Unbias News on The Daily

Required RFID implanted chip

Sec. 2521, Pg. 1000 – The government will establish a National Medical Device Registry. What does a National Medical Device Registry mean?



National Medical Device Registry from H.R. 3200 [Healthcare Bill], pages 1001-1008:

(g)(1) The Secretary shall establish a national medical device registry (in this subsection referred to as the ‘registry’) to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and outcomes data on each device that— ‘‘(A) is or has been used in or on a patient; ‘‘(B)and is— ‘‘(i) a class III device; or ‘‘(ii) a class II device that is implantable, life-supporting, or life-sustaining.”

Then on page 1004 it describes what the term “data” means in paragraph 1,



section B:

‘‘(B) In this paragraph, the term ‘data’ refers to information respecting a device described in paragraph (1), including claims data, patient survey data, standardized analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of data from disparate data environments, electronic health records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the Secretary”

What exactly is a class II device that is implantable?

Approved by the FDA, a class II implantable device is an “implantable radio frequency transponder system for patient identification and health information.” The purpose of a class II device is to collect data in medical patients such as “claims data, patient survey data, standardized analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of data from disparate data environments, electronic health records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the Secretary.”



See: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm072191.pdf



This new law – when fully implemented – provides the framework for making the United States the first nation in the world to require each and every one of its citizens to have implanted in them a radio-frequency identification (RFID) microchip for the purpose of controlling who is, or isn’t, allowed medical care in their country.



See Healthcare Bill H.R. 3200:http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/AAHCA09001xml.pdf



Pages 1001-1008 “National Medical Device Registry” section.
Page 1006 “to be enacted within 36 months upon passage”
Page 503 “… medical device surveillance”



Why would the government use the word “surveillance” when referring to citizens? The definition of “surveillance” is the monitoring of the behavior, activities, or other changing information, usually of people and often in a secret manner. The root of the word [French] means to “watch over.”



In theory, the intent to streamline healthcare and to eliminate fraud via “health chips” seems right. But, to have the world’s lone superpower (America, for now) mandate (page 1006) a device to be IMPLANTED is scary!



Microchiping included in Healthcare Bill?
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/105079



Coverage under Obamacare will require an implantable microchip?
http://current.com/items/90842279_coverage-under-obamacare-will-require-an-implantable-microchip.htm

By KATY STEINMETZ / WASHINGTON Katy Steinmetz / Washington – Tue Mar 30, 10:25 am ET

Could a national identity card help resolve the heated immigration-reform divide?

Two Senators, New York Democrat Chuck Schumer and South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham, certainly seem to think so. They recently presented an immigration-bill blueprint to President Barack Obama that includes a proposal to issue a biometric ID card - one that would contain physical data such as fingerprints or retinal scans - to all working Americans. The "enhanced Social Security card" is being touted as a way to curb illegal immigration by giving employers the power to quickly and accurately determine who is eligible to work. "If you say [illegal immigrants] can't get a job when they come here, you'll stop it," Schumer told the Wall Street Journal. Proponents also hope legal hiring will be easier for employers if there's a single go-to document instead of the 26 that new employees can currently use to show they're authorized to work.

But with a congressional skirmish over comprehensive immigration reform on the horizon, skeptics from the left and the right have raised numerous concerns about the biometric ID - some of which pop up every time a form of national identification is proposed, and some that hinge on the shape this plan ultimately takes. (See 25 gotta-have travel gadgets.)

The sheer scale of the project is a potential problem, in terms of time, money and technology. The premise of using a biometric employment card (which would most likely contain fingerprint data) to stop illegal immigrants from working requires that all 150 million–plus American workers, not just immigrants, have one. Michael Cherry, president of identification-technology company Cherry Biometrics, says the accuracy of such large-scale biometric measuring hasn't been proved. "What study have we done?" he says. "We just have a few assumptions."

Schumer estimates that employers would have to pay up to $800 for card-reading machines, and many point out that compliance could prove burdensome for many small-to-medium-size businesses. In a similar program run by the Department of Homeland Security, in which 1.4 million transportation workers have been issued biometric credentials, applicants each pay $132.50 to help cover the costs of the initiative, which so far run in the hundreds of millions. "This is sort of like the worst combination of the DMV and the TSA," says Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the ACLU, an organization that has traditionally opposed all forms of national ID. "It's going to be enormously costly no matter what." (See photos of the High Seas Border Patrol in action.)

Lynden Melmed, former chief counsel for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, says the pace of expanding the program is crucial. He believes that issuing the cards on a rolling basis and viewing them as "the next version of the driver's license" makes the idea of a nationally issued biometric ID seem much less daunting. "I think that there is a risk in overreaching too quickly," he says.

Another potential issue is whether the card will result in people being wrongfully denied work. The average person isn't equipped to determine whether two fingerprints are a match - even FBI fingerprint experts have their off days, as when they incorrectly implicated a Portland, Ore., attorney in the 2004 bombings in Madrid - which means employers would be relying on an automated system. And that, as well as the fingerprinting process itself, invariably leads to some small number of mistakes. (See how border-patrol officials are securing the perimeter.)

In testimony given at a Senate immigration hearing in July 2009, Illinois Representative Luis V. Gutierrez, who has led the drive for immigration reform in the House, pointed out that an error rate of just 1% would mean that more than 1.5 million people - roughly the population of Philadelphia - would be wrongly deemed ineligible for work. "This is no small number," he said, "especially in this economy, where so many workers already face extraordinary obstacles to finding a job." Dean Pradeep Khosla, founding director of Carnegie Mellon's cybersecurity lab, estimates that the error rates of computerized systems would likely be less than 2% (and could be less than 1%) but says they can never be zero. Civil-liberties advocates, citing the secret post-9/11 no-fly lists that innocents couldn't get their names removed from, worry about whether those mistakenly put on the no-job list will ever be given the chance to correct the information.

Many skeptics also worry about false positives that come not from the computer but from counterfeits or employers looking to bypass the system. "It's naive to think that this document won't be faked," Calabrese says. "Folks are already paying $10,000 to sneak into the country. What's a couple thousand more?" In a recent Washington Post op-ed, Schumer and Graham said the card would be "fraud-proof" and that employers would face "stiff fines" and possibly imprisonment if they tried to get around using it. But Cherry half-jokes that someone could falsify such an ID in 15 minutes, and Khosla says that while current technology makes fingerprints the most feasible biometric marker to use, they're also one of the easiest to steal.

Lillie Coney, associate director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, believes that keeping biometric information out of a centralized database is "the biggest challenge." Otherwise, she says, the prospect of having millions of fingerprints on hand would be too tempting for the government not to abuse. In their op-ed, the Senators said the information would be stored only on the card.

Although the card is being presented as existing solely for determining employment eligibility, "it will be almost impossible to say that this wealth of information is there, but you can only use it for this purpose," Coney says. "Privacy is pretty much hinged on the notion that if you collect data for one purpose, you can't use it for another." Calabrese expresses worries that this ID will become a "central identity document" that one will need in order to travel, vote or perhaps own a gun, which Melmed calls "mission creep."

Some dismiss privacy concerns as reflections of general government mistrust rather than legitimate technology issues. But Melmed believes that the practical issues will have to be addressed before the "social-acceptance debate" over biometric cards can even begin, and both rely on many details that the Senators have yet to present. "People are waiting to see something in writing," Calabrese says. "But the idea doesn't fill people with a warm, fuzzy feeling."

Link to article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100330/us_time/08599197492700

Conventional wisdom says you need to save $1 million for retirement.

That target may be easy to remember, but it falls short of the true cost of what's required for post-career comfort. Longer life spans, the threat of inflation and the uncertain future of Social Security benefits make this long-touted savings advice inadequate for most, advisers say.

Scottrade recently polled 226 registered investment advisers on the topic and found that 71% don't believe $1 million is enough for the average American family. Most said families need to save double, or more than triple, the amount.

"Younger generations, especially, need to set their retirement goals higher than other generations and start saving as early as possible," says Craig Hogan, Scottrade's director of customer-relationship management and reporting.

The survey solicited opinions about the current investment habits of Americans. Questions were broken down by generations to determine advisers' opinions on average investment goals in today's dollars for various groups.

Generation Y (ages 18 to 26) needs to save at least $2 million, according to 77% of advisers. Forty percent put the figure at $3 million.

Nearly half of advisers (46%) said Generation X (ages 27 to 42) should at least double the $1 million goal. Twenty-two percent suggested more than $3 million.

For Boomers (ages 43 to 64), 35% recommended $2 million to $3 million. Thirty percent suggested $1.5 million to $2 million.

According to Scottrade's analysis, seniors are the only generation that may come close to needing only $1 million. Forty-four percent of advisers said $500,000 to $1.5 million is sufficient for average families in that age bracket.

Bill Smith, president of Ohio-based Great Lakes Retirement Group, is among the advisers who took part in the survey. As he sees it, too many people rely on online retirement calculators. Much of that guidance uses a target based on making do with 70% to 80% of pre-retirement income.

"I've never been a big fan of planning to earn less in retirement than you are making now," he says. "I'd like to see an individual continue making the same amount of retirement as when he was working. Who wants to set themselves up in retirement to make less?"

While most people will spend less when they retire, inflation or the onset of a long-term illness could wipe out savings without proper protection or planning.

That said, there's no secret to meeting a retirement goal: maximize your contribution rate, have a greater tolerance for risk when you're younger and downshift to bonds as you grow older. Successful preparation, however, begins with setting a realistic goal and understanding your true financial picture.

Debt needs to be carefully considered as well as leaving money for the kids.

"There are two extremes," Smith says. "There are individuals who say, 'We don't care if we have anything left the day we die -- we are OK with that last check bouncing when we are gone.' Then there are the individuals who don't do anything in retirement because all of their decisions are made around, 'I've got to leave it for the kids.' "

-- Reported by Joe Mont in Boston.
Copyrighted, TheStreet.Com. All rights reserved.


Article Link:
http://finance.yahoo.com/focus-retirement/article/109077/1-million-doesnt-cut-it-for-retirement?mod=fidelity-buildingwealth

By Haaretz Service

U.S. President Barack Obama is targeted because of standing up to the Jews who control American politics as well as its economy, the Chicago Sun Times quoted the leader of Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan as saying on Monday.

Farrakhan, speaking to a crowd of 20,000 followers at Chicago's United Center on Sunday, said that Obama's political problems began when he, according to the Chicago Sun Times report, stood up to the Jewish lobby during a White House meeting.

When they left the White House, his problems began," Farrakhan said, adding that "the Zionists are in control of the Congress."

Minister Farrakhan also referred to the U.S. president's chief economical advisors, Timothy Geithner, Henry Paulson and Larry Summers, asking "Who does he have around him? The people from Goldman Sachs."

The leader of the Nation of Islam added that "bloodsuckers of the poor" were rewarded with a bailout.

Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, said in response to Farrakhan's speech that "anybody who thought the old Farrakhan was gone: He never was."

"It's the same Farrakhan: ugly and anti-Semitic. With age, he doesn't get milder, he gets uglier."

Further on in his address, Farrakhan also reiterated his claims that the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 was "an inside thing."

Last year, the Anti-Defamation League lashed out at Farrakhan for remarks he made in which he accused "the Israeli lobby" of controlling the government.

"When the people of Gaza were being slaughtered, the pro-Israeli lobby sent messages to the House and the Senate of words that they wanted them to use, gave them the language, and now you have bipartisan support," Farrakhan told supporters in Rosemont, Illinois in a speech.

"You cannot deny the pro-Israeli lobby and get re-elected," Farrakhan said. "Ask Cynthia McKinney. Ask David Hilliard. Ask our mayor in Oakland, California. Ask [former Illinois Senator Charles] Percy. Ask Jimmy Carter. You can't criticize, you can't say nothing because if you do, you're branded as an anti-Semite."

"Why, U.S. Congress, will you not speak? It is because you fear a lobby that has money and influence that will turn you out of your seat? So you're terrorized. That's why you don't act for the American people that sent you to Congress. You are not their representative. You are the representative of the money and interests that have bought your soul."

At one point during his address, Farrakhan implied that the validity of Holocaust records should be open to debate.

"[You] can't even engage in constructive argument over the veracity of the figures of the Holocaust. We know something happened, sure, but you can't talk about [it]. In certain cities in Europe they arrest you and put you in prison for denying such."

"There's not a vote that the pro-Israeli lobby wants that doesn't get bipartisan support," Farrakhan said. "Why? Because the Israeli lobby controls the government of the United States of America."

The remarks were again met with strong condemnation by Abe Foxman.

"Louis Farrakhan is at it again," said Foxman. "After his near-silence on Jews over the last several years, we thought Minister Farrakhan had put his long history of anti-Semitism and racism behind him, or at least had held his views in check. Apparently, that was wishful thinking. Once again he is clearly comfortable with putting his bigotry on display, unfettered and unhidden for his supporters and the world to see."

source