July 7, 2012

Healthcare Reform Law and the 2009 Stimulus Bill Mandate Biometric Screening and Electronic Health Records by 2014

There would be profound changes in the practice of medicine. Overall, medicine would be much more tightly controlled. The observation that was made in 1969 that, "It is now abundantly evident that Congress is not going to go along with national health insurance. But it's not necessary — we have other ways to control health care". These would come about more gradually, but all health care delivery would come under tight control. Medical care would be closely connected to work. If you don't work or can't work, you won't have access to medical care. The days of hospitals giving away free care would gradually wind down, to where it was virtually non-existent. Costs would be forced up so that people won't be able to afford to go without insurance. People pay for it, you're entitled to it. Your medical care would be paid for by others. Therefore, you would gratefully accept, on bended knee, what was offered to you as a privilege. Your role being responsible for your own care would be diminished. Here's the way this works: everybody has made dependent on insurance, and if you don't have insurance then you pay directly; the cost of your care is enormous. Access to hospitals would be tightly controlled and identification would be needed to get into the building. Anybody moving about the hospital would be required to wear an identification badge with a photograph and telling why he was there, employee or lab technician or visitor or whatever. This is to be brought in gradually, getting everybody used to the idea of identifying themselves - until it was just accepted. This need for ID to move about would start in small ways: hospitals, some businesses, but gradually expand to include everybody in all places! [The New Order of the Barbarians: Planning the Control Over Medicine, Dr. Lawrence Dunegan, 1988]

By 2014 every American will be required to have an electronic health record. You'll soon come to realize that every e-mail, phone call, credit card charge and financial transaction you make is recorded, archived and mined by the federal government as part of their search for whatever group they're calling the bad guys this year.

One of the latest rumors to circulate on the internet about the Obamacare nightmare is that it will require all Americans to undergo BMI (Body Mass Index) screening by 2014. Presumably, the BMI results will be used to ration health care in some manner as finite numbers of doctors, nurses, and hospitals struggle to cope with unlimited demand for their services. A document named Health Information Technology Standards purports to show Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ new certification standards for electronic health records (EHRs). Further, the stimulus bill states that the National Coordinator shall “update the Federal Health IT Strategic Plan” with “utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014.” This constituted the basis for Sebelius’ new EHR standard. On page 61 in The Code of Federal Regulations Part 170 it states that EHRs will calculate BMIs. An additional document refers to certification criteria for EHRs and specifically shows that BMI will be part of the vital signs included in EHRs. Therefore, it appears that the rumor is true as far as the claims that Obamacare will require an EHR for all Americans and that the EHR will be required to include a calculation for BMI. [Healthcare Reform Law Mandates Biometric Screening and Electronic Health Records by 2014]

President Obama has set a goal of providing all U.S. residents with an EHR by 2014. According to 2009 preliminary results from CDC's National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, about 20.5% of U.S. physicians reported having basic EHR systems, and 6.3% reported having a fully functional system. In a March 15 comment letter to CMS, more than 95 state and specialty medical societies wrote: "The vast majority of physicians' practices are comprised of five or fewer physicians. Encouraging physician of health IT, especially small physician practices, is critical to ensuring widespread EHR use." [Source]

States can now apply for $51 million in federal money to help build health insurance exchanges, the Health and Human Services Department said today. HHS wants states to create the exchanges and begin operating them in 2014 as part of the health reform law. [Source]

To prepare the U.S. for a cashless society where only electronic transactions will take place, the federal government is using stimulus funds to erect cellphone towers and to expand the National Broadband Plan into rural areas. In addition, stimulus funds also are being used as Medicare and Medicaid incentive payments to encourage early adoption by medical providers of electronic health records — language in the stimulus bill calls for “the utilization of an electronic health record (EHR) for each person in the United States by 2014”. These electronic health records will follow each American from birth to death, and include information about each person’s race, ethnicity and medical history. Obamacare will require EHRs for all Americans and the EHRs will be required to include a calculation for BMI. [Wellness Programs and Biometric Screenings: Almost Half of Employers Expect by 2016 to Have Programs that Penalize Workers 'for Not Achieving Specific Health Outcomes' Such as Lowering Body Mass Index]

Through stimulus funding, the Obama administration is encouraging the adoption of electronic health records by 2014. With more than $17 billion in stimulus funding, the government has been encouraging medical providers to adopt electronic medical records, switching patient records from old paper files to sophisticated computer databases. The plan to reshape the nation’s medical system through the implementation of computerized medical records was part of a $838 billion stimulus bill approved by the Senate in February. These electronic records would “follow each American from birth to death,” and include information about each person’s race, ethnicity and medical history. [Anita Gutierrez-Folch, Government Pushes for Electronic Medical Records by 2014, Finding Dulcinea, October 1, 2009]

ObamaCare mandates that by 2014 almost every American must prove to the IRS that he or she is enrolled in a government-approved health plan. Absent that proof, the IRS will hound the luckless citizen for a "penalty" of 2.5% of his or her income (by 2016), or $695 a year, whichever is greater. [John McClaughry, The ObamaCare Tax on Your Existence, Right Side News, August 5, 2010]

In 2009, HITSP focused on ‘meaningful use’ and ARRA’s eight priorities, which include: technologies that protect the privacy of health information; a nationwide health information technology infrastructure; use of a certified electronic record for each person in the U.S. by 2014; technologies that support accounting of disclosures made by a covered entity; the use of electronic records to improve quality; technologies that enable identifiable health information to be rendered unusable/unreadable; demographic data collection including race, ethnicity, primary language and gender; and technologies that address the needs of children and other vulnerable populations. [Source]

About half of the more than 30 million uninsured Americans expected to gain coverage through the health care law will be enrolled in a government program. Medicaid, the federal-state program for low-income people, will be expanded starting in 2014 to cover childless adults living near the poverty line. The other half will be enrolled in private health plans through new state-based insurance markets. But many of them will be receiving federal subsidies to make their premiums more affordable. And that's a government program, too. Starting in 2014 most Americans will be required to carry health coverage, either through an employer, by buying their own plan, or through a government program. [Source]

The Supreme Court, in its 5-4 ruling, upheld the mandate that most Americans get health insurance. The majority said Congress has the power to enforce the mandate under its taxing authority. The decision labeled the penalties a tax, noting that they will be collected by the IRS. Those who don't get qualified health insurance will be required to pay the penalty — or tax — starting for the 2014 tax year, unless they are exempt because of low income, religious beliefs, or because they are members of American Indian tribes. The penalty will be fully phased in by 2016, when it will be $695 for each uninsured adult or 2.5 percent of family income, whichever is greater, up to $12,500. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that 4 million people will pay the penalty that year. [Source]

Emanuel Requires City Workers Enrollment in Wellness Program or Pay Higher Premiums

NBC
September 16, 2011

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is giving city workers an important health choice: enroll in a new wellness plan, expected to be unveiled Friday, or pay a higher premium. The price if they don't enroll: $50 a month.

The program includes an initial screening that focuses on preventative care for asthma, heart disease and diabetes. City employees would then receive wellness training to achieve long-term health goals, including weight loss.

Smokers wouldn't be penalized, but they would be encouraged to quit. Advisers overseeing the program will monitor progress on a bimonthly basis, and those who reach their goals could see their health care premiums reduced.

"We will help you be a good steward for your health," Emanuel said Friday, "but if you choose not to, you'll pay that price and that is the price you'll have to pay."

The mayor believes the program will help cut the annual $500 million bill for health care for city employees.

"We are going to implement a citywide wellness plan for city employees," Emanuel confirmed at a recent press conference, "because health care costs for the city are being driven by 10 percent a year, and we're not seeing revenue grow that way."

Most city unions have signed on to the agreement, according to the Chicago Sun-Times, except the Fraternal Order of Police, which represents more than 10,000 city employees.

The FOP says its members have different health concerns and it doesn't want members to pay higher premiums if they decide not to enroll in the program.

But Emanuel says the program is a necessary step to getting healthcare costs under control.

"You can't ask the taxpayers to pay for a healthcare problem that you can manage and do a good job," Emanuel said. "You can do that with cholesterol, you can do that through diabetes, you can do that through smoking, through heart, blood pressure. Every one of those is manageable."

Can Your Company Require a Biometric Health Screening in Order to Continue Insurance Coverage?

Yahoo Answers
March 2, 2011

My spouse has worked for the same company for the past 15 years. The company seems to be forcing the issue of a biometric health screening. Under the heading of “Is this mandatory?” it says..

"For salaried employees, in order to participate in the 2010 Medical Plans you are required to go through the on-site biometric screen process, and the online Health Risk Assessment. If a salaried employee chooses not to participate in either the Biometric Screen, or the online Health Risk Assessment, they will not be eligible for 2010 Medical Insurance, and you will receive COBRA notification to your home if you were previously participating in the medical plans."
Is this crap legal? Can a company terminate your insurance for not completing this so called health assessment?

tonalc2

Yes. Welcome to the wonderful world of risk-based, profit-driven health coverage.

DAR

A company has no legal duty to give insurance at all, generally. In states where it does it MAY be illegal (for companies of a certain size) but I’m pretty sure you would have to take it to court, and the government wants EVERYONE’s private records online, 4th amendment or not (look at Obamacare); so I think you’d have a hard time with it. Is there an implication you won’t be covered if you have preexisting conditions? Because if that is the case, it may not satisfy legal standards IF there are legal standards. Note that there often are not, particularly for small companies.

Does Obamacare Require BMI Screening?

The 2009 stimulus bill, rather than the Obamacare law itself, states that EHRs will calculate BMIs. An additional document refers to certification criteria for EHRs and specifically shows that BMI will be part of the vital signs included in EHRs. Therefore, it appears that the rumor is true as far as the claims that Obamacare will require an EHR for all Americans and that the EHR will be required to include a calculation for BMI.

Examiner.com
July 19, 2010

One of the latest rumors to circulate on the internet about the Obamacare nightmare is that it will require all Americans to undergo BMI (Body Mass Index) screening by 2014. Presumably, the BMI results will be used to ration health care in some manner as finite numbers of doctors, nurses, and hospitals struggle to cope with unlimited demand for their services.

To find the truth, I examined the full text of HR 3590, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as well as its companion bill HR 4872, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act. This takes some time, even scanning with the search function on a browser, since the HR 3590 contains a whopping 906 pages and HR 4872 adds an additional 55 pages. That is quite a number of dead trees for a law that is supposed to simplify and lower the cost of health care.

I conducted my examination by searching both documents for “bmi.” This resulted in a large number of hits, but only two referred to “Body Mass Index.” The majority were some form the word “submit,” which says a lot about Obamacare in itself.

  1. The first reference is in section 2703 State Option to Provide Health Homes for Enrollees with Chronic Conditions on page 203. BMI is mentioned here as one of the medical conditions that defines the term “chronic condition” (specifically a BMI over 25). There is no mention of mandatory screening for BMI.

  2. The second reference to BMI was in section 4004 Education Outreach Campaign Regarding Preventive Benefits on page 428. In this section, BMI is mentioned as one of the factors that people will use to determine their disease risk on a website. Again, there is no mention of mandatory BMI screening.

The second bill, HR 4872, contained several references to “submit,” but no references to Body Mass Index.

At this point, I was ready to declare the mandatory BMI screening a hoax.

Just before I published this article, however, someone pointed me in the direction of a document called HIT (Health Information Technology) Standards 170.302. This document purports to show Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ new certification standards for electronic health records (EHRs). Further, a CNS News report (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/69436) refers to section 3001 Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the stimulus bill, rather than the Obamacare law itself.

Section 3001 in Part C Duties of the National Coordinator Subpart 3 paragraph (a) (ii) states that the National Coordinator shall “update the Federal Health IT Strategic Plan” with “utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014.” This constituted the basis for Sebelius’ new EHR standard.

On page 61 (of 228) in The Code of Federal Regulations Part 170 (http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2010-17210_PI.pdf) it states that EHRs will calculate BMIs. An additional document (http://healthcare.nist.gov/docs/170.302.e.2_BMI_v0.2_fulldoc.pdf) refers to certification criteria for EHRs and specifically shows that BMI will be part of the vital signs included in EHRs.

Therefore, it appears that the rumor is true as far as the claims that Obamacare will require an EHR for all Americans and that the EHR will be required to include a calculation for BMI. The speculative claim that the BMI will be used to ration health care is so far unsubstantiated. I will leave it up to the reader to decide whether and how much to be alarmed by the BMI requirement.

I will say that it is extremely likely that Obamacare will result in health care rationing. Massachusetts enacted what President Obama called an “essentially identical” plan in 2006 and the result has been skyrocketing costs (http://bit.ly/dvTxyU). Rapidly increasing demand with a static level of supply led to sharply increasing costs. To deal with these increasing costs, Governor Deval Patrick enacted price controls in the form of denying insurance companies to increase rates.

Jon Kingsdale, who directed in Massachusetts’ version of Obama’s health insurance exchanges, said recently,

"If you're going to do health-care cost containment, it has to be stealth. It has to be unsuspected by any of the key players to actually have an effect."
He further stated that:
The solution to the problem was finding a “significant systematic way of pushing back on the health-care system and saying, 'No, you have to do with less'” (http://bit.ly/dvTxyU).
In other words, the government will have to quietly ration care.

This shows the ultimate importance of efforts to defeat Obamacare. If you value your health care, vote for candidates who will repeal and defund the new law. Also support state and local candidates who will support efforts such as the lawsuit by Georgia and several other states against the law.

Reform the reform!

Review of Google Health - Technology Achievement or Privacy Disaster?

NaturalNews
May 20, 2008

Google Health was launched with much fanfare this week, positioned by Google, Inc. as a technological solution to the rather embarrassing problem of an advanced nation still running on medical records that seem to be stuck in 1970's-era technology. The Google Health service promises to give users a free, central storehouse for all their medical records, providing a convenient way to share medical histories with doctors, insurance companies and other primary health care players.

But is Google Health secure? And is the company behind it guaranteed to protect your privacy? In this review, NaturalNews takes a critical look at Google Health and examines several areas of increasing concern. Let's start by looking at the first area of concern: Consumer privacy.

In its terms of service, Google Health openly says it may share a user's personal health records with the following groups:
  • Subsidiaries, affiliated companies or other trusted businesses who process personal information for Google.

  • The U.S. government, following a request of such information from the government.

  • Merger or acquisition partners, if Google sells off its Google Health assets someday. Under this scenario, Google promises to "provide notice" before personal information is transferred and "becomes subject to a different privacy policy."
In other words, under Google's own terms of service, Google could first get a hundred million people to enter their health records under Google Health, then it could sell off those records to a third party which might have a new privacy policy that eliminates any real right to privacy and gives the new owner of the records the right to sell such records to anyone (such as drug companies, governments, employers and more).

How would you like to find yourself going to a job interview one day, then suddenly finding out you're denied the job because your potential future employer bought your health records from this third party company that purchased them from Google? Although this is certainly not the intention of present-day Google, it remains a disconcerting possibility that's actually written right into Google's own privacy policy. Regardless of whether Google ever intends to sell your health records to someone else, the language of their privacy policy enables them to sell off the Google Health unit -- and all its records -- to any other business, government or individual at any time, with no recourse on your part. You have no right to delete your records under such a scenario. They become the "property" of the new buyer.

But would Google ever really do such a thing? That's where we take a closer look at the ethics of this company that claims to "do no evil."

Google's Partnership with Communist China and the Censorship of Search Results

It is a well known fact that over the last few years, Google openly conspired with the Communist Chinese government to build a custom search engine that would censor freedom-related subjects, eliminating such topics from the search results delivered by Google to the citizens of China. This campaign of Google-engineered mass censorship was created to keep the Chinese population enslaved by a tyrannical, Communist government regime that believes reading the Bible is a criminal offense, or that meditating in a public place justifies your arrest and prosecution by the Chinese government.

China, you see, doesn't want its population to see search engine results on topics like the Dalai Lama, the Tiananmen Square uprising, or even articles that are critical of the current government regime. And when given an opportunity to engineer a search engine that enforced this "thought crime" censorship across a nation of one billion people, Google jumped right into step with the Chinese Communist government and applied its considerable technical resources to the challenge of figuring out the most efficient way to keep an entire nation enslaved by limiting its ability to engage in the free exchange of ideas.

Thus, Google -- the company that once claimed to "do no evil" -- became the architect of one of the most colossal "Big Brother" projects in the history of the internet: The creation of a search engine for China that specifically sought to limit freedom, limit access to information, and protect the power base of a corrupt, aging Communist dynasty that feared it might lose its grip on the population if people had open access to the internet. A search engine is a dangerous thing, didn't you know? China thinks it is, anyway.

Google's "do no evil" slogan slid down that slippery slope of corporate ethics and inevitably became "Do no evil unless there's money to be made." And this company, which openly and willfully conspired with the Chinese government to deny its citizens access to "dangerous" ideas, now wants to hold on to your private health records! But don't worry, Google promises it won't do anything evil to you.

In its own defense, Google says it's better to do business with China in the hope that it might be able to influence that nation's internet censorship policies in the future. While this initially sounds like a potentially justifiable line of reasoning, it is the same line of reasoning that, throughout the history of human civilization, has been invoked by entrepreneurs and corporations doing business with tyrants. It's the same line of reasoning used by the pharmaceutical companies who manufactured Zyklon B gas for Nazi Germany, or who manufactured Depleted Uranium weapons for the U.S. military to use in Iraq. The very idea of "doing business with evil groups in order to achieve some future good" is actually just a form of self-deception. No lasting good has ever been produced by cooperating with evil regimes. (But it sure makes for a slick-sounding spin campaign, doesn't it?)

Is Google working against the People?

The disconnect between Google's "do no evil" slogan and its actual behavior presents us with an interesting form of corporate schizophrenia, or a Jekyl-and-Hyde behavior pattern that hardly lends itself to trust. Add on to that the fact that Google employs U.S. government spooks and you start to wonder: Just who is Google really working for anyway? It already admits that it will turn over your private health records to the U.S. government, if requested, but it fails to detail just what kind of requests it will honor vs. reject.

The turning over of private health records to the government is probably not even a real issue anyway, given that under Big Brother legislation passed since 9/11, the U.S. government is no doubt already secretly tapping into data feeds from Google. I have no doubt that user searches, for example, are routinely profiled and searched for keywords that might indicate a "terrorist" is searching for a way to build a bomb (or whatever). Web pages are probably mined on a regular basis to find hints of terror-related activity, and Google's famous PageRank technology offers a perfect framework by which web pages of known terrorists can lead investigators to related pages from other potential troublemakers.

There's simply no question at all in my mind that Google is either knowingly or unknowingly sharing information with the U.S. government right now. If you're not familiar with these facts, just read up on the government's Total Information Awareness program here.

You'll soon come to realize that every e-mail, phone call, credit card charge and financial transaction you make is recorded, archived and mined by the federal government as part of their search for whatever group they're calling the bad guys this year. Does anyone really believe search engines aren't also part of this illegal domestic surveillance system operated by the government? Of course, we can't say for sure whether Google is cooperating with such efforts, but it's not too difficult to imagine a bunch of dark suits showing up at Google corporate headquarters one day and demanding that back doors be engineered into the search engine archives as a matter of "natural security." The simple invocation of "natural security," it seems, is justification enough for practically any degree of spying on Americans these days.

Who's on the advisory board of Google Health?

Google Health is operated with input from an advisory board. Ever wonder who's on that board? It reads like a who's who of Big Brother freedom haters who run pro-military think tanks, drug company front groups and billion-dollar drug retailers. Here's a partial list of who sits on Google Health's advisory board right now:

Douglas Bell, M.D., Ph.D.
Research Scientist, RAND Health, RAND Corporation (a militaristic think tank group involved in numerous covert events of the past several decades)

Linda M. Dillman
Executive Vice President, Risk Management, Benefits and Sustainability, Wal-Mart (one of the country's largest retailers of harmful prescription drugs)

Bernadine Healy, M.D.
Former head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Health Editor & Columnist, U.S. News & World Report (a pro-drug rag that rakes in tens of millions of dollars each year from Big Pharma while its ad pages are filled with promotions for toxic medications that kill people)

Bernie Hengesbaugh
Chief Operating Officer, The American Medical Association (AMA) (a highly corrupt pharmaceutical front group that has already been found guilty of conspiracy to destroy alternative medicine in U.S. federal courts). Read "How the AMA Got Rich" here.

David Kessler, M.D.
Former FDA Commissioner, Vice Chancellor-Medical Affairs & Dean, School of Medicine, UCSF (as the former head of the FDA, David Kessler led one of the most evil, corrupt and law-breaking government organizations that has ever been created, aside from the CIA, perhaps)
Put all these people together, and what do you get? The advisory board for Google Health! Of course, a few other people sit on the advisory board, and they're not all bad people, but just the fact that the people listed here are sitting on the Google Health advisory board should make you wonder about the real motive behind such a system.

Google Health, as I see it, is a way to sucker people into a system of disease and ongoing pharmaceutical treatments by creating the illusion that organization of health records is a replacement for real health prevention. But let me be the first to say this: An organized list of all the pharmaceuticals a person is taking and all the false diagnoses they have been given by ignorant doctors is no replacement for the real health policies we need in this country if we hope to have a future. What kind of health policies do we really need? The teaching of cancer prevention, the banning of drug advertising, the banning of junk food marketing, the outlawing of toxic food additives, the banning of toxic chemicals in personal care products, the overthrow of the FDA and its ongoing campaign of tyranny and censorship against nutritional supplements, and so on.

Google Health may, indeed, look like a great way to organize health records, but in the end, all it's doing is lending the illusion of order to a system of medicine that's based primarily on fraudulent science, harmful chemicals and corporate greed.

Reinforcing the illusion of disease

Google Health even goes out of its way to reinforce the existence of fictitious diseases and disorders that have no basis in reality. ADHD, for example, is one of the diseases that can be selected by users of Google Health, which describes it like this: "ADHD is a problem with inattentiveness, over-activity, impulsivity, or a combination." It then goes on to provide a "reference page" of information supporting this false disorder, which reads must like a full-page advertisement for the drug companies.

Nowhere does Google Health indicate that the "disorder" is entirely fictitious, or that it was invented by drug companies and corrupt psychiatrists in order to sell amphetamines to children. (See my article on this topic here.)

Instead, Google Health just perpetuates a cult-like belief in toxic, synthetic chemicals that harm children and now kill at least 100,000 Americans a year. Thus, just like in China, where Google openly cooperated with the mass censorship of the Chinese population, Google Health is now a program of mass brainwashing for the U.S. population. It attempts to create the illusion of bringing organization to an industry that's ultimately based on the motivation to keep people in a state of ongoing degenerative disease so that drug companies can rake in billions of dollars in profits without actually curing anybody. The entire Google Health interface, in fact, is engineered precisely in a way that reinforces false beliefs about fictitious disease, since many users seeing ADHD appear in a "conditions" list might figure, well gee, if it's on this Google list, it must be real!

The Google Health page goes on to urge readers that children should be subjected to "treatment" that begins with medicating the child. Finally, this Google Health page goes on to insist that alternative or natural therapies are utterly useless by stating, "Alternative remedies have become quite popular, including herbs, supplements, and chiropractic manipulation. However, there is little or no solid evidence for many remedies marketed to parents."

Thus, Google Health has now joined the ranks of all the pro-Pharma drug pushers who are doping up our children on dangerous drugs while calling it "treatment." It has become a purveyor of poison; a promoter of fictitious disease labels and a force that now attempts to discredit nutrition, vitamin D, avoidance of food toxins and other strategies that completely eliminate symptoms of so-called ADHD within just a few weeks.

And remember; all this is from a company that claims to "do no evil." I suppose even George Bush thinks he's God's gift to human civilization, too, which just goes to show you that even the most insane, twisted individuals and organizations can easily find ways to justify their destructive behaviors and call them "good." (George Bush thinks God told him to invade the Middle East. Wow. Too bad nobody ever told him the voices in his head are actually coming from his medication...)

How Google further protects Big Pharma

This isn't the only thing Google has done over the last few years to prop up the pharmaceutical industry. Try to enter an Adwords ad on the name of any drug, and you'll be greeted with a screen that declares you can't use such keywords unless you first prove you are a licensed pharmacy. So my own articles about the dangers of Ritalin, for example, cannot be advertised on Google Adwords because I cannot use the word "Ritalin" in an ad. This is just one more way in which Google cooperates with powerful corporations to censor information that's critical about pharmaceuticals, thereby contributing to the ongoing brainwashing of the U.S. population (it was never limited to China, get it?)

I don't mean to say that all Google's employees are evil people, by the way. In fact, most Google people are pretty darned cool. They're smart, capable and well-meaning. But as we've seen in many other cases, a powerful corporation can easily begin to take on a negative role that in no way reflects the individual intentions of the people working there. Corporations want to get bigger, more powerful and more profitable. And sadly, most corporations end up compromising their principles in their eagerness to achieve greater size, power and profitability.

Do we really need Google Health anyway?

But let's suppose for a moment that Google Health is 100% private, secure and honest. Let's take a trip to imagination land and pretend there's a zero chance of Google ever selling off that business unit and sharing your private health records. There's still a very important question that comes to mind:

Does anybody really need to store their private health records online anyway?

Why not just type them into a Word document? Is there really any underlying need to go online and enter these records somewhere else?

And if so, what's next: Will Google launch "Google Car Repair" that stores your car repair records online? Will they launch "Google Resume" where you enter your educational records online? There's really no compelling reason, you see, to enter your personal records online, especially when you want to keep them private. Just type them into a document at home, and bring a copy with you to the doctor.

Finally, here's another important point we seem to forget these days in our over-medicated American society: If your health records are so long that you need an online database to store them, you're probably taking way too many meds! I've seen people come into local health clinics taking eight, ten or even a dozen different medications all at once! Neither they, nor their doctors, have any idea whether such cocktail combinations of chemicals are dangerous (hint: they are!). They've never even been tested in such a way. But you can bet these people are suffering from all kinds of side effects, symptoms and health problems due to the taking of all those medications.

Have you ever met a person taking ten prescription drugs who got better? Of course not. They don't exist. Pharmaceuticals make people sick, diseased and dysfunctional. That's why they're such profitable business products: Once you start taking one, you soon need another one, and then another one, until one day you can't sleep, can't poop, can't breathe and can't get an erection. They have pills for all those things, too, which I suppose you can just add to your 5000-word Google Health medical record that proves you're a walking bag of Big Pharma chemicals.

Nowhere, by the way, does Google Health warn people that taking so many medications is extremely harmful to the environment (because those drugs pass right through you and damage aquatic ecosystems), and nowhere does Google Health even mention the simple fact that vitamin D can prevent 77% of all cancers, thereby eliminating the need for hundreds of different drugs and medical labels that are included in their system. It's almost as if Google Health was constructed by Big Pharma itself, then licensed to Google.

The most shameful Google project yet

In all, Google Health is a monumental failure by a company that should frankly know better. Rather than creating something that helps make the world a better place, Google chose to follow the Big Pharma / conventional medicine lies and disinformation, promoting drugs and fictitious diseases labels as "health." In doing so, Google has wasted this monumental opportunity to make a positive difference in the world and has once again reinforced the fact that when it comes to promoting powerful organizations vs. helping real people, Google will side with the rich, powerful corporations and disease organizations.

If Google really wanted to create a useful health technology that could change the world and make a huge difference in the prevention of disease and the quality of life for everyday Americans, they should have invited the top natural health experts to sit on the board and design a system that promoted real health, not fictitious disease. But alas, they did not. I searched my mailbox twice and didn't see an invitation [chuckle], and after this article goes live, I sort of doubt I'll ever see one from Google.

I can tell you this much: If I had the financial resources and influence of the Google founders, I wouldn't waste it sitting around on my duff creating useless health databases that promote a mindset of disease and medication. Instead, I'd be teaching health, nutrition and disease prevention (all the things that the Google ADHD page says don't work, quite hilariously). I'd be using my money and influence to make the world a better place by challenging the status quo instead of perpetuating a system of diseasification and medication ...

Onsite Employee Health Screening and Biometric Testing

CorporateWellnessIncentive.com
October 26, 2008

Onsite Employee Health Screening and Biometric Testing means better heath risk assessment baselines and better security

“Onsite Employee Health Screening and Biometric Testing” is a hot phrase these days, but it can help your workers with health management, too. When the pundits talk about Onsite Employee Health Screening and Biometric Testing, they’re usually referring to retinal scanners, fingerprint readers, and other high-tech security measures. However, if you trace the phrase “Onsite Employee Health Screening and Biometric Testing” back to its roots, it refers to the measurement of unique human physical and behavioral characteristics.

Corporate Health Promotion Programs are of critical importance to the modern business. As a result, Onsite Employee Health Screening and Biometric Testing should be one of the tools in the arsenal of a forward-thinking organization.

Onsite Health Screening and Biometric Testings aren’t just a “feel-good” measure for your employees. Assessments of employee health help your workers to prioritize their well-being, which results in happier, more productive employees.

Health risk assessments also build your database of employee biometric data.

Onsite Employee Health Screening and Biometric Testing, when handled worksite by our experienced professionals, is hassle-free and smoothly organized. The biometric data we collect then can be stored digitally for years or even decades, helping you and your workers build better health risk assessment baselines that you can use to analyze workers fitness and the efficacy of your corporation’s Health and Productivity Programs. Collected biometric data can even allow an employee’s doctor to assess that individual’s health over many years, helping him or her spot trends and diagnose disease.

Onsite Employee Health Screening and Biometric Testing extends to a wide variety of health risk tests, including measurements of blood pressure, blood type, body fat, substance abuse, and susceptibility to cardiovascular disease. Collecting biometric data for security purposes – like fingerprints, facial recognition imprints, or hand geometry – can be dovetailed with our health tests to minimize workflow disruption.

What Is a Biometric Screening?

eHow.com
March 28, 2011

A biometric screening is a short health examination that determines the risk level of a person for certain diseases and medical conditions. Many employers and universities encourage staff or students to complete this type of health screening so they can start thinking about their health and pursue treatment if needed.

  1. Purpose

    • A biometric screening is a general health check that can identify any significant cardiovascular or nervous system problems. This health check provides several biometric measures including: cholesterol levels for full lipid panel and glucose; blood pressure; blood glucose levels and also includes a measurement of height, weight and body mass index (BMI). Results are typically available within a few days after the screening, and are kept confidential.

    Significance

    • The biometric screening can be one of several components of a complete health and wellness check. Most doctors and clinics perform a biometric screening as part of a wellness program that includes the completion of a health risk assessment (HRA) questionnaire, and a consultation. Results of the biometric screening can help to identify various diseases or health problems, and allow the patient to work with their physician to lower their health risks for certain conditions.

    Components

    • The typical biometric screening test can take up to 15 minutes, and is performed at a physician's clinic, or on site at an employment facility or college campus. It can consist of all or some of the following screening tests: carotid artery ultrasound screening; blood pressure check; blood draw; diabetes screening; and cholesterol screening.

    Types

    • The blood pressure screening is completed with a standard blood pressure check. The blood test is conducted by drawing a vial of blood; patients are required to fast for a short period of time before having blood drawn. The diabetes screening is performed by measuring glucose levels in the blood from the blood test. The cholesterol screening is performed with a "finger-stick" test that measures full lipid and glucose levels. The carotid artery ultrasound test determines the risk factor of having a stroke. This test measures how much plaque has accumulated in the arteries.

    Benefits

    • Biometric screenings allow the patient to learn about her current health status, and determine her risk for common diseases including diabetes, heart disease, asthma and other medical conditions. The physician or nurse conducting the tests can review the results of the screening with patients and follow up to do further tests, or recommend a treatment plan or wellness program based on immediate needs.

Related:

at

No comments:

Post a Comment