.
It is based on sound current practice that protected health information should not be used or disclosed when it is not necessary to satisfy a particular purpose or carry out a function.The original point was that a site claimed they had checked with several hospitals all of whom said "not born here." The site named no names, gave no specifics of how the information was obtained, just a bald claim. From what I know of HIPAA, I doubted it and gave reasons why. The most basic: hospitals would first check if the person inquiring had the right to the information. If no, the hospital would not even bother looking for the answer. I think that's as far as you and I can go with this, so goodbye for now.
You don’t seem to want to admit the obvious. HIPAA is designed for protecting information that a hospital actually holds. They can’t protect something they don’t have nor can the government fine them for confirming they DON’T hold such information. A great example is directory information. If you call a hospital and ask for someone by name, they can’t deny the person is there. Likewise they CAN tell you if that person is NOT there.
econd, the standard you posted would call for the release of any information held in regard to Obama’s birth. The information pertaining to Obama’s birth satisfies a very particular purpose. Further, this isn’t information that needs to be protected. His mom gave birth to him (presumably). Obama was born somewhere. A birth was announced in the paper. Obama is alive so he had to be born somewhere. Nobody is asking for any sensitive medical information.
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.