Veronica Jackson, the woman whose house it’s painted on says, “It’s a boxer girl. It’s about strength, it’s about creativity…”
Jackson says the painting came to be when artist Lisa Marie Thallhammer received a grant from the city to do a wall mural. “She needed a place. I provided a place and it’s been fabulous. I come around the corner to come home at night and boo.. it just makes me feel so good,” she said.
Still, some neighbors say they’re not thrilled with the artwork. “It borders on graffiti,” said Barbara Wilson, a neighbor. “I see it in my kitchen, in my bedroom, in my basement — it’s just in my face.”
And since taxpayer funds were used to put it up, some are particularly outraged.
Clearly, I have no sympathy here. It is the douchebag, liberal crowd that believes in using taxpayer money to fund these types of supposed arts (ever heard of the NEA?), but now that it pops up in their neighborhood and they don’t particularly care for the drawing they want to bitch and moan and hold meetings to have it removed.
This is so typical of this crowd of hypocrites. They want to protest and hold rallies about various rights and freedoms, but when someone exercises their freedom in a way they don’t like they are the first to hold meetings and try to come up with legalese to get their way. Rights be damned.
Before I start, let me tell you nobody cares more about individual liberty more than I do. In my estimation, the size and scope of government at all levels is out of freaking control. But, it is really, really important to have a clue what you are talking about before you go and shoot off your beak.
It gives patients more control over their health information.
It sets boundaries on the use and release of health records.
It establishes appropriate safeguards that health care providers and others must achieve to protect the privacy of health information.
It holds violators accountable, with civil and criminal penalties that can be imposed if they violate patients’ privacy rights.
It enables patients to find out how their information may be used, and about certain disclosures of their information that have been made.
It generally limits release of information to the minimum reasonably needed for the purpose of the disclosure.
It generally gives patients the right to examine and obtain a copy of their own health records and request corrections.
It empowers individuals to control certain uses and disclosures of their health information.
So you see, Craig, what you actually were refusing to sign was an acknowledgement that you were INFORMED of your rights.
Anybody who has been to the doctor or gotten a prescription filled has had to sign this acknowledgement with every single medical office or entity that they have dealt with since April 14, 2003.
You are not agreeing to allow anybody and their dog the ability to see your records by acknowledging the HIPPA form. You are agreeing that you have read and understand your rights to protect your private medical information.
The people who can legally request your medical information will have to obtain your consent in writing . It is not some elaborate conspiracy to invade your privacy. It’s the kind of people you would expect such as:
Insurance companies (That you have applied for coverage with)
Government agencies like Medicare, Social Security Disability, and Workers Compensation (Again only if you want something from them like coverage)
Your employer (If it is imperative to your job to be in a certain physical condition and you have consented to your release)
Undeterred by his total lack of understanding of HIPPA, Mr. Coleman decided to call the police because “a doctor cannot refuse treatment”.
A doctor cannot voluntarily leave a patient in the middle of an operation if she expects to not spend time in court or before a review board.
A doctor may notifiy the patient through a reliable and verifiable source (registered mail is a favorite) that they will cease treatment of the patient in a reasonable amount of time (1 week to 1 month is probably good), and that the patient much seek help elsewhere.
If the doctor has reason to fear for life or limb from actions the patient may undertake, the doctor is not required to expose herself to a combative patient. However, notification is still required.
The doctor is encouraged to terminate care of a patient they lack the requisite expertise to treat. Again, this would be documented.
At this time, in America, a doctor out of the office is not required to treat a stranger in extremis.
I think point No. 3 may be our answer:
If the doctor has reason to fear for life or limb from actions the patient may undertake, the doctor is not required to expose herself to a combative patient.
If you had been standing in the doctor’s office with an exposed heart, or a leaky stomach from a particularly nasty gash you may have some ground to stand on. As it was by your own admission, you just needed your blood pressure checked and to go wee wee in a cup. The doctor therfore had the right to refuse to treat a patient getting their BVD’s all in a twist over a damn HIPPA form.
Finally, let’s talk about trespassing. Now, I’m not a lawyer, but as I understand the law, you actually can be trespassing in a “public place” as you refer to it.
“…a private business can exclude anyone from their premises for infractions, real or imagined. In short it is a legal situation.”
Basically you were causing an unwelcome disruption at the doctor’s office and by refusing to cooperate with the police you were charged with trespassing.
A word of advice: Next time you feel like taking a stand for your rights, figure out what the hell you are talking about first. Then, you can get on YouTube and expose some real corruption. As it stands, the only thing you exposed this time was that you have no effing clue what you are talking about.
