Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Partially true. It indeed sets up a logging method to record implantable devices, but this leads to 2 questions
1) Some of these devices are already logged by the manufacturors and hospitals, so why is there a need for the government to do so
2) Some of the devices not logged and indexed, if this would have become law, would indeed begin to be logged. I can see the need to log things like artificial hearts by the manufacturer in the event of a recall, but do you really think everything implanted should be logged and recorded by the government? Why?
Now you're changing the argument. Do you agree or disagree that the sentiment in the OP is false? Will the government force citizens to have microchips inserted in them?
‘‘(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.”
means?
I said EXPLAIN it to me. All you're doing is saying "it's clear," and then highlighting the same two or three partial sentences over and over again (basically belittling me).
Please analyze this section of the bill (or previously proposed bill). Give me 10 or 20 sentences about these few partial sentences you keep highlighting - what they say, what the mean in the larger context of the entire section - and finally how they in fact constitute the government giving people the option to have a government implanted medical, tracking microchip inserted within them.
I told you what the bill actually does in my previous post (#22 //www.city-data.com/forum/13792120-post22.html). Maybe as part of you explanation you could inform me how my interpretation of this section is incorrect.
No, it is you that doesn't understand what you are reading. See post #35.
I fully understand what I am reading. micro chips are already in use in america, VeriChip was approved by the FDA in 2002 for example. Palm discussed placing a chip in the hand in 2001 (an idea which never took off), IDChip offers a chip in an individual for the purpose of computer security.
The question comes into play
1) As a consumer, one can choose to have the chip implanted
2) Had this bill become law, it would have required ALL of these devices and customers to be logged by the government because they are implants..
Now you're changing the argument. Do you agree or disagree that the sentiment in the OP is false? Will the government force citizens to have microchips inserted in them?
I have said NUMEROUS times that the OP story requiring the implant is false.. I am questioning why on gods earth the logging of such implants would EVER been suggested.
1) The bill never REQUIRED citizens to have implants
2) The bill required the LOGGING of implants
3) The section was REMOVED from the bill..
4) Why would the government be entitled to log any implant a person decides to have done?
5) People now CHOOSE to have implants, which the government does not need notified of, under the bill, ALL implants would need logged.
I don't own an RV. I ride a Harley. It's being serviced, and I'm just about to go pick it up (they don't open until 10 on Sundays). Why are you concerned about my leisure activities? Are you suggesting I'm lying? You wouldn't be doing that, would you?
your comment not mine
nvxplorer
Jeeze. I'm done. I figure, as fast as you're digging, you'll soon be so deep I won't be able to hear you anyway. Have a nice day. I'm going on a wonderful desert ride, through a scenic canyon, visiting some beautiful small and historic Nevada towns. You have fun pretending to be a smart guy on the internet. Bye-bye.
I have said NUMEROUS times that the OP story requiring the implant is false.. I am questioning why on gods earth the logging of such implants would EVER been suggested.
1) The bill never REQUIRED citizens to have implants
2) The bill required the LOGGING of implants
3) The section was REMOVED from the bill..
4) Why would the government be entitled to log any implant a person decides to have done?
5) People now CHOOSE to have implants, which the government does not need notified of, under the bill, ALL implants would need logged.
WHY?
Is the issue clear enough for you now?
Yet the answer to your question is clearly in the bill? "to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and outcomes data on each device". What's the beef? The FDA going to come repo their devices on you?
I fully understand what I am reading. micro chips are already in use in america, VeriChip was approved by the FDA in 2002 for example. Palm discussed placing a chip in the hand in 2001 (an idea which never took off), IDChip offers a chip in an individual for the purpose of computer security.
The question comes into play
1) As a consumer, one can choose to have the chip implanted
2) Had this bill become law, it would have required ALL of these devices and customers to be logged by the government because they are implants..
WHY?
So that their safety can be assessed and assured. That's an essential role the FDA plays - and is especially important for products that are implanted inside the human body.
1) This registry makes it easier to study the long term effects of such devices. Perhaps a certain brand of chip somehow leads to a 500% increase in the likelihood of developing skin cancer. Such a product should then have it's FDA approval yanked and should be taken out of every person it was put in. Having this registry will make it much easier to conduct such studies and find major health issues of these types.
2) Makes recalls much more effective (more complete and much quicker). From time to time implantable medical devices are found to be defective and must be recalled. What if it's discovered that some particular brand of medical chip was made with a toxic, non-approved material (I image lots of these chips will be manufactured in China). This registry will result in the harmful chip being removed from more people and more quickly.
3) I'm sure there are other reasons I just can't think of right now.
Btw, here is another example.. Credit card provider "Mondex" Mondex® *| MasterCard®
offers an implant by microchip on a card, there was suggestions that they could eventually offer an implant of the chip to cut down fraud and so you wouldnt have to carry a card with you.
If this bill had become law, the government would have been required to log your implant which had nothing at all to do with medical purposes. WHY?
Yet the answer to your question is clearly in the bill? "to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and outcomes data on each device". What's the beef? The FDA going to come repo their devices on you?
There has been no safety concerns with microchip implants.. Do you have anything to dispute this or do you just buy the excuses provided?
Btw, here is another example.. Credit card provider "Mondex" Mondex® *| MasterCard®
offers an implant by microchip on a card, there was suggestions that they could eventually offer an implant of the chip to cut down fraud and so you wouldnt have to carry a card with you.
If this bill had become law, the government would have been required to log your implant which had nothing at all to do with medical purposes. WHY?
Anything and anytime you implant something within your body it becomes a medical issue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
