Medical/legal pedes, have the protections of HIPAA been suspended for the scamdemic response? It was my understanding that it is illegal to even ask someone about their personal medical information.
Comments (35)
sorted by:
So HIPAA is a lot more limited than people around here assume. It’s designed to prevent healthcare workers and people with access to your health information from disclosing it without your permission.
That’s it. That’s as far as it goes. No more, no less.
If someone asks your doctor about your vaccination status and they give it without your permission, that’s a HIPAA violation.
If your employer asks you to prove your vaccination status in order to avoid wearing a mask or something, that has nothing to do with HIPAA. Because no medical professional or privileged party (like HR or something) is being forced to divulge this info on your behalf.
HIPAA is a pretty small law.
That being said, there are sometimes other laws that protect employers from asking for and requiring your medical information. However, these laws generally don’t cover vaccination status. You’d need to look into your local laws for specifics.
But again, it has nothing to do with HIPAA.
Also note that if you get your health insurance through your employer, they sometimes build HIPAA exceptions for themselves into your employment contract, since they’re the ones covering your insurance and want to know what they’re paying for. So you’ll want to check with your HR if you’re worried about the that.
You are right. But you MISS a very important point. HIPPA was written under the assumption that you never had to give your personal private medical information to anyone, ever, without probable cause. The 4th amendment if you remember it. The function of HIPPA was that if you did entrust someone with this information you could be assured that you had legal protections. HIPPA or not, I don't have to give anyone, anything, concerning my private records. Now IF my employer was HIPPA compliant I may, or may not, choose to entrust them with this information.
I didn’t miss that point. It just doesn’t really matter because the spirit of the law isn’t going to prevent anyone from doing anything, especially not private companies.
I’m just saying that if you’re looking to fight your employer or a business or whatever on demanding your vaccination status, bringing up HIPAA is going to be a losing argument.
No, it's not. If I say I do not want to give my employer my medical records because they are not HIPPA compliant that is 100% accurate. It's a legal argument because the 4th Amendment says it is. It is 100% legally my right if I don't want to take that risk.
I think standing on the 4th to keep your information private is valid.
In my reading, HIPAA will also keeps your information private once your employer has it. If they use the information to single you out, e.g., demand you submit to the jab, they have violated the letter of the law.
You have not read HIPAA. Because you have not read it, you are making assumptions based on what other people say and/or what you hope it says, but not on what it actually says.
I encourage you to read it, so you will KNOW what it says (and why your statement is not correct).
I suggest you read the 4th amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Whatever you think is, or is not, in HIPPA, I guarantee you. It does not over ride our God given rights.
Correct, but HIPAA is a SPECIFIC provision that ONLY applies to SPECIFIC situations.
You still have not READ it.
Why not?
Because I don't need to read it. I have 4th Amendment protections. That's why. It's not up for debate. It's simply how it is. Scream and stamp and feet about HIPAA all day long. It will NEVER take away my God given rights. People are using it as a straw man argument to confuse people with legal mumbo jumbo. The 4th Amendment is very easy to understand. Why people want to make the issue more complicated than what it is makes no sense to me.
HIPAA was put in place during the AIDS/HIV scam to protect the infected for any stigma. This still works in that it prevents school administrators who want to "other" children based on jab status. There only option is to treat everyone the same. Unfortunately, they are quite willing to mask every kid...
Herewith, demanding that someone to be vaXXXinated, or to wear a mask (which is designated by the FDA as a “medical device”) is the unlicensed practice of medicine. Ordering employees, vendors and patrons to accept medical advice from your employer or store attendants (wearing a face mask, proof of vaXXXination, or other) is not only a crime (unlicensed practice of medicine), but violates the [State] Statutes §XX.XX Public Access, §XX.XX Public Services, and 42 US Code §2000(a) Public Accommodations, which prohibits discrimination of people with a disability and certain religious convictions. Simply stated, your employer has no idea of my medical condition and is not licensed or insured medical practitioners. The employer or store manager and other employees are prohibited by law from giving medical advice, such as advising customers to wear face masks, or being vaXXXinated.
[COMPANY] is dicta prius, not an insured medical practitioner, nor is it equipped to respond to medical emergencies created by its own rules (that violate the law and its own policies). If I was forced to act on your medical advice and then experienced a medical emergency, [COMPANY] is liable henceforth to any injuries that may occur and may also be criminally negligent.
“It is unlawful for any person to practice medicine by offering or undertaking to prevent or to diagnose, correct, or treat in any manner or by any means, methods, devices, or instrumentalities, any disease, illness, pain, wound, fracture, infirmity, deformity or defect of any person;” [Provide the specific State Statutes website link here]
Any employer and employee assisting in enforcing such unlawful policies is also liable.
[State] Statute §XX.XX. Liability for Crimes of Another. Subd.1. Aiding, abetting; liability. “A person is criminally liable for a crime committed by another if the person intentionally aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with or otherwise procures the other to commit the crime.” Subd. 2. Expansive liability. “A person liable under subdivision 1 is also liable for any other crime committed in pursuance of the intended crime if reasonably foreseeable by the person as a probable consequence of committing or attempting to commit the crime intended.” [Provide the specific State Statutes website link here]
16 Am Jur 2D Section 98. An emergency can not create power and no emergency justifies the violation of ANY OF THE PROVISIONS of the United States Constitution or States Constitutions. Also, 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256
Interesting angle. Problem is, you and I do not get to prosecute criminal cases.
You will have to have a prosecutor agree to bring an action like that against someone.
Our power is more on the civil lawsuit side, as well as getting people elected who will remove corrupt bureaucrats and judges via impeachment, and elect/appoint prosecutors who will file these types of criminal cases.
Why do you think George Soros spent all that money to get corrupt DA's appointed/elected?
I hear what you are saying and you are 100% correct. However, it is the civil suit aspect of it that employers and businesses try to avoid. In fact, the vast majority of cases are arbitrated and settled outside of the court room. If in the case a civil suit did go to trial, a new set of perils may be at stake. Discovery could reveal criminal activity, especially when it is clear that's what occurred. In the case the employer loses the case, now there's a real possibility that a criminal case could ensue.
True, but if it was you or me who was on the other side of that lawsuit (across from the corporation/employer), then we would not be under any obligation to settle. Maybe under pressure (psychological), yes, but not under any legal obligation. THAT is when you go balls to the walls -- when they are trying to keep you from going to trial.
And that is one the reasons you do NOT settle before trial (unless they capitulate to everything you want, and then some).
No matter the circumstances, you STILL have to get a prosecutor to do the criminal case. You and I are not "allowed" to do it. My understanding is that under early American law, ANYBODY could be a prosecutor and bring criminal charges. Today, they will shut that idea down in a heartbeat.
This is WHY my earlier statement was that we need to REPLACE prosectors who will not pursue criminal charges just because the prosecutor is corrupt.
We DO have THAT power.
Well, we'll just throw down decades of precedent and go with your theory. I've been there.
Sauce that shit or GTFO. (Nice flair, opinionated rando from the internet, adds to credibility fo sho)
You can just look it up on the internet. HIPAA only applies to people with access to your medical information. For example, as a hospital RN, I can't look up your information if you're not my patient. Ogre is right.
You can READ it for yourself.
ARO is correct on this.
Going to third this. A cogently written summation. I had to look up this in relation to the GDPR that was passed in Europe for my job, and sum up where the intersection points were and where it diverged to make sure we didn’t miss anything.
I have actually read HIPAA - the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. People assume it means "health records privacy," but it is not exactly that.
HIPAA has several provisions. It was passed as a tax bill. It created Health Savings Accounts (or Medical Savings Accounts -- whichever one came first). It also created a whistleblower provision to report fraud in Medicare.
The part that people refer to is the confidentiality (which is either Part C or Part D -- been awhile since I read it).
That part says that "covered entities" must not disclose patient records information to anyone not authorized to see it. This part of the statute is directed at (a) health care providers and (b) health care payers (insurance companies and Medicare) for the purpose of exchaging patient records information for medical billing purposes.
It is not for any other purpose. This was 1996, when computers were becoming a "thing" and they wanted to pass a law that would protect patient records sent electronically the same as if they were sent by mail.
There might be some other law regarding privacy of medical information (and I assume there probably is), but HIPAA is not it. Unfortunately.
Don't try to rely on it to assert any rights, because it will not apply in most cases -- unless you are, or work for, a "covered entity."
Wouldn't forcing someone to wear a mask because they are unvaxxed be a disclosure of information to bodies not authorized to see it?
If it was information required to be kept confidential by "covered entities," then yes.
Otherwise, no -- at least under HIPAA. That does not mean it would not be a violation of a different law. I'm just talking about HIPAA here.
Thanks for clearing that up. There were a flurry of things related to protecting the HIV positive that happened in the 90s that may be applicable.
I'm assuming all hipaa still applies because at my work (government facility) they have always expressly said it is voluntary to disclose your status. Literally everytime they mention possibly quarantining or whatever they say it is voluntary to say your status.
Hint: MOST people who have been "trained in HIPAA" ... (a) have never READ the HIPAA statute, and (b) have NO IDEA what it really says.
They just take the word of the person who "trained them," and that person ALSO never read it and has no idea what it says, because they took someone's word, too.
We are seeing this play out in this thread.
GO READ HIPAA. Don't assume it says what you WANT it to say. Most likely, it does not.
Also I don't think you can suspend hipaa without a literal act of congress
I remember reading of an employer trying to force an antivaxer to wear a mask. This was pre-covid. Her lawyer said it was a violation of HIPAA because with company policy, her coworkers would know her vax status.
A lot of lawyers talk out their ass ... same as doctors.
Just sayin'.
Can’t argue with that. I started to refer to him as liar but didn’t want to make it look like they lost. I think the company backed down if that can be considered a win. I don’t know what would happen in this political climate.
In this case, the lawyer is correct. If anyone seeks your healthcare information, under HIPAA and other laws, they have to disclose several pieces of information to you as part of the request for information, and they have to provide a healthcare information privacy notice.
Your employer is almost certainly a "covered entity" with regards to HIPAA, as a "business associate" of their insurance company. Even if they are not, they probably need to get you to sign a waiver before they can ask you to disclose any confidential personal or health information, due to privacy laws.
Where most employers are going to get mixed up is in liability for illness in the workplace. If they are taking responsibility for one disease, they are probably exposing themselves to liability to all (or at least, all similar) disease. If they do not accept liability (assume consequences of risk) for, say, COVID, then they have no need for that information. If they do accept liability, well, get a lawyer.
Can you cite the section of HIPAA that says employers must do that?
Since the employer is "out of the loop" when it comes to a health care provider billing an insurance company, I would say your statement is wrong.
Again, can you cite the specific clause of the HIPAA statute that supports your claim? It has been a couple of years since I read it, and I don't remember anything having to do with employers, in general. But maybe you can show me that I am wrong.
Intersting angle, and this would have nothing to do with HIPAA.
Would be interesting if someone takes the "jab" due to coersion by employer, dies, and then employer (but not drug maker) gets sued.
Would be VERY interesting case -- and I would not be surprised if it happens. Have no idea how any particular judge or jury would rule on that, though.
If your employer demands proof print a blank card fill it out by hand, photograph it with your phone and email it to the twat asking for it.
That will be the end of it. No more steps needed.
Everything has been suspended. Laws of any kind do not matter to the ones doing this to us.
I think FMLA laws play into this as well. As an employer, you cannot ask an employee why they are taking FMLA, you can only ask if it is for themselves or a family member. Between HIPPA laws and FMLA laws, many corporations were really trying to cover themselves from a legal standpoint and stopped asking for even sick notes from their employees. When I was a manager, I was told to not even ask why someone is calling in sick. My sister got fired for taking a sick note from an employee. Lawsuits are costly and time consuming. Obviously, corporations are not afraid of being sued anymore.
No. I saw the new federal guidelines for federal employees on how to handle the "must be vaccinated" mandate. It's get vaccinated or get tested negative within 3 days of entering a federal facility. So if you work onsite you have to at least get tested every Tues and Friday if your work week is Monday - Friday.
If you refuse to tell them if you are vaccinated or not, they simply treat you as if you are unvaccinated. That's all they can do.