You like the health care bill so how dose this grab ya?  

Lamb,
No need to accuse me of trying to scare people,please just link to your information that would correct any misunderstanding about medical micro chipping for the American people,if it is true it is only for people that now have medical implants please link to that information.
So far what I have read I have not found this micro-chip program pertains to only people with implanted devices right now.

(This is what I have so far read and it says nothing about only pacemakers or other medical devises already implanted in people,so what am I missing here?

(medical micro chips in heath care bill)

The Obama health care bill under Sec. 2521, page 1,000 will establish a National Medical Device Registry. What does a National Medical Device Registry mean?

National Medical Device Registry from H.R. 3200 [Healthcare Bill], pages 1,001-1,008:
(g)(1) The Secretary shall establish a national medical device registry (in this subsection referred to as the ?registry?) to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and outcomes data on each device that? ??(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.?

A "class II device that is implantable?"

Then on page 1,004 it describes what the term "data" means in paragraph 1, section B: ??(B) In this paragraph, the term ?data? refers to in formation respecting a device described in paragraph (1), including claims data, patient survey data, standardized analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of data from disparate data environments, electronic health records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the Secretary."

Approved by the FDA, a class II implantable device is a "implantable radiofrequency transponder system for patient identification and health information."

Nothing in the bill says that everyone gets a chip, and I defy you to cite a passage in the bill that refutes me.

Pages 1001 - 1008 say that some Class II, including implantable class II devices, and Class III medical devices get a registry, and that the registry is for research about whether the implantable devices are safe and effective. Class II medical devices are typically non-invasive things like X-ray machines, motorized wheel chairs, etc. Class III medical devices are things like heart valves, pacemakers, etc. I don't know where you're getting your quote about the definition of a class II medical device, but it's not from the FDA web page.

Your first clue that you're not quoting an honest source should have been when they trimmed the quote from page 503 to make it sound like they're surveiling citizens when they're surveiling medical devices.

The Metallion
(I defy you to cite a passage in the bill that refutes me.)
Why do you use that kind of language "I defy you to cite a passage",I'm simply trying to understand this,tell me is that a bad thing?

a class II device that is implantable, life-supporting, or life-sustaining.

Rose...it says it right there...a device that helps support or sustain your life...a micro chip does neither.

Lamb,
Thanks I'm still reading about this just trying to understand the facts~

The facts are, rose, that medical devices like pacemakers and implantable defibrillators are manufactured by different companies and required to meet certain standards set by the FDA. Some work well and some, unfortunately, don't. Right now, if a problem is discovered...as was the case with Medtronic Inc, which I will provide a link to below...it's up to the manufacturer to contact each and every physician who implanted their product into a patient. In the case of the pacemakers manufactured by Medtronic, we're talking about almost 37,000 people. With a national device registry, ensuring the health of the individual patients who depend on these devices will be easier. Tracking problems will be easier. The Veterans Administration already does this. If a problem is discovered with any medical device, they have the information in their network of patient information as to who currently has the device implanted. If you really are trying to understand, then stop jumping to conclusions. :

http://www.the-medtronic-pacemaker-lawyer.com/

@Kennyrose: It is a statement of my strong belief that you will be unable to do cite such a passage.

Seems to me government will have a great deal of in pack on our health care decisions,appears our medical will be taken out of the hand's of our doctor and in my opinion this is a big mistake.
I heard that people said George W.Bush invaded the peoples personal business but this take over of our health care in my opinion is be on the pale.

Yes, it is a far stretch, bob. In your example of a knee replacement...have you ever seen that item? It's very small and designed to do one thing only. In order for it to be able to count steps or calculate weight, the device would have to be modified which would create an unnecessary expense for the manufacturers.

to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and outcomes data on each device

If you read my response to rose above I gave her an example of a problem with pacemakers that were manufactured by a particular company. What this part of the bill means by "postmarket safety and outcomes" relates to situations like that one. Instead of leaving it up to the manufacturers to determine the scope of a problem with an implantable device, to trust them to contact every physician who implanted it into a patient, the healthcare system would have the ability to recognize trends that indicate a higher than acceptable failure rate with a device and to take whatever steps necessary to ensure the safety of the patients. Pacemakers and internal cardiac defibrillators are very different from joint replacement parts and it's critical that, if there's a problem with either unit, the patients are informed and necessary steps taken. Having the ability to review the outcome data related to problems with these kinds of devices is also critical. It shouldn't take years or decades before a malfunctioning medical device is pulled from the market.

I agree that it sounds far fetched but once you start where does it stop. What bothers me the most is the phrase "the sectrary shall determine....". We are leaving too much up to a person who doesn't answer to the people, or Congress, our elected reprensitives. If we are giving that much power to one person then we ned public accountablity.

The Technology may not be there today but it soon will be possible. My phone can do more that a room full of computer of just a few decades ago. I have more memory on my SD Card for my camera than my first top of the line computer of a few years ago.

Bob, I keep bringing up the V.A. because their medical care system is run in a similar manner. There is one person at the top who makes policy determinations, too.

I really think there's too many people exploiting other people and the intentional fear mongering really irks me. Sure, it's *possible*, after years of development and testing, that very small implantable medical devices could be able to calculate your movements and weight but, logically, what's in it for the manufacturer? Can the Secretary demand this of private enterprise? Your cell phone can also pinpoint your location, so can your car. Is there a logical reason to fear them, too? If you have that little camera lense at the top of your computer screen should you also be afraid of someone observing you? Now that so many folks use their bank debit cards instead of cash/checks the government could track your spending habits. If you have satellite or cable tv, they can track your viewing habits. I'm sure there's more but I hope you get my point. Many things can be twisted to mean something they don't and I refuse to live my life in fear by assumption.