Page 2 of 2
Re: Gun control by executive order.
Posted: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 16:56:07
by mamabearCali
dorminWS wrote:I just refuse to answer those "fishing expedition" questions. Last time I did that, the P.A. told me she had to complete the form before she could "initiate treatment". Part of the new electronic medical records scheme, she said. I had cut my finger and needed a stitch. I asked her:
"Are you withholding medical care to force me to answer questions unrelated to the condition? THINK VERY CAREFULLY BEFORE YOU ANSWER THAT."
She beat a hasty retreat and came back with the ER doc, who tucked a stitch in my finger with a big smirk on his face. (this doc is my buddy and hates all that BS anyway). Of course, I'm on the board of that hospital, so maybe that's why I got away with it. The administrator told me "shame on you, you naughty boy" next time I saw him. But generally speaking, they get much more reasonable if they think you might accuse them of that.
Looks like I might need to go get a stitch right now. I was making a box to ship that park tank in, the knife slipped and I ruined a new shirt and sliced about a 2" gash in the hide on my belly. My hide will grow back, but SWMBO's gonna raise all manner of hell about that new shirt.
So how do us poor plebes without connections get away with telling them to pound sand.
Re: Gun control by executive order.
Posted: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 17:19:02
by MarcSpaz
5th amendment. You don't have to tell anyone anything. When they ask those questions they are interviewing you as a representative of the government and you don't have to answer. If they refuse treatment because of it, they are breaking the law and their oath. The new laws may say they have to ask, but the Constitution says you don't have to answer.
Re: Gun control by executive order.
Posted: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 17:29:20
by dorminWS
Like I said before, they get really worried if they think you will accuse them if refusing treatment in an emergency room. Don't know that I'd bet the farm on that 5th amendment/government agent theory, because they are just trying to comply with regulations and I don't think that makes them agents of the government. But if you give them a medical history sufficient to treat you and can pay for the services, I don't think they can or would refuse to treat because you didn't answer non-medical questions. But you might have to call their bluff.
Re: Gun control by executive order.
Posted: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 17:37:41
by MarcSpaz
dorminWS wrote:...Don't know that I'd bet the farm on that 5th amendment/government agent theory, because they are just trying to comply with regulations and I don't think that makes them agents of the government....
I don't know about federal law with regard to that. I need to research it, which I'll do after posting this. I am basing it off of an opinion based on VA State law.
If I witness a felony and detain the perpetrator and place them under citizens arrest, I am fully cloaked by the law as an agent of the government/law enforcement. It would stand to reason that if the law makes them collect information that is not relevant to your care, which is then to be entered into a database of which that database and the information in it will be solely used by the government/law enforcement to control the people, then I think a VERY strong argument can be made that when those questions are asked... the person asking is indeed an agent of the government.
Re: Gun control by executive order.
Posted: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 18:30:55
by Viper21
mamabearCali wrote:
So how do us poor plebes without connections get away with telling them to pound sand.
Just refuse to answer irrelevant questions. In my scenario last year, they got irritated but, it didn't stop treatment or anything.
Im kind of an A-hole though
I rarely tell cashiers what my zip code is, & everytime a cashier says, Can I have your phone number..? I always respond with, "Im married"
It's usually pretty funny.
Re: Gun control by executive order.
Posted: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 19:20:58
by MarcSpaz
Okay... based on some things I read in the the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Student Handbook (used to train federal LEO's) under federal law, a state or federal law enforcement agent can ask a civilian to make arrest, interview suspects and act on behalf of the agent or agency.
If the civilian accepts, then they are fully cloaked in the law as if they are law enforcement. Along with having to abide by the same laws the LEO's have and receive the same protections LEO's have, anything you say to that civilian "can be used against you."
What I cannot find is if the civilian is compelled by law or Executive Order to do so, if they are considered and agent of the law.
Honestly, I am not saying anything not related to my immediate healthcare needs regardless. It's none of their business. If that impacts my care... I have lawyers on standby and I know how to use them. LOL
Re: Gun control by executive order.
Posted: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 19:51:54
by 0ne5hot
WRW wrote:@ OneShot: Are you saying that EMS will deny service if a SS# is not given?
[ Post made via Mobile Device ] 
Nope, we just haft to wait till the hospital gets it from you....then we get can get your info...but if you dont have anSS# the callsheet is never finished and is flagged in the database
Re: Gun control by executive order.
Posted: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 19:58:41
by 0ne5hot
MarcSpaz wrote:Okay... based on some things I read in the the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Student Handbook (used to train federal LEO's) under federal law, a state or federal law enforcement agent can ask a civilian to make arrest, interview suspects and act on behalf of the agent or agency.
If the civilian accepts, then they are fully cloaked in the law as if they are law enforcement. Along with having to abide by the same laws the LEO's have and receive the same protections LEO's have, anything you say to that civilian "can be used against you."
What I cannot find is if the civilian is compelled by law or Executive Order to do so, if they are considered and agent of the law.
Honestly, I am not saying anything not related to my immediate healthcare needs regardless. It's none of their business. If that impacts my care... I have lawyers on standby and I know how to use them. LOL
I think that mostly applies to mental health/medical personel delivering treatment in a non-custody situation.