Covid vs HIPAA

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: MykeNukem

Oh, sure you can provide the information to an employer, but your doctor absolutely cannot confirm nor deny any of the information you provide to your employer.

Which begs the question...

Who would provide the information contained in these jab passports?

If the information is provided by your Doctor or whatever health provider gave he jabs, then wouldn't the jab passport itself be a HIPAA violation?

Ask NYC.

They are currently requiring it just to enter certain businesses.

Maybe someone will prevail with a lawsuit. Until then, they're doing it.

originally posted by: panoz77
Now your just trying to make excuses. The vast majority of Ohio outside of 3 major cities (Cleveland, Columbus and Cinci) is WELL below $40,000 median income.

It's $56K, not $40K.*

The ultra low end for unemployment in Ohio is $200 a week + $300 Federal and the high end is a little over $600 a week + $300 Federal.

And to get the high end you need to have had an income that qualifies to receive the maximum. Making $18K a year, like in Warren, Ohio, which you cited, doesn't get you the maximum.



*joint

originally posted by: MykeNukem
Ask NYC.

Couldn't care less about NYC.

But thanks for not answering my very pointed and direct question.

If your employer asks if you have been vaccinated, you can tell them.

If your employer ask for a vaccination card or other proof of vaccination that you do not have to produce,
that comes under HIPPA.
As that is part of your medical records.

If you have already had Covid, i would tell them you have been vaccinated as having had Covid is better protection than the vaccine.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: MykeNukem
Ask NYC.

Couldn't care less about NYC.

But thanks for not answering my very pointed and direct question.

Ok.

I already covered it, but I'll try again.

You are provided the VaxPort, you then provide that voluntarily as a condition of employment to your employer.

Your doctor or health care provider doesn't give your employer ANY information.

Again, I don't agree with it, and I'm not defending it, just giving the facts.

If your employer tried to contact your doctor or healthcare provider to retrieve information you haven't authorized and/or that is protected (privacy or discrimination related), that would be a HIPAA violation.

This is one area I concur with “don’t ask- don’t tell “

originally posted by: MykeNukem
I already covered it, but I'll try again.

OK.

You are provided the VaxPort, you then provide that voluntarily as a condition of employment to your employer.

a) The healthcare provider provided me the VaxPort. This by definition is privileged information protected under HIPAA.

b) I would never voluntarily provide any private health information to my employer, and they are forbidden from demanding such as condition for employment.

Your doctor or health care provider doesn't give your employer ANY information.

Yeah... right. You probably also believe that when the government demands that so-called private companies censor information, and said so-called private companies do so, that is not in effect the government mandating censorship.

Again, I don't agree with it, and I'm not defending it, just giving the facts.

Your perception of the facts is wrong. The information contained on the VaxPort is provided by your healthcare provider. No employer can demand that you give it to them, any more than they can demand the healthcare provider give it directly to them.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: MykeNukem
I already covered it, but I'll try again.

OK.

You are provided the VaxPort, you then provide that voluntarily as a condition of employment to your employer.

a) The healthcare provider provided me the VaxPort. This by definition is privileged information protected under HIPAA.

b) I would never voluntarily provide any private health information to my employer, and they are forbidden from demanding such as condition for employment.

Your doctor or health care provider doesn't give your employer ANY information.

Yeah... right. You probably also believe that when the government demands that so-called private companies censor information, and said so-called private companies do so, that is not in effect the government mandating censorship.

Again, I don't agree with it, and I'm not defending it, just giving the facts.

Your perception of the facts is wrong. The information contained on the VaxPort is provided by your healthcare provider. No employer can demand that you give it to them, any more than they can demand the healthcare provider give it directly to them.

I never said they could demand it. They can request it. You can choose to comply, or lose your job.

Same thing as a pre-employment or post employment drug test (which will be provided by a doctor or similar, which is the SAME thing ie; Positive/Negative test information.

Also for the same reason, which is the health and safety of employees.

All I'm doing is telling you how they will justify it, I'm not saying it's right. Maybe there will be a new court case, but like I've been saying since this whole thing started, mandatory vaccination is coming.

Anyway, I've already provided links proving what I say is true (which no one who is arguing with me has read apparently), I'm done tenderizing this horse flesh. Prove me wrong with data, this isn't the Mud Pit.

originally posted by: MykeNukem
I never said they could demand it. They can request it. You can choose to comply, or lose your job.

You have a peculiar definition of demand. In my book, a request, backed by the threat of the loss of your livelihood - is, in fact, a demand.

An unlawful one at that.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: MykeNukem
I never said they could demand it. They can request it. You can choose to comply, or lose your job.

You have a peculiar definition of demand. In my book, a request, backed by the threat of the loss of your livelihood - is, in fact, a demand.

An unlawful one at that.

That's just it. It isn't my definition. I'm just saying the way it is interpreted.

I agree it should be unlawful.

You can read what I think of it on this post.

I certainly am going to do all I can to fight it.

originally posted by: MykeNukem
That's just it. It isn't my definition. I'm just saying the way it is interpreted.

I agree it should be unlawful.

You can read what I think of it on this post.

I certainly am going to do all I can to fight it.

Ok, got it, I guess I misread your intent...

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: MykeNukem
That's just it. It isn't my definition. I'm just saying the way it is interpreted.

I agree it should be unlawful.

You can read what I think of it on this post.

I certainly am going to do all I can to fight it.

Ok, got it, I guess I misread your intent...

All good.

That's how I learned they were going to use the law this way, by questioning it.