T1B

Truman wrote:In Common Parlance, the legislation has been - and always will be - referred to as the HIPAA Privacy Act.

As someone who’s been in the industry (healthcare, hospital, and EDI) since 1995 I can safely state you have no fucking clue what you’re babbling about. There were 2 Titles in the original HIPAA legislation. Title 1 says that anyone who has health insurance can’t be excluded from coverage when they change plans. Title 2 set several rules about ending healthcare fraud, making the healthcare system more efficient, and protected health information (PHI.) That's right, moron, Title 2 isn't even exclusively about privacy. It's just a bullet point... one of many touched upon. So if Title 1 isn't about privacy and Title 2 is about numerous things, one of them being privacy... do you really think people referred to HIPAA as the HIPAA Privacy Act in 1996? EPIC FAIL.

Truman wrote:The Privacy Rule ucant refers to is found in Title II of the Act.

No, it is not. As I stated, privacy was briefly touched upon in Title 2, but the parameters were not set up until years later. In 2000, these parameters were spelled out in the Privacy Rule (and the Security Rule for ePHI.)
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/ad ... index.html

Truman wrote: Yes, I recognize that the law IS, indeed, referred to in some misguided circles as the HIPAA Privacy Rule. But while common, this description is every bit as technically inaccurate as referring to the law as the the HIPAA Privacy Act.

More babble. Once again, I work in the industry. No one calls it the Privacy Act. And I never said HIPAA was called the HIPPA Privacy Rule. I was just referring to a specific bullet point about HIPAA. I’ll defer to your years of experience as to what kind of cheese is found in a Burrito Supreme, but you’re in way over your head here. And your search techniques suck. Want to learn more about HIPAA? Use a reputable site: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/faq/index.html

Truman wrote: The name of the law is the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

This is the only thing you’ve gotten right thus far.

Truman wrote:Congress doesn't refer to to signature-ready legislation as Rules.

Hey, what do you know. You got something else right. By accident. The Rules were introduced after the law.

Truman wrote:Go grade somebody else's papers, you ill-informed, nit-picking, tedious asshat...

It was a throwaway comment that you probably should have ignored. For your own sake.

Here’s a pretty good link about HIPAA (Note how long it is before privacy is covered:)

http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/c ... 242005.pdf

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
(HIPAA) of 1996: Overview and Guidance on Frequently Asked Questions
Summary
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 (P.L.
104-191), provided for changes in the health insurance market. It guaranteed the
availability and renewability of health insurance coverage for certain employees and
individuals, and limited the use of preexisting condition restrictions. The Act created
federal standards for insurers, health maintenance organizations (HMOs), and
employer-provided health plans, including those that self-insure. It permitted,
however, substantial state flexibility for compliance with the requirements on
insurers.

HIPAA also included tax provisions relating to health insurance. It permitted
a limited number of small businesses and self-employed individuals to contribute to
tax-advantaged medical savings accounts (MSAs) established in conjunction with
high-deductible health insurance plans. It increased the deduction for health
insurance that self-employed taxpayers may claim. In addition, it allowed long-term
care expenses to be treated like deductible medical expenses and clarified the tax
treatment of long-term care insurance.

Finally, the Act included administrative simplification and privacy provisions
instructing the Secretary of HHS to issue standards addressing the electronic
transmission of health information and the privacy of personally identifiable medical
information.

1) With morons like the BP's calling for the murder of Zimmerman, you're expecting him to show up to the media with his medical records (or anything else for that matter)??? You're an imbecile.

2) The media's portrayal of Zimmerman's ethnicity has been much clearer than Martin's age & size. No doubt about that one.

I sort of wish it had gone to the GJ, just for a more independent slapdown of the balck community apologists errr leaders that will be forthcoming anyways in some form.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:

Truman wrote:In Common Parlance, the legislation has been - and always will be - referred to as the HIPAA Privacy Act.

As someone who’s been in the industry (healthcare, hospital, and EDI) since 1995 I can safely state you have no fucking clue what you’re babbling about. There were 2 Titles in the original HIPAA legislation. Title 1 says that anyone who has health insurance can’t be excluded from coverage when they change plans. Title 2 set several rules about ending healthcare fraud, making the healthcare system more efficient, and protected health information (PHI.) That's right, moron, Title 2 isn't even exclusively about privacy. It's just a bullet point... one of many touched upon. So if Title 1 isn't about privacy and Title 2 is about numerous things, one of them being privacy... do you really think people referred to HIPAA as the HIPAA Privacy Act in 1996? EPIC FAIL.

Thanks for the history lesson, Goober42. And all this is relevant to my take how? You move well with a goalpost wedged firmly up your ass. Who knows, in another 17 years you might even figure out what all those big words drafted by Congress actually mean. BTW, the Privacy Rule, while merely a bullet, was the whole point of Title II in the original legislation, asshat. Not unlike the Individual Mandate specified in the Affordable Care Rule… er, Act.

BTW, did you, or did you not, post the following:

You mean the Privacy Rule?

No, dumbass, I was referring to the Act itself, before you decided to go all roided-out Neanderthal on the topic. Point being, fuckstick, is that Zimmerman’s medical records, by law, are not for public consumption.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:

Truman wrote:The Privacy Rule ucant refers to is found in Title II of the Act.

No, it is not. As I stated, privacy was briefly touched upon in Title 2, but the parameters were not set up until years later. In 2000, these parameters were spelled out in the Privacy Rule (and the Security Rule for ePHI.)
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/ad ... index.html

Well, ‘cept for the revisions specified in ’01 and ’02. Regardless, so the “Final” Rules of HIPAA (c’mon, ucant, this IS Congress, after all) are no longer referred to as Title II? Good to know. So what are they now? Title III? Title VII? Or are you just talking out of your ass again? An actual amendment to the Act? Cool. When did they vote on it? And before you lay down PSQIA (the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Rule ), – a new law, BTW - the grid for the Privacy Rules were laid by HIPAA ‘96

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:More babble. Once again, I work in the industry. No one calls it the Privacy Act.

Really? You need to work harder.

Search: HIPAA Privacy Act

Google wrote: About 2,080,000 results (0.55 seconds)

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:And I never said HIPAA was called the HIPPA Privacy Rule.

No, you inferred it. Nice crawdad, Loser.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:I was just referring to a specific bullet point about HIPAA.

Yeah, well, I was referring to the law in general, ape-man. Bottom line is nobody has legal access to George Zimmerman’s medical records.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:

Truman wrote:Go grade somebody else's papers, you ill-informed, nit-picking, tedious asshat...

It was a throwaway comment that you probably should have ignored. For your own sake.

Actually it wasn’t. It was a comment meant to draw a foe into a topic that you profess to have a working knowledge of. Pity you happened to step into his wheel-house . The end result, of course, will find you milled into cake flour. Again.

Tread lightly, ucant, lest this thing rage for three pages. No doubt the smack will be clever and imaginative, but in the end, you will be left on the sidewalk tipping your cap and begging for nickels while you dance to the music. Your choice, Jocko.

Truman wrote:

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:More babble. Once again, I work in the industry. No one calls it the Privacy Act.

Really? You need to work harder.

Search: HIPAA Privacy Act

Google wrote: About 2,080,000 results (0.55 seconds)

This is all fascinating as I had no idea how HIPAA related to health clubs, but I just wanted to point out that if you search Google with "HIPAA Privacy Act" in quotes, your results number gets down around 63,000. Carrion.

Wait a minute...all this nervous gibberish about the legalities of privacy are begging the question...Why doesn't the shooter provide some medical report that proves he indeed suffered a broken nose? Because...he was completely lying? :wink:

Van wrote:You two are about to turn this into an extended debate centering around the incandescently compelling topics of acronym semantics and acts vs rules, arentcha?

Yep!

Okay...so you're once again rolling over for a belly-up surrender, waiting for R-Jack to lock the thread in squirming distress. How fucking pathetic. From fake Canadians to crypto-Nazis, recovering drunks and cancerous cranks, blathering medicated hacks and witless Christers, this palsied forum has officially bottomed out. Seriously, you're all fucked.

As for The Shooter ("Watch Captain"), his slimeballl lawyer is actually rolling out a "shaken baby" defense, a traditionally desperate legal move
http://gothamist.com/2012/04/06/george_ ... kes_sh.php

You can't make this stuff up, fellas, so..keep up the fight.

Truman wrote:No, dumbass, I was referring to the Act itself, before you decided to go all roided-out Neanderthal on the topic.

Are you talking about the Privacy Act (passed in 1974), HIPAA (passed in 1996), or the Privacy Rule (enacted in 2000, but not enforced until 2003)? You do realize that the Privacy Act and the HIPAA are two separate things, right?

Truman wrote:Point being, fuckstick, is that Zimmerman’s medical records, by law, are not for public consumption.

Exactly. A law that wasn’t enforced until 7 years after HIPAA. So tell me again how in 1996 it was known as the HIPAA Privacy Act.

Truman wrote: Search: HIPAA Privacy Act. About 2,080,000 results (0.55 seconds)

Oh goodie. You can search. Why don’t you click on the first link? The one that reads Health Information Privacy:

The Office for Civil Rights enforces the HIPAA Privacy Rule, which protects the privacy of individually identifiable health information

How many other times is the Privacy Rule mentioned on that first page? Your search parameters are yielding my (Privacy Rule) results.

Checkmate.

Truman wrote:No, you inferred it. Nice crawdad, Loser.

I did not infer anything. I was merely pointing out that people who have a fucking clue have never used the words HIPAA Privacy Act before in their life.

Truman wrote:I Yeah, well, I was referring to the law in general, ape-man. Bottom line is nobody has legal access to George Zimmerman’s medical records.

Which has nothing to do with the HIPAA Privacy Act because there is no such thing. Zimmerman is covered under the Privacy Rule, which once again, was not even enforced until 2003.

Truman wrote:Actually it wasn’t. It was a comment meant to draw a foe into a topic that you profess to have a working knowledge of. Pity you happened to step into his wheel-house . The end result, of course, will find you milled into cake flour.

I don’t just have a working knowledge of the subject, I am a fucking expert. I do this for a living. Meanwhile, the only thing you’re wrestling with at work today is how much lettuce is needed to fill your client’s tacos during the lunch rush.

Truman wrote:Tread lightly, ucant, lest this thing rage for three pages. No doubt the smack will be clever and imaginative, but in the end, you will be left on the sidewalk tipping your cap and begging for nickels while you dance to the music. Your choice, Jocko.

If you want to try to catch up and recover from your latest beatdown for 3 more pages you are than welcome to. However. This will be my last post about this topic. As you’ve already proven, you can’t argue with stupid. You have not read any of the links I provided you with. You’ve conveniently ignored HHS’s definition of the PRIVACY RULE and what it means. You’ve ignored that HIPAA charged HHS with defining the privacy laws touched upon in 1996 and it took 4 years for them to be published. You were unaware that the Privacy Rule was not even enforced until 7 years after HIPAA came into being. And you have conveniently ignored that none of this shit (also covered under HIPAA) has anything to do with privacy:
• The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 (P.L.104-191), provided for changes in the health insurance market.
• It guaranteed the availability and renewability of health insurance coverage for certain employees and individuals, and limited the use of preexisting condition restrictions.
• The Act created federal standards for insurers, health maintenance organizations (HMOs), and employer-provided health plans, including those that self-insure. It permitted, however, substantial state flexibility for compliance with the requirements on insurers.
• HIPAA also included tax provisions relating to health insurance. It permitted a limited number of small businesses and self-employed individuals to contribute to tax-advantaged medical savings accounts (MSAs) established in conjunction with high-deductible health insurance plans.
• It increased the deduction for health insurance that self-employed taxpayers may claim.
• In addition, it allowed long-term care expenses to be treated like deductible medical expenses and clarified the tax treatment of long-term care insurance.

For the last fucking time, no one calls it the HIPAA Privacy Act. There already was a Privacy Act 22 years before HIPAA. You are clearly mixing up these two things, which while related, are two separate and distinct laws (the Privacy Act relates to federal agencies and not hospital/medical records.) Zimmerman is covered under the Privacy Rule. These are facts, not opinions.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Wait a minute...all this nervous gibberish about the legalities of privacy are begging the question...Why doesn't the shooter provide some medical report that proves he indeed suffered a broken nose? Because...he was completely lying? :wink:

The shooter hasn't spoken to anyone. So how could he claim he had a broken nose? What happened was someone read bleeding from the nose and ran with that. I seem to remember the thugs parents and supporters using the broken nose line first. Something about being giddy about the thug kicking ass before he got shot.

In the meantime why don't you link us up to a quote from Zimmerman claiming he had a broken nose.

Dinsdale wrote:

BSmack wrote:Confirmed: White conservative victimhood movement alive and well.

Yes folks, you did read that right -- Denouncing a media member falsifying details of a story is part of "white victimhood."

The full quote was "white CONSERVATIVE victimhood." Not sure why you chose to drop CONSERVATIVE from my description. I'm sure you were just editing for space?

It doesn't make any difference if he was conservative... except to left wing nuts.

BSmack wrote:I'm sure you were just editing for space?

Pretty much.

Changing news stories, changing observed data in the name of "science" -- WTF is wrong with the Loony Left these days?

Van wrote:

Van wrote:You two are about to turn this into an extended debate centering around the incandescently compelling topics of acronym semantics and acts vs rules, arentcha?

Yep!

I think this is T1B's very first insurance industry paper shuffler semantics battle.

Let's hope it's the last.

Do we have a coupla CPAs who might treat us to an excel smackdown?

smackaholic wrote:Do we have a coupla CPAs who might treat us to an excel smackdown?

What does a CPA know about spreadsheets besides formatting colors and fonts? They may also know how to press the auto-sum button. Maybe. But I've yet to meet a CPA who can write their own VBA.

Shouldn't you be stuffing envelopes full of junk mail or something? Shut up.

I like the ones with the square heads.

Left Seater wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Wait a minute...all this nervous gibberish about the legalities of privacy are begging the question...Why doesn't the shooter provide some medical report that proves he indeed suffered a broken nose? Because...he was completely lying? :wink:

The shooter hasn't spoken to anyone. So how could he claim he had a broken nose? What happened was someone read bleeding from the nose and ran with that. I seem to remember the thugs parents and supporters using the broken nose line first. Something about being giddy about the thug kicking ass before he got shot.

In the meantime why don't you link us up to a quote from Zimmerman claiming he had a broken nose.

'Scuse me?...

We're familiar with the Shaken Baby Syndrome," said Uhrig on the CBS This Morning program. "You shake a baby, the brain shakes around inside the skull. You can die when someone's pounding your head into the ground."

Apart from saying his client suffered a broken nose, Uhrig did not elaborate on the extent of any injuries Zimmerman actually suffered. But characteristic injuries associated with SBS, as Shaken Baby Syndrome is known, include bleeding in the brain. There are often no visible external signs such injuries have occurred.


What, do you live beneath a car wash? of course he claimed to have suffered a broken nose--and of course the police video shows a man with no broken nose or any other injuries. As for the records of the paramedics or some actual medical personnel verifying these essential claims, nothing has been produced. And of course the shoddy police investigation allowed weeks to go by before doing anything. "Shaken baby"? Doesn't this raise some apprehension as to the desperation factor in the shooter's defense camp?

LTS wrote:What, do you live beneath a car wash?

That is just awesome in its pure randomness.

Love the older lawyer here. Guy's a beauty. Just a straight-up "cut the bullshit, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, get outta my face with that stupid shit" smacker...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/geo ... 37097.html

Just exactly where was that quote from the shooter?

That's right he hasn't said a word.

You can try again, but then you would fail again.

bleeding in the brain. There are often no visible external signs such injuries have occurred.

If bleeding in the brain was somehow an visible external injury, the conversation would be less "stand your ground" and more "should've stood your ground".

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:

smackaholic wrote:Do we have a coupla CPAs who might treat us to an excel smackdown?

What does a CPA know about spreadsheets besides formatting colors and fonts? They may also know how to press the auto-sum button. Maybe. But I've yet to meet a CPA who can write their own VBA.

Shouldn't you be stuffing envelopes full of junk mail or something? Shut up.

I know a few CPAs. They all seem to pride themselves in being excel gurus, which kind of makes sense. No idea what a VBA is and I couldn't care less to.

I don't stuff the envelopes. I work on the equipment that stuffs them. And, we don't do 3rd class junk. No money to be made working in those sweatshops. We do all personalized 1st class stuff. You probably get a bill or two through us every month. And if you work for a large insurance company, there's a real good chance we do their work as well. Or we will be within a few years.

smackaholic wrote:No idea what a VBA is and I couldn't care less to.

It's very advanced Excel. Writing actual code. Of course you've never heard of it... your "Excel Guru" pals don't know WTF it is either. They do the same shit month after month, quarter after quarter, when most of it can be automated using Visual Basic. I am sure they know how to change the color on a tab though.

Zimmerman will be arrested later today.

Link?

Or is this just another case of...

Van wrote:Link?

Or is this just another case of...

Do you know who I am ?

Jsc810 wrote:Soon after the shooting in the Florida district of Sanford, Mr Zimmerman went into hiding.

Wow, amazing display of fact-checking with this outfit... I'd take their word as law.

Dinsdale wrote:Wow, amazing display of fact-checking with this outfit... I'd take their word as law.

This should have been a hint...

Jsc810 wrote: neighbourhood

It was.

M2 wrote:Do you know who I am ?

Sometimes I think I may, but then...no.

Dins vouches for you, though, so I suppose you're probably okay when you're not trolling.

Who's vouching for Dins?

M2 wrote:Do you know who I am ?

A middle aged, dick inhaling renfaire carny with sad delusions of high school grandeur and a dream of one day publishing a glossy, coffee table photo book entitled, Rest Stop Glory Holes of the American West.

Jsc810 wrote:'Zimmerman To Be Charged Over Trayvon Death'

7:29pm UK, Wednesday April 11, 2012
A prosecutor is to announce that George Zimmerman will be charged over the death of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, according to the Washington Post.

Charged with what? I noticed that she declined to take this to a grand jury which tells me that she didn't even have the proverbial ham sandwich and didn't want to risk a no bill.

This is yet another example of the wildly irresponsible mob "journalism" being practised today. No facts, no sources no nothing but ass out speculation designed to bring even more pressure to bear to in order to achieve "social justice."

Personally, I would cite Zimmerman for littering, close the books and alert the National Guard.

mvscal wrote:Personally, I would cite Zimmerman for littering

Except they can't find him... let the media spin kick it up yet another gear.

Van wrote:Dins vouches for you.

I thought Dins was outed as the handler to this troll last year. Didn't IF disclose something along these lines?

Well maybe he's off captaining a watch somewhere, looking out for suspicious people whom he can confront, hassle, and shoot. Or maybe his dad has him on a plane for Tel Aviv where under the fake state's absurd "law of return" he would actually be welcomed. Or perhaps he's hiding in a room, crying like a little bitch while considering doing the right thing

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:I thought Dins was outed as the handler to this troll last year. Didn't IF disclose something along these lines?

You're not a very bright guy...





Does this look like "Portland" to you ???

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:

Van wrote:Dins vouches for you.

I thought Dins was outed as the handler to this troll last year. Didn't IF disclose something along these lines?

Dunno. That'd be news to me.

All I know is that Dins has denied it. Sure, he may have been lying to me, but I'll believe Dins long before I'll believe IF. I wouldn't trust that guy as far as I could throw him, considering he told people I'm SoCalTrjn when he knew full well that I wasn't.

War Wagon wrote:Who's vouching for Dins?

As long as we've got a voucher.

Zimmermann was charged with 2nd degree murder. From my vantage point, this is good. The prosecution will NOT be able to win this case. ONCE AGAIN, the state of Florida overcharged.

NO WAY will they be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that zimmermann committed 2nd degree murder.

We already know that an eyewitness saw Trayvon on top of zimmermannn, attacking him. He also said that zimmermann was screaming, "someone help me". Police reports indicated that zimmermannn was bleeding from the nose and back of his head. These FACTS cannott be changed.

If I am a juror, HOW the FUCK would I convict him of 2nd degree murder, knowing these facts?

Did the prosecutor go for the more serious charge in order to make a deal? Or, do they really believe that zimmermann is guilty of this serious crime?