QUIPS

HIPPA

21 July 18

HIPPA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) form:

Precious few of us actually read forms shoved in front of our face as we enter a hospital, or that are casually handed to us by our own physician.

Many are told:

“You don’t need to read it. Just sign it!”

Much of the “release” is directed at the “sharing” of your entire record (at the doctor’s discretion) with others involved in your treatment.

Understood!

What I find troubling is what I’ve found after reading some “HIPPA releases” in common usage.

Many contain language indicating that anything in any medical record of the person signing the release will be automatically released to law enforcement, as “part of an investigation.”

To me, that means any LEO can get my entire medical record merely by demanding it, and stating that it is sought as “part of an investigation.”

No search warrant, nor “probable cause” necessary.

No due process.

No guarantee with regard to where “confidential” information will end up, nor who will ultimately have access to it.

Most of us naively believe information regarding our medical care is privileged and private!

Oh, that it were true!

However, you can cross-out and initial the offending paragraph!

Even when you have already signed the form, offending “releases” can be revoked at any time!

Once again, “privacy,” in any form, is mostly myth!

Taking what steps we can to protect what little remains is, for most of us, a good idea!

“Privacy and accountability:

Politicians demand the former for themselves, and the latter from everyone else!”

David Brin

/John

Ready or Not!

19 July 18

“Security Story,” from a friend and student:

“We were visiting family in a ‘nice’ suburban area in New England on Monday.

With me was my eleven-month-old grandson (secured in car seat), and his father.

As we exited our car, we were greeted by a neighbor who was with her two-year-old boy and their small dog (on a short leash).

With no warning, I heard an undefined commotion behind me. I turned my head casually.

What I saw, to my surprise, was two full-size, adult pit bulls, unleashed, and racing toward me!

In the passage of less than two more seconds, the dogs roughly jumped over my grandson (still secured in his car seat), struck head-on and bowled-over the neighbor’s year-old-boy, knocking him to the pavement, and then jumped aggressively onto the small dog the neighbor had on a leash.

Here’s where my self-critique may perhaps be of help to other serious Operators:

1) The pit bulls were not impressed with my S&W 638 revolver, as it never came into play! It was resting within a leather pocket-holster inside a cargo-pocket that was snapped closed.

Speed of the attack rendered the little pistol irrelevant!

2) The pit bulls were similarly unimpressed with my two HKS speed-loaders, containing high-performance, HP ammunition, secured inside the same pocket!

Again, all irrelevant!

3) Likewise unimpressed and unresponsive were the dogs with the torrent of anger-filled commands and vulgar expletives that were screamed at them by all three adults present!

Neither dog paid any attention to us!

What I did do was draw my instantly-accessible Gerber Model 06 Folding Knife that was secured by clip along the seam of my right-side, front pocket.

Instead of taking the time to deploy the blade, I clenched the closed knife’s aluminum grip in my closed right fist, jumped onto the dogs, and used the steel pommel tip to strike both dogs in the head and nose, with as much physical force as I could muster.

That finally got their attention!

Both dogs squealed and backed off, shaking their heads back and forth.

The pit bulls’ owner suddenly showed-up, shouting apologies! She got control of her dogs and took them away.

Both boys suffered abrasions, but nothing serious.

The leashed “victim dog” was covered with saliva, but suffered no serious damage.

Police were summoned, and the pit bulls’ owner was charged.

I was humbled and disappointed with my inability to quickly access my carry-pistol!

I “go armed,” or so I thought, but I was obviously kidding myself!”

Comment:

This question comes up often in Classes!

“Just how much time do you think you’re going to have to act in any kind of productive way during your next “security emergency?

Will you be texted, Face-Timed, or “tweeted” in advance to be alert and prepared?”

Like my friend, above, many casually “go armed,” but without first critically looking at their concealment method, much less actually testing it!

It’s “come-as-you-are-war,” and you’re either ready, or you’re not. In the latter case, you’ll not likely get a second chance!

“Fate makes no appointments, nor does it wait on any man! You have to be alert and ready the instant it arrives.”

Anon

/John

“Filters?”

16 July 18

“Filters”

Most domestic school systems heavily “filter” email, not just children’s email, but everyone’s!

Subscribers with “.edu” or “k12″ somewhere in their email address frequently complain that DTI Quips are not getting through.

DTI Quips frequently contain words and topics that are likely to be “flagged” by such filters.

The result is that “offending” email does not go into a “spam file,” where it can be reviewed, and rejected at the pleasure of the recipient.

No, institutional “filters” assure that the recipient never even sees it, nor is he made aware it ever existed!

With institutions, such “filtering” is not voluntarily! Recipients are not given a choice, nor do they have any input with regard to what terms and subjects are “filtered out.”

With personal email addresses, recipients can voluntarily impose filtering. This represents a personal choice, and most providers make it available, to one degree or another.

However, with institutions (particularly educational), involuntarily, often secret, “filtering” of email messages, and other communication, has become routine.

It is involuntarily imposed by so-called “educators,” who comically claim to be “fighting for freedom!”

A reminder:

Just as our Constitution does not guarantee innocent people a fair trial, our First Amendment was not put in place in order to protect speech you love!

“Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy, because you have ‘nothing to hide’ is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech, because you have nothing to say.”

Snowden

/John

Free Press?

15 July 18

“Who succumbs to a compulsion to violate moral commandments is as much a prisoner as one who believes he is bound to obey them.”

Barnes

A Washington Post Article on the recent Oklahoma shooting, in which an sociopathic active-murderer was shot and killed by a legally armed citizen(s) before he could murder more innocent people:

This “story” is little more than a leftist (of course), political editorial, implicitly anti-gun and anti-legally-armed-citizen, beginning to end.

The authors “equate” a sociopathic, active murderer with two lawfully-armed citizens, heroes, who intervened (at great personal risk) in order to prevent additional murders. WP authors obviously believe that anyone who owns a gun, or (Heaven forbid!) carries one, is automatically a criminal!

The authors contemptuously dismiss accolades heaped upon these two courageous, lawfully-armed citizens, by local law enforcement and the general public.

The authors insist that these two lawfully-armed citizens should never have taken any action, because the scene was “confusing and unclear.” It makes me wonder how many “clear and non-confusing” gunfights these arrogant Marxists have ever seen!

Naturally, the authors denigrate the NRA (a requirement of the liberal media), casually dismissing the “good-guy-with-a-gun” argument, because of course, all who own guns are automatically bad people.

The authors make snide comments about all legally-armed citizens. Yet, they themselves lack the stature to so much as stand in the shadow of the two heroes they so piously besmirch.

Liberal “reporters” are utterly incapable of honesty, much less objectivity!

They hate genuine heroes, because a hero is something they can never be!

These haters of guns and gun-owners would rather see innocent people murdered than have to report that
active murderers have been thwarted by legally-armed citizen/heroes.

They want guns for themselves, but keep their guns a “secret.” Simultaneously, they publically, hypocritically, and oh so pseudo-sanctimoniously, decry guns in the hands of the rest of us.

Such is the current soulless amorality of the Left.

“Unless you have a free press, there is no need to buy newspapers, and there is no need to watch the news, because there is no need to listen to lies!”

Mehmet Murat ildan

Unfortunately, we don’t!

/John

The “No” box!

14 July 18

Follow-up on my last Quip:

I suggested declining to answer questions about gun-ownership, political leanings, etc, when they come up in
discussions on personal health matters with your doctor.

Many Doctors who are DTI students, responded:

“Medicare now requires the question about gun-ownership be asked. When it is not asked, reimbursement to the doctor is jeopardized. Answers go on a form, and forms are submitted.

The form has only two boxes, ‘Yes,’ and ‘No.’

When you answer anything other than ‘No,’ the doctor will check the ‘Yes’ box. So, when you decline to answer, no matter how politely, the ‘Yes’ box gets a check-mark in it!

Imagine, for example, that you are in Nazi Germany in 1936, and your doctor asks (as he is required to do),

‘Do you have Jewish relatives?’

When you answer, “That’s irrelevant and none of your business,” the doctor checks the ‘Yes’ box, and you suddenly have an unanticipated train-ride in your immediate future!”

With the foregoing in mind, here are some suggested responses, all far briefer than the one I advised:

1) “Not for discussion here, Doctor.”

2) “Doctor, unless you can explain what that has to do with my medical diagnosis and treatment, let’s not waste
our time discussing it.”

3) “No” (without further comment)

I like to maintain personal honesty, but I have to admit option 3 is probably best. Your best interests are served when the doctor immediately puts a check-mark in the “No” box!

Our System does not reward truthfulness and honesty. Out System rewards, indeed requires, lying.

Non-responsive answers will be translated as “Yes,” as noted above.

In addition, your refusal to answer straightforwardly will be noted, and likely interpreted further as a sign of incipient mental unsoundness.

Remember the way Stalin declared even the slightest political opposition to be prima-facie evidence of “insanity?” This malignant ideology is always just under the surface!

HRC, during her recent presidential campaign, said essentially the same thing!

The apple never falls far from the tree!

/John

“Experts?”

13 July 18

Medical Gun Experts?

The leftist AMA puts political pressure on doctor/members to discourage patients from being gun-owners.

Doctors are instructed to ask patients if they own guns, and then advise them to get rid of all of them!

Many doctors, particularly my students, ignore this sleazy, leftist, political propaganda, but many others adhere to it, even asking patients to fill-out forms where they are asked if they own guns.

My advice:

Most doctors and other health-care professionals are not academically qualified to provide anyone with advice on guns safety! A medical degree does not automatically make one an “expert” on any subject you care to mention!

When my doctor advises me to quit smoking, he at least speaks with authority. He certainly knows more than I do about this subject. It doesn’t mean he can’t be wrong, but I should still listen to him, because he knows what he is talking about.

With subjects outside of medicine and health, he may be no more qualified to render advice than I am.

In fact, he may be a good deal less qualified!

I realize the AMA, of which some doctors are members, is a leftist organization. They hate guns. They love government-controlled health care. They love government control in general!

They promulgate many non-medical, leftist political opinions.

I really have no interest in their opinion on any political issue, so long as I don’t have to listen to them!

But, we all need to remember this:

Any and all conversations you have with your doctor are not “protected.” Contents of any conversation you have with your doctor can be penetrated by our criminal-justice system. That is, your doctor can be legally compelled to reveal the contents of any conversation you had with him, on any subject, in any forum, and at any time.

In order to help you, of course, your doctor often has to ask personal questions of a medical nature that are relevant to your health, and your own best interests are probably served by answering these questions.

Understood!

But, when your doctor asks you whom you voted for in the last election, or about the church you attend, or how many guns you own, or other irrelevant questions about your personal, political, or religious beliefs, I for one, become very ill at ease!

I respond with something like this:

“Doctor, with all due respect, your non-medical questions are making me very uncomfortable.

I will therefore decline to answer all irrelevant questions about my personal life, politics, religion, guns I may or may not own, etc.

All that is, frankly, none of your business.”

I’m not sure I know how to make it any more polite than that!

Guns you may own, like places you travel, people you know, your political opinions, etc, are not subjects you should discuss casually, nor with people you don’t know well, nor particularly with people who don’t need to know.

We’re living in a dangerous time. You must protect yourself from all kinds of threats.

Sometimes, information itself can become a threat!

“To do evil, a human being must first believe that what he’s doing is good, or else that it’s a well-considered act in conformity with natural law. Fortunately, it is in the nature of the human being to seek ‘justification’ for his actions.

Macbeth’s self-justifications were feeble, and his conscience devoured him. Yes, even Iago was a little lamb too. The imagination and the spiritual strength of Shakespeare’s evil-doers stopped at a dozen corpses.
Because they had no ideology.

Ideology, that is what gives evil-doing its long-sought justification and gives the evil-doer necessary steadfastness and determination. This is the ‘social theory’ which helps to make his acts seem good instead of bad in his own and others’ eyes, so that he won’t hear reproaches and curses, but will receive praise and honors.

Thanks to ideology, the Twentieth Century was fated to experience evil-doing on a scale calculated in the murder of millions!

This cannot be denied, nor passed-over, nor suppressed.

How, then, do we dare insist that evil-doers do not exist?

Who was it that destroyed these millions?

Without evil-doers, there would have been no Archipelago.”

From “The Gulag Archipelago,” by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

/John

SCOTUS

12 July 18

My comment on SCOTUS:

SCOTUS justices are supposed to have, and exercise, an ability to “put aside” personal, political views, and rule rightly based on our Constitution.

For one, I don’t like to talk about “gay rights,” nor “black rights,” nor “Hispanic rights,” ad nauseam

I just like to talk about “rights” of individual Americans!

Jews are “over-represented” in law schools, and medical schools.

Asians are “over-represented” in police departments.

Blacks are “over-represented” on professional basketball and football teams

Homosexuals are “over-represented” in the arts and media

Catholics are “over-represented” at Catholic universities.

So what?

I love “equal opportunity,” and then standing back and letting chips fall where they may,

“Natural Selection,” if you will.

Some will find success. Some won’t. Some will live long. Some will die early. Some will contribute greatly to the advancement of our civilization. Some will contribute nothing.

But, liberals are obsessed, not with equal rights, but with “equality of outcomes,” the socialist “utopia.”

When Americans of Asian decent are “over-represented” at Harvard University, for example, “special privileges” must be extended to other racial groups, in order to “make everything equal.”

Asians are harmed in the process, through no fault of their own, but such real and unjust harm is piously ignored by liberal administrators who justify their crimes with self-righteous platitudes laced with “… for the greater good,” ad nauseam.

Yet, artificially interfering with free choice in an effort to make figures and “ratios” come out according to some pre-contrived “standard,” only harms the innocent, as we see.

When SCOTUS rules against such contemptible crimes, they’ll enjoy my support!

Free citizens must have “the freedom to fail”

It is the most important freedom we have!

Any law that heaps special privileges upon any minority, penalizes and harms all who are not members of that group.

Thus, any law that singles-out any minority for special privileges is just as bad as if it had singled them out for special harm!

I trust any righteous SCOTUS justice will hate such laws!

I’m a promoter of equal opportunity, not “special opportunity!”

It’s not “utopia,” but it is as close as we’re going to get!

“Expectations are like fine pottery. The harder you hold them, the more likely they are to crack.”

Brandon Sanderson

/John

SCOTUS

11 July 18

“‘Civil War’ happens when the victimized are armed.

‘Genocide’ happens when they are not!”

AE Samaan

Second-Amendment issues are being stridently argued now, in the wake of DJT’s announcement of his latest nominee for our nation’s Supreme Court.

The nominee’s qualifications are, of course, superlative, but leftists only care about his political leanings.

Non-leftists are “automatically unfit,” in their view.

Yet, during the confirmation process, “political leanings” should be irrelevant!

The job of our Supreme Court is to fearlessly interpret, protect, and defend our Constitution.

It is not to promote a particular political party, nor legislate, nor “invent” extra-Constitutional dogma.

To their credit, our courageous Founders refused to compromise individual liberty, and fought our Revolutionary
War as a result. They defined and defended our rights as free citizens and did their level best to insure that individual liberties were not subsequently infringed, nor regulated out of existence.

Yet, past Supreme Courts have cowardly looked the other way as our Second Amendment rights as Americans have been contemptuously infringed, essentially abolished in some states and cities.

To be fair, SCOTUS has at times audaciously stood-up for our rights, but not very often!

Who naively expect government to provide them with everything they need, should not be astonished when government first “defines,” then dictates, “needs.”

When government tells you that you don’t “need” a gun, then don’t be astonished when they subsequently tell you that you don’t “need” a particular medical treatment, nor a boat, nor a house with a view!

The foregoing is why our Constitutional individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms is so critically important to the continued existence of this civilization, and thus must be defended by SCOTUS against relentless attack by sleazy leftist politicians who believe all individual rights are “relative,” and that powers of government (when they’re in charge) are, and should be (and will be), unlimited.

“Few tyrants argue for ‘slavery of the masses.’

Instead, they argue for the power to ‘protect people from themselves.’”

AE Samaan, again

/John

Beef?

6 July 18

“Where’s the Beef?”

For one, I have scant tolerance for meaningless phrases and terms, spewing endlessly from the mouths of shallow, self-centered media talking-heads!

Recently, we’ve seen and heard yet another typically glib headline, in the wake of high-profile, violent incidents:

“Security to be ‘beefed-up’ at _________”

“Beefed-up?”

What does that mean?

We’re supposed to naively believe that real, substantive physical security enhancements have been made in this institution or that, in an effort to protect the disarmed from VCAs, who are armed.

Yet, in most cases, “beefed-up-security” loosely translates to:

(1) Additional overtime hours for unarmed security

(2) More cameras (that no one watches)

(3) More “gun-free-zone” signs (that are universally ignored, particularly by VCAs)

And that’s about it!

The term, “beefing-up security” has been added to the trendy lexicon of meaningless, non-descriptive supererogatory verbiage, like “holistic approach,” “going forward,” “at the end of the day,” “reach out,” ad nauseam.

It’s a shallow, phoney “filler-phrase”, a “feel-good expression” devoid of any substantive meaning, designed for blind consumption by the naive and self-indulgent.

What is remarkable, and simultaneously tragic, is that nationwide “beefing-up security” initiatives never include allowing innocent citizens, who are the ones most threatened by armed VCAs, the right do defend themselves in any way that has at least some chance of success.

American citizens, facing a real threat of sudden, lethal attack where they work, at public gatherings, in their homes, as they travel, are routinely precluded from assuming any responsibility for their own self defense.

Instead, they are “assured” that “security” as been “beefed-up.”

This represents an amoral lie and an outrage of immense proportions!

Once again, the only way that the word “security” will ever have any real meaning is when it is personal!

“All utopias are dystopias. The term ‘dystopia’ was coined by fools who believed a ‘utopia’ can be functional.”

AE Samaan

/John

Other People’ Business!

5 July 18

Getting involved in other peoples’ business!

Last Friday, officers with the Portland (OR) State University Police confronted a man on campus, who had a gun in his hand. The man appeared to represent a threat.

Officers shot the suspect.

Suspect was DRT.

No other injuries.

Details such as numbers of shot fired, distance, verbal challenges by police, etc have not been reported.

Suspect apparently had a valid state-issued CCW permit. Witnesses say he was in the process of trying to “break-up a fight,” in which he was not otherwise involved.

Witnesses also say the suspect’s holstered pistol (apparently legally carried) somehow fell out of its belt-holster (assuming it was actually carried in a holster) as he tried to pull one combatant off of another.

When the suspect attempted to retrieve his pistol, officers arrived and saw a gun in his hand.

Of course, arriving officer knew few details, aside from the fact that they were confronting a man with a gun in his hand!

The suspect/decedent turned out to be a postal worker with no criminal record. It is likely that he had no criminal intent at the time and place in question, but of course, we’ll never know!

Predictably, many on campus have since called for the campus PD to be disarmed. The controversy, and the investigation, are ongoing.

Predictably, critics of the police are censuring their actions, citing facts and circumstances not known to police at the scene.

Among the ignorant, this is typical!

Sometimes, armed police officers have no choice but to employ deadly force, making their decision in dangerous, chaotic, and rapidly-evolving circumstances.

They are armed for a reason!

They do the best they can, but, they don’t have x-ray vision, nor are they able to read minds!

With the foregoing in mind, here are important lessons for the rest of us, particularly those of us who have valid CCW permits, and routinely go armed:

(1) First and foremost, do your best to avoid places and times where the foregoing is even a probability!

(2) Be extremely disinclined to precipitously insert yourself into any potentially violent circumstance, in which you were not otherwise involved!

In these cases, the best strategy is usually represented by withdrawing a safe distance away, and then calling the police.

That’s why we pay a police department!

Unlike you, they are equipped, trained, and organized to effectively deal with these kinds of things.

The foregoing advice also applies even to ununiformed and off-duty LEOs. You usually don’t know enough to go blundering in there by yourself!

You carry that pistol so you have an effective means immediately at hand to protect your life from precipitous, deadly, and otherwise-unavoidable threats! Don’t be anxious to manufacture a situation where you have to use it!

Stepping forward on your own initiative in an effort to “break-up fights,” or “settle arguments” is very unlikely to bring forth a “happy ending,” in any event, and once your gun is exposed and involved, nothing “good” is going to happen!

(2) Who have “good intent” or “evil intent” don’t normally wear labels identifying them as such!

Arriving police can’t look at you and instantly tell that you’re a “good guy.”

When you have a gun in your hand (no matter in what direction it’s pointed), you’re just “… a man with a gun!”

Under cross-examination, I was once asked if a particular person “looks like a ‘bad guy’” I replied, “I’m not all sure I know what ‘bad guys’ look like, Counselor. Do you?”

(3) When instructing on these matters, we cannot specifically address every conceivable situation in which you might every find yourself. The best we can do is provide you with sound “guidance”

My purpose is not to tell you what to do. It’s to make sure you know and understand what is probably going to happen when you do!

(4) I believe it takes an evil person to do an evil thing. I don’t think good people do evil things, but sometimes good people do stupid things, and consequences can be just as bad!

Who go armed need to be genuinely good people, but smart as well!

/John

See the FSM4 Gen II in action:

Go to http://m4precision.com to get more details on the second generation of Farnam’s Signature M4 Rifle.

 

QUIPS ARCHIVES