Are people retarded?
? These people are stupid!
I live in a very lefty area and lately tons of handwringing on social media about “how will we know who is vaccinated?” The person asking this is always presumably vaccinated.
Do they not understand that them being VACCINATED means that they are VAC-CIN-ATED? I.e. the point of the VACCINE is to protect you against the VIRUS. So why do you give a shit if someone else has it - you are VACCINATED & PROTECTED (other controversies aside).
I think these are some of the stupidest people I have ever encountered. Boggles the mind.
I'm more fond of "That sounds like a HIPAA violation there, felon.", since so many of them are obsessed with being seen following the rules.
See the problem is that only works in the US.
Hypothetical: if I, a USA citizen, leaves the country, and somebody asks about my medical history, do I legally have to tell them?
Depends on where you are. People in Korea are extremely lax about this sort of thing and they think it's cute/friendly to ask each other pervasive medical questions. Doctors, if you are aforeigner, will also not hesitate to discuss your physcial status with your employer.
In South Africa I would kindly tell a person asking something like this to go fuck themselves and the law would back me up.
[They] are well aware that the "vaccine" does not prevent them from being infected or from infecting others. The manufacturers have been quite open about this fact and nobody denies it. So why take the experimental injection?
Well, direct from my wife, who took it: "I just want to travel." That's her only answer. Nothing to do with health. She sees it as her passport; her escape route. (We don't even own a TV but she prefers to take advice from her friends, rather than from me because I'm a "conspiract theorist". The brainwashing is very effective.
Not in the UK, for now.
No, but they don't have to let you in their country. And what haple s when you return to the U.S.?
borders
ree
Certain countries have always required certain vaccinations to be admitted into the country. What's new here is places and entities within this country (and within others also) wanting to require this vaccination for simple admission/participation domestically.
If you’re asked in a foreign country, and refuse, US privacy laws won’t protect you. So if the country you’re in doesn’t also have those privacy laws, then you’ll suffer whatever the local consequences are.
But you won't be able to travel TO that foreign country without proving vax status before you leave US. Problem solved. Don't go until all of these countries rethink their positions.
Doesnt work here either. Blue state gestapos are third world tyants too.
Nah nah, that's your choice not to stand up against the tyrant. When I said it only works in the US, no one here would even know what HIPAA is.
Very true
Not HIPAA... I don't know how this HIPAA myth was started, but that applies to a third party, like your doctor giving your info to someone else.
What does apply is ADA. No business can ask you about your medical info under ADA law. I believe that if they even ask, and that's reported, their first offense is something like a $7,500 fine. You can look into that for the exact details, but it's ADA, not HIPPA that you should be citing.
This "myth" as you call it was an addendum to HIPAA finalized in 2002. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/laws-regulations/index.html
Eventually, you will get called out on that.
FYI --
(I have read HIPAA, and maybe you should, too)
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 was created for several purposes:
It set up a reporting system to allow for whistleblowers to report Medicare fraud.
It was a tax provision that set up Medical Savings Accounts.
It was a confidentiality law that required confidentiality of medical records when data was transfered (electronically - in the "new" information age of the 1990's) between medical providers and medical insurers or Medicare. This confidentiality requirement only applies to "covered persons" which are (a) anyone who provides medical records for billing purposes, and (b) anyone who receives medical records for billing purposes.
Again, FYI.
Read it (nobody seems to want to actually read it, just make claims about what it says without reading it).
You might want to dig deeper.
The final regulation, the Privacy Rule, was published December 28, 2000.
Interesting. Of course, the Executive Branch cannot implement regulations that go beyond the authority granted to them by the Legislative Branch, and must also conform to the laws established by the Judicial Branch (common law system, after all), subject to the Constitution.
Quick look at the linked document specifically states that it applies to "covered entities" (which I wrote as "covered persons" but it's the same thing). It also mentions additional regulations that go beyond that. If they can be used to our advantage, that's great. Whether or not they are actually lawful (if they go beyond the statute that grants the authority to create the regulation) is another question.
I will check it out when I get a chance.
PS: First glace tells me (a) this series of regulations are specifically to enforce the HIPAA statute and for no other purpose (makes sense), (b) establishes regulations that are legally enforceable as it relates to "covered entities" (also makes sense, since those are the persons Congress has aimed this part of HIPAA at), and (c) STANDARDS (not regulations, i.e. not the force of law) that are recommended for other persons (also makes sense, since these other persons would NOT be subject to HIPAA -- but again, if it works in our favor to cite it, I'm cool with that).
https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/privacysummary.pdf
PPS: I will read through that document when I have some time. But since you are the one who brought it up, I am wondering if you have read it and understand it, or if you are just assuming it must say something that is relevant to this discussion. Can you cite the specific clause(s) that are relevant to this thread? thx
PPPS: There is this little gem, which appears to confirm my position:
The last time I read it in full was over a decade ago, so I won't be able to help much beyond the following which is on page 18 of the PDF under "Enforcement and penalties for noncompliance".
Criminal Penalties. A person who knowingly obtains or discloses individually identifiable health information in violation of HIPAA faces a fine of $50,000 and up to one-year imprisonment.89 The criminal penalties increase to $100,000 and up to five years imprisonment if the wrongful conduct involves false pretenses, and to $250,000 and up to ten years imprisonment if the wrongful conduct involves the intent to sell, transfer, or use individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm. Criminal sanctions will be enforced by the Department of Justice.