DwayneEMTP

Herbie, I didn't delete the post because I felt it was patently evil, but because, to me, and to a few others that reported it, it didn't seem to be a sincere prayer. It appeared to be placed in a thread that was unquestionably meant to honor those that have died defending their respective countries to do what most of his posts appear to be intended to do, distract from the topic and draw attention to himself. On this day, and in this thread, I was unwilling to allow him to do that. Dwayne

I deleted Flamings post and have asked Admin to consider banning him. I'm beginning to believe that he and HLPPs are the same person. I'm not sure of that, but what I am sure of is that not only does he appear incapable of bringing anything positive to the board, but he seems truly motivated to be harmful whenever possible. I'm guessing that most of you know how I feel about banning people, but there comes a time when you just have to admit, at least I do to myself, that the pain and disruption is what's important to some, not growth. Just to be clear. My new admin status gives me the right to delete spam and such without consulting Admin. I may well have over stepped my bounds by deleting his post. And whether or not he's banned is strictly an Admin decision. Admin has created a pretty amazing environment here, I'll accept either decision without complaint. Dwayne

I wouldn't really have an issue with law enforcement using such a car, as it's my belief that they sometimes need to go fast, and having done so can actually have the equipment that they need to make a significant difference on them when they get there. Not so with the fire services.. Dwayne

God damn it...I changed my mind...I hate this thread now... Thanks though... :-) Dwayne

Yeah, I officially give up on you now. It's frustrating that I wasted so much time trying to show you the respect of giving you a thought out response to your posts when you can't be bothered to make the tiniest offort. Sorry babe, for me at least it's back to the troll roster. I refuse to believe that you're not smarter than this. Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on the subpeona argument. If they ever get called they will be presented with every document ever created concerning the patient. These are the wankers that want to be able to show their future employers how many intubations they had, how many SOBs, etc. Didn't someone here post about a guy that gave a potential employer a book with each of his PCRs in chronological order? If he ever left a single report in an unsecured place where it could be viewed by another then he broke the law. In fact, I don't have time to look it up now, but I'm positive that HIPAA makes it pretty clear what locations those documents can be stored in.

Whew....thanks for that.... Every since someone here said, "irregardless isn't a word!" about a hundred years ago and I looked it up I've really hated using language poorly when I can help it....I had another one of those moments here..grin. I feel much better now... Dwayne

I did notice the link, though 'tongue and cheek' certainly doesn't mean that it's untrue. If you actually follow the link, which I didn't until you mentioned it, the original story is without a doubt crude and childish. I'm no Photoshop expert, so no, I didn't notice that it was Photoshopped if it in fact was. Dwayne

You know what HLPP, I'm not sorting through all of that shit. I looked at two, and neither was in any way relevant to the conversation. No one here, most particularly me, has claimed that there is no such thing as a HIPAA violation, nor claimed that they haven't happened hundreds and thousands of times. Please reread that last sentence before moving forward. Cut and paste the 'relevant language', I really don't know how to make it any more clear than that, and then reference where you copied it from with the link...like an adult. What medical information was transferred, and to what party that had no right to receive it? You TRULY will have to stop dodging those questions if you want to play on this playground. You know what girl, I try my hardest to believe that you truly want to participate. But too often, as here, you're really just the kid in the back of the room making fart sounds hoping that it will get attention and distract people from noticing that you don't know the answers. I'm wrong? OK. Nothing would make me happier than to have that shown to me so that I can be right next time. But posting a bunch of random shit that you found on the internet because it popped up when you typed HIPAA into Google 'aint gonna get it done. Please. Read the entire thread, including the questions directed at you personally. Make your argument by pasting and citing the relevant pieces of information and lets move forward with me eating crow. See, I, as opposed to you and the rare other few here, can eat the entire friggin' bird, belch, and still say thank you. Dwayne

P. Zurich…. Excellent post man… “When there’s a fire I need to get there fast.” What an amazingly ignorant line of bullshit to justify this nonsense. What possible advantage does he bring to getting to a fire fast in a sports car? My apologies to the truly professional firemen and women out there, but too often this is the mentality. “I’m so friggin’ heroic I don’t need equipment. Just by showing up I save the day!” Insanity. But the plus side, and believe it or not, there is a plus side. This type of behavior will start to show the public that the fire services have become so bloated and over financed that they can’t even take themselves seriously anymore. And that is long overdue. Dwayne Posted at the above link...awaiting moderation. Will be interesting to see if it makes the cut..

Holy shit Bullets.... I have no friggin' idea...and I mean that sincerely. I think it depends on the hotness scale. I'd sale, below a 7 it's a moral and ethical violation of your professional responsibilities. 8 and above...I mean, c'mon...an ortho follow up just seems to be the responsible thing to do.. Dwayne

Man, I've always used 'moot' incorrectly!! See, this is a good thread. I've always used it in the context of 'Obviously no longer applies. Is no longer important." "You know, I heard bob was going to sue that 'round earth theory' guy for queering his map sales. But I guess it's a moot point now." (Assuming the 'round world' theory has since been proved.) Pseudoscience: A collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method. Dwayne

Man..that's the question of the day/week, maybe month, right there. I'll bet if you asked he would say something like, "I was just calling to check up on her. The hospital didn't take her seriously! I just wanted to make sure that she got the quality treatment that she deserves. She was grateful to have such a courteous provider and asked me out for coffee." Dwayne

Yeah Ruffles, I posted without reading the article first. I tried to go back and edit it to include that I saw your point but for some reason it wouldn't let me edit. I think your tone was fine when the article is considered. It's a hell of a job, and I can see where given enough time it would be tough to stay on point. It's good that it is being taken care of, but I've no hate for those that may have fallen below acceptable standards while doing this. It's easy for me to stand outside and say that they should be honored to handle the remains of our fallen, but a whole different thing when forced to do it constantly, while being invisible to praise. Dwayne

Man, it's funny that you mention this. I was at an airway lecture once where the presenter kept mentioning the 'oral pharnix (fair-nix). I raised my hand and set, " I believe you meant pharynx (far-inks by my way of saying it) and he said, "Fair-nix is close enough." I swear, it made me sick to my stomach to listen to it all through the lecture. (I was a medic studnet :-) at the time so didn't have the option of leaving.) I have no idea why that should be, as his/their behavior doesn't really effect mine. But I was so angry to see a medical provider with no respect for language. phar·ynx/ˈfariNGks/ Noun - The membrane-lined cavity behind the nose and mouth, connecting them to the esophagus. Dwayne

My experience isn't vast by any means, but I do have a little bit of seeing the dead handled in a war zone..and I can tell you this, 'careless' is never a word I've seen fit during any part of the process. It's an incredibly macabre and dehumanizing job that requires constant attention and respect to what is often human dust particles. But I've never seen a sign that anyone, at any stage forgets that those particles are dust of warriors lost doing what they felt was right and/or honorable. Not bagging on you Ruffster...Just giving perspective... Dwayne

As stated many times before, that is common thinking among those that have never read it, and the reason for this continued argument. To try and determine what is fact and what is, "Someone said that anything bad that can possibly happen is covered by HIPAA." And as asked many times before, could you please post the language, from the HIPAA document, that shows your understanding to be correct? You asked in another thread why you were called a troll on that occasion. Part of the reason is that in these debates you choose to ignore any of the questions, or arguments that don't directly support your thinking. You want to say 'something', and participate, but not be responsible for logically defending those positions. Participate in the entire conversation, with a solid belief that there is every chance that today you'll be fortunate enough to be proved wrong, and so, become smarter today than yesterday, and I promise that you will never again be haunted by that label. Dwayne

The problem I run into with those posts Craig is that every time there is a shitty story you say something like, "I'm would never work in the shitty U.S." You seem to like to imply that every bad thing that happens somewhere, happens everywhere, and that Australia has no stories like this. I've never worked in a system like this one mentioned, and I would never do so. These situations are just not that common. It's truly hard to believe that you really believe that out whole system works this way. And equaly hard to believe that you're going to pretend that every service and every posting in Austraila is just another perfectly professional, happy day at Wonka's chocolate factory. I'm not trying to be shitty, and have nothing but respect for you, but when nearly every post comes with a "I'm glad I work in Eden and not with you ignorant assholes" disclaimer, it get tiring after a bit.. Dwayne

I absolutely see where you guys are coming from, but I think that you're trying to put into the HIPAA act what you would like it to be, not what it is, which is a document protecting the use and transmission of medical/financial information amongst health care/billing facilities. Also, it's very clear, though it's too late now for me to look it up again, (you guys are keeping me up way past my bedtime), that you don't violate HIPAA by giving information to a person that 1) owns it, in this case, the woman he asked out, or 2) has a right to it. See #1. He had the right to collect it. He didn't use that right to violate HIPAA, at least not in any way that's been shown. Even your HIPAA lady didn't, or at least I didn't see where, claim that he had done so. And if he did call her, and talk about her vag reconstruction surgery, he would still not be violating HIPAA as it's her information to receive and his to gather as her "healthcare provider." (quotes, as his ability to qualify for such a title is certainly in question.) I get the feeling that you guys feel that I'm arguing in this assholes defense, and I'm certainly not. I'm arguing for accuracy, and against the want of many to simply state 'HIPPA' because they don't know any better. We should all have at least some idea what the main laws that we operate under say... In this case, the beginning, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act is a pretty good initial clue...(Not sniping...trying to make the point in the most obvious way I know how.) In this case if he called and said, "Holy shit, the new vag is rockin'! I could hardly get two fingers in there during my exam!!" No matter how disgusting we may find this, it's still not going to cause him to be guilty of violating a law that was not written to address this type of behavior. So far the arguments seem to be along the lines of, "It's illegal to beat your dog." "Well, that should cover the slaughter of cows too. Cow slaughtering should be illegal as they are in the same spiritual vein." But no matter how badly we may want that to be true you will never be convicted for slaughtering your cow under the 'Don't Beat Your Dog Protection Act." See? Dwayne

That mentions 'protected information' several times but you don't list the definition of what that protected information is...I think that, though I've not read it in ages, it's referring to specific health, and primarily insurance information... Using her phone number for non medical purposes? I don't think anyone here will argue that that's horseshit. But as he didn't transmit any of her personal and/or insurance information (making that assumption of course) to anyone else, I don't see the HIPAA issue. Though I'd can his stupid ass in a second as his professional judgement is obviously off in the ditch in my opinion. Just trying to make the point that many state 'HIPAA violation" because they're unable or unwilling to differentiate between patient privacy issues and HIPAA issues. Though I don't believe it's a HIPAA violation, am I making it clear that I think this guy is a douche...? Dwayne Actually, I can't find any way that this is a HIPAA violation, after reviewing much of the document, as it is concerned only with the electronic transmission and protection of medically/financially sensitive data. As he was not transmitting ANY data, in any form, or so it appears to me, this can not possibly be a HIPAA violation. I suppose that it could be argued that he transmitted her number to her in some way, but the best that I can tell, that is not protected data, and even if it was he was not transmitting it to a 3rd party. Douchie? yeah. HIPAA? Nearly impossible in this scenario unless you all come up with something significantly different than what I'm seeing... http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/summary/index.html Dwayne

I think that Corpus Christi is a good choice...I saw online that there is a big push there now with the goal to have 50+ percent of the residents wearing shoes within 5 years. Lofty I know, but hey...people need to dream.. Dwayne

I agree completely. At the grocery store man=1 and woman=1, the rest is to be discovered. Having responded to this ladies emergent situation, woman=-1 (Less than whole emotionally when vulnerable), man possibly appears =5. (of course the sexes can be combined other ways/orders) She's seen him with the hosemonkeys, he's got flashing, shiny machines that to the lay person (No pun intended) can look exotic, has a fancy, heroic ambulance. It's no longer a level playing field. Also, the Doc beat me to it, but I don't believe that this is a HIPAA violation either. Can one of you that claims it to be a violation quote the language from HIPAA that makes is so? Dwayne

But it's worth reading?

Convicted of something? Judge said, "Prison, Armed Forces or Texas?" and you picked the second best option? Welcome to the City Brother... Dwayne

Not taking a shot, though I'm not sure how to phrase this without it sounding that way.. You have a protocol that states that the legal possibilities on the scene mandate the medical decisions made my the crew? You might work a trauma arrest from the scene of an accident, but not if there are bullet holes in the window? Maybe I misunderstand. As you stated, working trauma arrests has fallen out of vogue due to all of the pesky science shit, but I found this curious. Dwayne