/PRNewswire/ -- Family Research Council condemned the decision today by President Obama that the U.S. Justice Department will abdicate its responsibility and no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court. The Defense of Marriage Act, (DOMA) enacted overwhelmingly by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1996, is currently under attack in the courts.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following comments regarding the decision:
"This decision by President Obama and the Department of Justice is appalling. The President's failure to defend DOMA is also a failure to fulfill his oath to 'faithfully execute the office of President of the United States.' What will be the next law that he will choose not to enforce or uphold?
"Marriage as a male-female union has been easily defended in court and overwhelmingly supported by the American people. There is absolutely no excuse beyond pandering to his liberal political base for President Obama's decision to abandon his constitutional role to defend a federal law enacted overwhelmingly by Congress.
"With this decision the President has thrown down the gauntlet, challenging Congress. It is incumbent upon the Republican leadership to respond by intervening to defend DOMA, or they will become complicit in the President's neglect of duty," concluded Perkins.
For more information on the Defense of Marriage Act, read the Family Research Council's pamphlet on the Act here: http://www.frc.org/doma
Read the Family Research Council's amicus brief in the Massachusetts Defense of Marriage Act case here: http://www.frc.org/legalbrief/commonwealth-of-massachusetts-v-us-department-of-health-and-human-services
Showing posts with label decision. Show all posts
Showing posts with label decision. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
U.S. Supreme Court Issues Landmark Decision: Constitution is Void
/PRNewswire/ -- The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision that serves to allow judges to void the Constitution in their courtrooms. The decision was issued on January 18, 2011, and the Court did not even explain the decision (Docket No. 10-632, 10-633, and 10-690). One word decisions: DENIED.
Presented with this information and massive proof that was not contested in any manner by the accused judges, at least six of the justices voted to deny the petitions:
"There is no legal or factual basis whatsoever for the decisions of the lower courts in this matter. These rulings were issued for corrupt reasons. Many of the judges in the Northern District of Georgia and the Eleventh Circuit are corrupt and violate laws and rules, as they have done in this case. The Supreme Court must recognize this Petition as one of the most serious matters ever presented to this Court."
The key questions answered negatively by the U.S. Supreme Court was:
"Whether federal courts must be stopped from operating corruptly and ignoring all laws, rules, and facts."
By denying the petitions, SCOTUS has chosen to sanction corruption by federal judges and to allow federal judges to void sections of the Constitutional at will.
William M. Windsor has been involved in legal action in the federal courts in Atlanta since 2006. Windsor was named a defendant in a civil lawsuit (1:06-CV-0714-ODE) in which Christopher Glynn of Maid of the Mist in Niagara Falls, swore under oath that Windsor did a variety of things including the crimes of theft and bribery. Windsor stated under oath that Christopher Glynn made it up and lied about absolutely everything that he swore. Windsor then obtained deposition testimony from Glynn and the other managers of the Maid of the Mist boat ride, and they admitted, under oath, that charges against Windsor were not true.
Despite this undeniable proof, 32-year federal Judge Orinda D. Evans declared that the grandfather of three should not have fought the lawsuit, and she forced him to pay a fortune in legal fees of Maid of the Mist. Windsor appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but federal judges Dubina, Hull, and Fay rubber-stamped Judge Evans' ruling. Windsor then took his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court where the justices said the appeal was not worthy of their consideration (cert denied).
After attempting to get the case reopened with new evidence that proved fraud upon the courts and obstruction of justice, Judge Evans and Judge William S. Duffey committed a variety of crimes and violations of Constitutional rights, as did judges with the Eleventh Circuit. All of this was detailed for the Supreme Court.
Windsor says: "I have discovered that the federal judges in Atlanta, Georgia, Washington, DC, and the justices of the United States Supreme Court function like common criminals intentionally making bogus rulings against honest people while covering up the crimes of their fellow judges. I have been contacted by people from all over the country and around the world with their stories of judicial corruption with judges all over the U.S.
"My charges have been totally ignored by the United States Attorney's Office, the FBI, and Congress. I do not believe there is a shred of decency, honesty, or Constitutional rights in our federal courts. In my opinion, we now live in a police state. Judges are free to do absolutely anything they want. Our laws are meaningless. Your life savings can be stolen by a federal judge, and they have no risk in violating every law in the books.
"In my opinion, this is the most serious issue that our country has ever faced. Our rights have been stolen. And the mainstream media refuses to cover this story because they are afraid of the judges. Heaven help us.
"I believe our only hope in America is if the masses become aware of what is taking place. I am writing an expose, and my book will be available at Borders, Barnes &Noble, and on amazon.com soon. The publisher will decide if the title is Lawless America or Screwed, Glued, and Tattooed ."
Presented with this information and massive proof that was not contested in any manner by the accused judges, at least six of the justices voted to deny the petitions:
"There is no legal or factual basis whatsoever for the decisions of the lower courts in this matter. These rulings were issued for corrupt reasons. Many of the judges in the Northern District of Georgia and the Eleventh Circuit are corrupt and violate laws and rules, as they have done in this case. The Supreme Court must recognize this Petition as one of the most serious matters ever presented to this Court."
The key questions answered negatively by the U.S. Supreme Court was:
"Whether federal courts must be stopped from operating corruptly and ignoring all laws, rules, and facts."
By denying the petitions, SCOTUS has chosen to sanction corruption by federal judges and to allow federal judges to void sections of the Constitutional at will.
William M. Windsor has been involved in legal action in the federal courts in Atlanta since 2006. Windsor was named a defendant in a civil lawsuit (1:06-CV-0714-ODE) in which Christopher Glynn of Maid of the Mist in Niagara Falls, swore under oath that Windsor did a variety of things including the crimes of theft and bribery. Windsor stated under oath that Christopher Glynn made it up and lied about absolutely everything that he swore. Windsor then obtained deposition testimony from Glynn and the other managers of the Maid of the Mist boat ride, and they admitted, under oath, that charges against Windsor were not true.
Despite this undeniable proof, 32-year federal Judge Orinda D. Evans declared that the grandfather of three should not have fought the lawsuit, and she forced him to pay a fortune in legal fees of Maid of the Mist. Windsor appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but federal judges Dubina, Hull, and Fay rubber-stamped Judge Evans' ruling. Windsor then took his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court where the justices said the appeal was not worthy of their consideration (cert denied).
After attempting to get the case reopened with new evidence that proved fraud upon the courts and obstruction of justice, Judge Evans and Judge William S. Duffey committed a variety of crimes and violations of Constitutional rights, as did judges with the Eleventh Circuit. All of this was detailed for the Supreme Court.
Windsor says: "I have discovered that the federal judges in Atlanta, Georgia, Washington, DC, and the justices of the United States Supreme Court function like common criminals intentionally making bogus rulings against honest people while covering up the crimes of their fellow judges. I have been contacted by people from all over the country and around the world with their stories of judicial corruption with judges all over the U.S.
"My charges have been totally ignored by the United States Attorney's Office, the FBI, and Congress. I do not believe there is a shred of decency, honesty, or Constitutional rights in our federal courts. In my opinion, we now live in a police state. Judges are free to do absolutely anything they want. Our laws are meaningless. Your life savings can be stolen by a federal judge, and they have no risk in violating every law in the books.
"In my opinion, this is the most serious issue that our country has ever faced. Our rights have been stolen. And the mainstream media refuses to cover this story because they are afraid of the judges. Heaven help us.
"I believe our only hope in America is if the masses become aware of what is taking place. I am writing an expose, and my book will be available at Borders, Barnes &Noble, and on amazon.com soon. The publisher will decide if the title is Lawless America or Screwed, Glued, and Tattooed ."
Thursday, December 2, 2010
U.S. Supreme Court Issues Landmark Decision: Judges May Ignore the Constitution
/PRNewswire/ -- The United States Supreme Court issued a landmark decision that serves to allow judges to ignore the Constitution. The decision was buried among many other decisions on November 29, 2010, and the Court did not even explain the decision (Appeal No. 10-411). One word decision: DENIED.
Presented with this information, at least six of the justices voted to deny the petition:
"There is no legal or factual basis whatsoever for the decisions of the lower courts in this matter. These rulings were issued for corrupt reasons. Many of the judges in the Northern District of Georgia and the Eleventh Circuit are corrupt and violate laws and rules, as they have done in this case. The Supreme Court must recognize this Petition as one of the most serious matters ever presented to this Court.
"The key questions are:
1. Whether federal courts must be stopped from operating corruptly and ignoring all laws, rules, and facts.
2. Whether the Supreme Court is prepared to declare the Constitution and its amendments null and void."
By denying the petition, the Supreme Court has chosen to sanction corruption by federal judges and refuse to protect Constitutional rights.
This is the first of four petitions that William M. Windsor has before the Supreme Court. Petition Nos. and 10-632, 10-633, and 10-690 will be decided soon.
Windsor has been involved in legal action in the federal courts in Atlanta since 2006. Windsor was named a defendant in a civil lawsuit (1:09-CV-0714-ODE) in which Christopher Glynn of Maid of the Mist in Niagara Falls, swore under oath that Windsor did a variety of things including the crimes of theft and bribery. Windsor stated under oath that Christopher Glynn made it up and lied about absolutely everything that he swore. Windsor then obtained deposition testimony from Glynn and the other managers of the Maid of the Mist boat ride in Niagara Falls, and they admitted, under oath, that charges against Windsor were not true.
Despite this undeniable proof, 32-year federal Judge Orinda D. Evans declared that the grandfather of three should not have fought the lawsuit, and she forced him to pay a fortune in legal fees of Maid of the Mist. Windsor appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but federal judges Dubina, Hull, and Fay rubber-stamped Judge Evans' ruling. Windsor then took his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court where the justices said the appeal was not worthy of their consideration (cert denied).
After attempting to get the case reopened with new evidence that proved fraud upon the courts and obstruction of justice, Judge Evans and Judge William S. Duffey committed a variety of crimes and violations of Constitutional rights, as did judges with the Eleventh Circuit. All of this has been detailed for the Supreme Court.
Windsor says: "I have discovered that the federal judges in Atlanta, Georgia function like common criminals intentionally making bogus rulings against honest people while covering up the crimes of their fellow judges. I have been contacted by people from all over the country and around the world with their stories of judicial corruption with judges all over the U.S."
The Supreme Court has three more chances to do the right thing, but Windsor anticipates more of the same: "Based upon this decision, I have to say this shows that the corruption goes all the way to the top. My charges have been totally ignored by the United States Attorney's Office, the FBI, and Congress. I do not believe there is a shred of decency, honesty, or Constitutional rights in our federal courts. It's as if we now live in a police state. Judges are free to do absolutely anything they want. Our laws are meaningless. Your life savings can be stolen by a federal judge, and they have no risk in violating every law in the books."
"In my opinion, this is the most serious issue that our country has ever faced. Our rights have been stolen. And the mainstream media refuses to cover this story because they are afraid of the judges. Heaven help us."
Presented with this information, at least six of the justices voted to deny the petition:
"There is no legal or factual basis whatsoever for the decisions of the lower courts in this matter. These rulings were issued for corrupt reasons. Many of the judges in the Northern District of Georgia and the Eleventh Circuit are corrupt and violate laws and rules, as they have done in this case. The Supreme Court must recognize this Petition as one of the most serious matters ever presented to this Court.
"The key questions are:
1. Whether federal courts must be stopped from operating corruptly and ignoring all laws, rules, and facts.
2. Whether the Supreme Court is prepared to declare the Constitution and its amendments null and void."
By denying the petition, the Supreme Court has chosen to sanction corruption by federal judges and refuse to protect Constitutional rights.
This is the first of four petitions that William M. Windsor has before the Supreme Court. Petition Nos. and 10-632, 10-633, and 10-690 will be decided soon.
Windsor has been involved in legal action in the federal courts in Atlanta since 2006. Windsor was named a defendant in a civil lawsuit (1:09-CV-0714-ODE) in which Christopher Glynn of Maid of the Mist in Niagara Falls, swore under oath that Windsor did a variety of things including the crimes of theft and bribery. Windsor stated under oath that Christopher Glynn made it up and lied about absolutely everything that he swore. Windsor then obtained deposition testimony from Glynn and the other managers of the Maid of the Mist boat ride in Niagara Falls, and they admitted, under oath, that charges against Windsor were not true.
Despite this undeniable proof, 32-year federal Judge Orinda D. Evans declared that the grandfather of three should not have fought the lawsuit, and she forced him to pay a fortune in legal fees of Maid of the Mist. Windsor appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but federal judges Dubina, Hull, and Fay rubber-stamped Judge Evans' ruling. Windsor then took his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court where the justices said the appeal was not worthy of their consideration (cert denied).
After attempting to get the case reopened with new evidence that proved fraud upon the courts and obstruction of justice, Judge Evans and Judge William S. Duffey committed a variety of crimes and violations of Constitutional rights, as did judges with the Eleventh Circuit. All of this has been detailed for the Supreme Court.
Windsor says: "I have discovered that the federal judges in Atlanta, Georgia function like common criminals intentionally making bogus rulings against honest people while covering up the crimes of their fellow judges. I have been contacted by people from all over the country and around the world with their stories of judicial corruption with judges all over the U.S."
The Supreme Court has three more chances to do the right thing, but Windsor anticipates more of the same: "Based upon this decision, I have to say this shows that the corruption goes all the way to the top. My charges have been totally ignored by the United States Attorney's Office, the FBI, and Congress. I do not believe there is a shred of decency, honesty, or Constitutional rights in our federal courts. It's as if we now live in a police state. Judges are free to do absolutely anything they want. Our laws are meaningless. Your life savings can be stolen by a federal judge, and they have no risk in violating every law in the books."
"In my opinion, this is the most serious issue that our country has ever faced. Our rights have been stolen. And the mainstream media refuses to cover this story because they are afraid of the judges. Heaven help us."
Monday, November 15, 2010
United States Supreme Court Will Soon Issue a Landmark Decision on the Validity of the Constitution
/PRNewswire-/ -- The United States Supreme Court will soon issue a landmark decision on the validity of the Constitution. The Supreme Court will consider three petitions filed by William M. Windsor, a retired Atlanta, Georgia grandfather. The decision should be rendered by the end of the year. Unless The Supreme Court acts, federal judges will be free to void the Constitution.
The Questions Presented to The Supreme Court by Grandfather Windsor are:
1. Will The Supreme Court declare that the Constitution and its amendments may be voided by federal judges?
2. Should federal judges be stopped from committing illegal and corrupt acts to obstruct justice and inflict bias on litigants?
3. Will The Supreme Court be afraid to disclose the corruption in the federal courts?
These questions are presented in three separate Petitions for Writ of Mandamus filed with The United States Supreme Court the first week of November 2010 (appeal numbers to-be-assigned).
Windsor has been involved in legal action in the federal courts in Atlanta since 2006. Windsor was named a defendant in a lawsuit (1:06-CV-0714-ODE) in which Christopher Glynn of Maid of the Mist in Niagara Falls, swore under oath that Windsor did a variety of things including the crimes of theft and bribery. Windsor stated under oath that Christopher Glynn made it all up and lied about absolutely everything that he swore. Windsor then obtained deposition testimony from Glynn and the other managers of the Maid of the Mist boat ride in Niagara Falls, and they admitted, under oath, that charges against Windsor were not true.
Despite this undeniable proof, federal Judge Orinda D. Evans declared that the grandfather of three should not have fought the lawsuit, and she forced him to pay over $400,000 in legal fees. Windsor appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but federal judges Dubina, Hull, and Fay rubber-stamped Judge Evans' ruling. Windsor then took his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court where the justices said the appeal was not worthy of their consideration (cert denied).
Windsor believes that the federal courts and nine federal judges violated the Constitution, the Due Process Clause, and the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
Windsor says: "I have discovered that, at least in Atlanta, Georgia, the federal courts operate like a police state in which the judges are all-powerful, committing criminal acts from their benches and violating the Constitutional rights of parties who have the misfortune of appearing in their courts."
Windsor has now tossed the hot potato right square in the laps of the justices of the Supreme Court. By filing mandamus petitions rather than an appeal, The Supreme Court is forced to deal with Windsor's allegations of corruption in the federal courts.
Grandfather Windsor hopes for the best but fears for the worst: "I hope The Supreme Court is decent, honest, and cares about the Constitution and the citizens of the United States. However, I am sorry to say that at this point, I suspect the corruption goes all the way to the top. My charges have been totally ignored by the United States Attorney's Office, the FBI, and Congress. I have said to The Supreme Court that the issues can all be boiled down to one question: Is The United States Supreme Court prepared to stop the federal judges in Atlanta, Georgia from functioning like common criminals?"
Windsor says: "If The Supreme Court fails to act against these federal judges, the citizens of the United States need to know that there is not a shred of decency, honesty, or Constitutional rights in our federal courts. Corruption has consumed the federal court system, and we now live in a police state. Judges are free to do absolutely anything they want. Our laws are meaningless. Your life savings can be stolen by a federal judge, and they have no risk in violating every law in the books."
The Supreme Court may render its decision before the end of the year. It's one retired grandpa against the United States government.
The Questions Presented to The Supreme Court by Grandfather Windsor are:
1. Will The Supreme Court declare that the Constitution and its amendments may be voided by federal judges?
2. Should federal judges be stopped from committing illegal and corrupt acts to obstruct justice and inflict bias on litigants?
3. Will The Supreme Court be afraid to disclose the corruption in the federal courts?
These questions are presented in three separate Petitions for Writ of Mandamus filed with The United States Supreme Court the first week of November 2010 (appeal numbers to-be-assigned).
Windsor has been involved in legal action in the federal courts in Atlanta since 2006. Windsor was named a defendant in a lawsuit (1:06-CV-0714-ODE) in which Christopher Glynn of Maid of the Mist in Niagara Falls, swore under oath that Windsor did a variety of things including the crimes of theft and bribery. Windsor stated under oath that Christopher Glynn made it all up and lied about absolutely everything that he swore. Windsor then obtained deposition testimony from Glynn and the other managers of the Maid of the Mist boat ride in Niagara Falls, and they admitted, under oath, that charges against Windsor were not true.
Despite this undeniable proof, federal Judge Orinda D. Evans declared that the grandfather of three should not have fought the lawsuit, and she forced him to pay over $400,000 in legal fees. Windsor appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but federal judges Dubina, Hull, and Fay rubber-stamped Judge Evans' ruling. Windsor then took his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court where the justices said the appeal was not worthy of their consideration (cert denied).
Windsor believes that the federal courts and nine federal judges violated the Constitution, the Due Process Clause, and the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
Windsor says: "I have discovered that, at least in Atlanta, Georgia, the federal courts operate like a police state in which the judges are all-powerful, committing criminal acts from their benches and violating the Constitutional rights of parties who have the misfortune of appearing in their courts."
Windsor has now tossed the hot potato right square in the laps of the justices of the Supreme Court. By filing mandamus petitions rather than an appeal, The Supreme Court is forced to deal with Windsor's allegations of corruption in the federal courts.
Grandfather Windsor hopes for the best but fears for the worst: "I hope The Supreme Court is decent, honest, and cares about the Constitution and the citizens of the United States. However, I am sorry to say that at this point, I suspect the corruption goes all the way to the top. My charges have been totally ignored by the United States Attorney's Office, the FBI, and Congress. I have said to The Supreme Court that the issues can all be boiled down to one question: Is The United States Supreme Court prepared to stop the federal judges in Atlanta, Georgia from functioning like common criminals?"
Windsor says: "If The Supreme Court fails to act against these federal judges, the citizens of the United States need to know that there is not a shred of decency, honesty, or Constitutional rights in our federal courts. Corruption has consumed the federal court system, and we now live in a police state. Judges are free to do absolutely anything they want. Our laws are meaningless. Your life savings can be stolen by a federal judge, and they have no risk in violating every law in the books."
The Supreme Court may render its decision before the end of the year. It's one retired grandpa against the United States government.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
New Zogby Poll: Americans By 3 to 1 Margin Believe Military Leaders Instead of Congress Should Decide 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
/PRNewswire/ -- Today, FRC Action, the legislative action arm of Family Research Council, released the results of a commissioned national survey showing that the American people by a 3 to 1 overwhelming majority say that military leaders should make the decision on whether or not homosexuals should serve openly in the military.
The scientific survey by Zogby International asked the following question of likely voters: "As it pertains to homosexuals openly serving in the military, do you believe this decision is best made by military leaders or Congress?"
An overwhelming majority of voters (59%) chose military leaders as the most capable decision makers compared to (23%) who chose Congress. Almost one in five, (18%) were unsure.
"The American people by a three to one margin believe that uniformed military leaders should be a part of shaping this policy, it should not be done by politicians," noted FRC Action President Tony Perkins.
"This Administration and liberals in Congress are attempting to use the military to advance a radical agenda as payoff to their homosexual base of political support. Congress and the White House should be listening to our military commanders and exhausting every resource to understand the concerns of our troops - who will not only be forced to live under this new rule, but who can evaluate the issue through the lens of practicality," said Perkins.
"The study conducted by the Department of Defense should be the start of debate in Congress, not the useless afterthought that President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senator Levin's actions will reduce it to," concluded Perkins.
Zogby International reports, "A majority in nearly every sub-group believes that military leaders should make the decision about homosexuals serving openly in the military. Exceptions include Democrats (37%), those under 30 (45%), single people (44%), and African Americans (44%) where a plurality believe military leaders should make the decision. One in five (21%) of those who are or has a family member who is a member of the Armed Forces thinks that Congress should make the decision, while 14% of this group is not sure."
The scientific survey by Zogby International asked the following question of likely voters: "As it pertains to homosexuals openly serving in the military, do you believe this decision is best made by military leaders or Congress?"
An overwhelming majority of voters (59%) chose military leaders as the most capable decision makers compared to (23%) who chose Congress. Almost one in five, (18%) were unsure.
"The American people by a three to one margin believe that uniformed military leaders should be a part of shaping this policy, it should not be done by politicians," noted FRC Action President Tony Perkins.
"This Administration and liberals in Congress are attempting to use the military to advance a radical agenda as payoff to their homosexual base of political support. Congress and the White House should be listening to our military commanders and exhausting every resource to understand the concerns of our troops - who will not only be forced to live under this new rule, but who can evaluate the issue through the lens of practicality," said Perkins.
"The study conducted by the Department of Defense should be the start of debate in Congress, not the useless afterthought that President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senator Levin's actions will reduce it to," concluded Perkins.
Zogby International reports, "A majority in nearly every sub-group believes that military leaders should make the decision about homosexuals serving openly in the military. Exceptions include Democrats (37%), those under 30 (45%), single people (44%), and African Americans (44%) where a plurality believe military leaders should make the decision. One in five (21%) of those who are or has a family member who is a member of the Armed Forces thinks that Congress should make the decision, while 14% of this group is not sure."
Friday, March 12, 2010
Will Patient Privacy Be Sold for Stimulus Money?
/PRNewswire/ -- The key to enforcing healthcare reform was already passed in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), also known as the Stimulus Bill. This contains $17 billion to encourage physicians and hospitals to adopt electronic health records.
Doctors might not take the bribe. An informal online survey by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) so far shows that 90 percent of more than 1,100 respondents answer "No" to the question "Should doctors take the 'Stimulus' money to computerize their offices?" See www.aapsonline.org.
To get the subsidy of up to $65,000 over 5 years, doctors have to use a government-approved system. Such a system must be "interoperable" -- which means able to share patients' private information with more than 600,000 different entities.
No patient consent is needed.
Doctors are warned: "If you take the stimulus money to computerize your office, the government will own your patients' medical records -- and possibly your practice," states Jane M. Orient, M.D., executive director of AAPS.
The system will have to be capable of generating lists of patients by specific conditions, to use for "quality improvement," reduction of disparities, research, and outreach. It will have to contain decision rules as for ordering diagnostic tests, and a way to track compliance with the rules. Doctors' pay will be tied to achieving the government's desired outcomes.
The government's purposes include cutting spending and meeting population health goals. The doctor's calling, in contrast, has traditionally been to serve each individual patient.
Changing from a sickness to a wellness orientation means that healthy young workers (taxpayers and voters) have a priority higher than older, sicker folks.
Under the Senate healthcare reform bill, a computer will determine, at the point of service, whether or not an individual is eligible to receive a specific service at a specific facility. The interoperable health record would contain information such as ethnicity, race, preferred language, smoking status, weight, body mass index, age, and compliance with past treatment, related to patient worthiness and societal goals.
"Interoperability" is what the $17 billion buys for the government. It's essential for central government monitoring and control of doctors -- and their patients.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Doctors might not take the bribe. An informal online survey by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) so far shows that 90 percent of more than 1,100 respondents answer "No" to the question "Should doctors take the 'Stimulus' money to computerize their offices?" See www.aapsonline.org.
To get the subsidy of up to $65,000 over 5 years, doctors have to use a government-approved system. Such a system must be "interoperable" -- which means able to share patients' private information with more than 600,000 different entities.
No patient consent is needed.
Doctors are warned: "If you take the stimulus money to computerize your office, the government will own your patients' medical records -- and possibly your practice," states Jane M. Orient, M.D., executive director of AAPS.
The system will have to be capable of generating lists of patients by specific conditions, to use for "quality improvement," reduction of disparities, research, and outreach. It will have to contain decision rules as for ordering diagnostic tests, and a way to track compliance with the rules. Doctors' pay will be tied to achieving the government's desired outcomes.
The government's purposes include cutting spending and meeting population health goals. The doctor's calling, in contrast, has traditionally been to serve each individual patient.
Changing from a sickness to a wellness orientation means that healthy young workers (taxpayers and voters) have a priority higher than older, sicker folks.
Under the Senate healthcare reform bill, a computer will determine, at the point of service, whether or not an individual is eligible to receive a specific service at a specific facility. The interoperable health record would contain information such as ethnicity, race, preferred language, smoking status, weight, body mass index, age, and compliance with past treatment, related to patient worthiness and societal goals.
"Interoperability" is what the $17 billion buys for the government. It's essential for central government monitoring and control of doctors -- and their patients.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)