Desperate Greek citizens are ‘intentionally infecting themselves with HIV’ to qualify for state benefitsDecember 24, 2013
Arrest for “HIPAA Violation” Based on Citizen’s Recording of Encounter Between Police and Another CitizenJanuary 10, 2013
That’s what the St. Paul Pioneer Press reports:
Andrew Henderson watched as Ramsey County sheriff’s deputies frisked a bloody-faced man outside his Little Canada apartment building. Paramedics then loaded the man, a stranger to Henderson, into an ambulance.
Henderson, 28, took out his small handheld video camera and began recording…. [A] deputy, Jacqueline Muellner, approached him and snatched the camera from his hand, Henderson said. “We’ll just take this for evidence,” Muellner said. Their voices were recorded on Henderson’s cellphone as they spoke, and Henderson provided a copy of the audio file to the Pioneer Press. “If I end up on YouTube, I’m gonna be upset.” …
Randy Gustafson, spokesman for the Ramsey County sheriff’s office … said, “It is not our policy to take video cameras. It is everybody’s right to (record) … What happens out in public happens out in public.”
One exception might be when a law enforcement officer decides that the recording is needed for evidence, he said. In that case, the officer would generally send the file to investigators and return the camera on the spot, Gustafson said….
A week later, Henderson was charged with obstruction of legal process and disorderly conduct, both misdemeanors. He had been filming from about 30 feet away, he said….
The deputy wrote on the citation, “While handling a medical/check the welfare (call), (Henderson) was filming it. Data privacy HIPAA violation. Refused to identify self. Had to stop dealing with sit(uation) to deal w/Henderson.” …
The allegation that his recording of the incident violated HIPAA, or the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, is nonsense, said Jennifer Granick, a specialist on privacy issues at Stanford University Law School.
The rule deals with how health care providers handle consumers’ health information.
“There’s nothing in HIPAA that prevents someone who’s not subject to HIPAA from taking photographs on the public streets,” Granick said. “HIPAA has absolutely nothing to say about that.”
When Henderson tried to get back the camera, another deputy refused to release it, and said (Henderson also recorded this), “I think that what (the deputies) felt was you were interfering with someone’s privacy that was having a medical mental health breakdown. They felt like you were being a ‘buttinski’ by getting that camera in there and partially recording what was going on in a situation that you were not directly involved in.” Somehow the recording on the camera also vanished, though there’s a dispute over how that happened.
It seems to me that there’s no legal basis for this prosecution, or for the seizure of the camera — Minnesota apparently doesn’t have any ban on such recordings, and in any event it seems likely that there’s a First Amendment right to record such police-citizen interactions in public places. (See Glik v. Cunniffe and ACLU v. Alvarez for cases recognizing such a right, in closely related contexts.) Nor can the police step in and punish the photographers in the name of protecting people’s privacy, just as the government may not stop TV stations from recording news footage in public place in the name of protecting people’s privacy.
Thanks to Christopher Rohrbacher for the pointer.
renowned socialist & opponent of private health care Gerry Adams flies to USA for operation in top private clinic.January 8, 2013
(Guardian) About 150,000 immigrants living in Spain will lose their right to public health services on Saturday as the recession-hit country tries to save money. But doctors warn that excluding immigrants from the health system will have a wider impact on ordinary Spaniards’ health.
The move by Mariano Rajoy’s conservative People’s party government has provoked anger among doctors and some regional governments that deliver public health to Spaniards.
Amnesty International and other NGOs have accused the government of breaking international agreements by excluding a significant section of the population – immigrants without proper residence permits – from public healthcare.
|…Only those Age 65 or older
did not see decreases in the percentage share of employed in the change
from November 2006 to November 2011,
which is interesting because that age cohort mainly covers the so-called “Silent Generation” –
the generation that immediately preceded the Baby Boomers.
…Second chart shows the difference betweenNovember 2006 andNovember 2011’semployment to population ratiofor each age grouping:
(Business Insider) The next most affected in the U.S. job market are those between Age 30 and Age 55, which includes roughly half of the Baby Boom generation. These individuals have primarily been hurt by the loss of jobs during the recession, with many of these jobs being lost from the Manufacturing and Trade and Transportation sectors of the U.S. economy during the large-scale automotive industry failures of late 2008 and early 2009. But the age groups that have been the least affected are those over the age of 55. Here, the older half of the Baby Boom generation has seen little impact on their overall employment representation within their generation, while the older Silent Generation, which includes those over Age 65 in 2011, has actually seen their percentage of employed members in the U.S. workforce increase. Clearly, something has caused employers to strongly favor these individuals over all younger individuals in the five years from November 2006 to November 2011… When that kind of distortion exists, you can almost bank money that a perverse incentive for employers is at work – one where there are real world rewards and penalties driving the decisions for a very large number of employers. And because it would seem that a very large number of employers would appear to have acted the same way, you can almost be certain that the federal government is ultimately behind the observed distortion, which in this case, would seem to involve some very pronounced age discrimination… We find then that the young are indeed being discriminated against in the U.S. job market and that the federal government is indeed behind the perverse incentives promoting this kind of age discrimination, as the members of the Silent Generation and the older Baby Boomers are indeed being strongly favored by U.S. employers, most likely because of the economic distortions it is creating within the U.S. job market through its Medicare health insurance program. The only problem for the younger workers being hurt in this situation is that because it is the federal government that has created the incentive to discriminate against them, only it can act to end the bias that it has succeeded in institutionalizing. Unfortunately for us all, the leaders of that government currently have no intention of ending this kind of age-based job discrimination anytime soon! (MORE)
…Of course the LIBERAL response will be Universal Healthcare, but socialism suffers from prejudices against the young who would be perceived as less worthy… not to mention there would be poor quality healthcare to begin with. The only fair system would be to deny free healthcare to everyone and let a competitive market keep rates down.
The bill would not have passed if the numbers were not juggled to keep it under the trillion mark. It’s fraud. Blatant deception on the cost in order to get the votes.
They also just disclosed that at least 6 million people will lose their employer provided health coverage… and not the “1 million” claimed when all this was in the works.
But that’s not important. Rush Limbaugh called some woman a slut.
(Washington Examiner) President Obama’s national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.
Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation, the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014, so it would appear cheaper under the CBO’s standard ten-year budget window and, at least on paper, meet Obama’s pledge that the legislation would cost “around $900 billion over 10 years.” When the final CBO score came out before passage, critics noted that the true 10 year cost would be far higher than advertised once projections accounted for full implementation.
Today, the CBO released new projections from 2013 extending through 2022, and the results are as critics expected: the ten-year cost of the law’s core provisions to expand health insurance coverage has now ballooned to $1.76 trillion. That’s because we now have estimates for Obamacare’s first nine years of full implementation, rather than the mere six when it was signed into law. Only next year will we get a true ten-year cost estimate, if the law isn’t overturned by the Supreme Court or repealed by then. Given that in 2022, the last year available, the gross cost of the coverage expansions are $265 billion, we’re likely looking at about $2 trillion over the first decade, or more than double what Obama advertised.
that’s twice the price and one tenth of the operating budget of our government