National ID Cards
Current law puts the government is in a position to inappropriately monitor the movements and transactions of every citizen. Not only is the national ID movement underway, it will be a reality by October 1, 2000. Congress considered delaying implementing the law because of privacy issues, but apparently had decided to let the law stand.
Students of Bible prophecy recognize this as a possible fulfillment of the prophecy found in the book of Revelation which reveals that the antichrist will be able to track and control all financial transactions. The scripture says that NO MAN will be able to buy or sell anything unless he has the mark.
He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark of his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. - Revelation 13:16-17
The Clinton administration is quietly laying plans to assign every American a "unique health identifier": a computer code that could be used to create a national database that would track every citizen's medical history from cradle to grave. It would keep track as you change doctors and insurance companies, track your diseases, the medicines you take and why you take them. And all that information would be on a government computer.
Bill Clinton first proposed a national medical identification card in 1993 as part of his ill-fated plan to provide universal health insurance. It generated huge opposition then, and it is generating opposition now. After the failure of his health system plans, however, he has incrementally been achieving his plan one piece at a time. Sometimes the bills are presented as "for the kids" (e.g., the 1997 Kidcare bill) and sometimes as "stop the fraud" (e.g., the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act known as Kennedy-Kassebaum), but the bottom line is to require computerized reporting and to gather more and more information about American citizens on government databases. This piece of the puzzle allowing for national id cards was ordered by Congress in 1996 as part of Kennedy-Kassebaum health-care law that permits employees to take their health insurance with them when they switch jobs.
Another piece of the puzzle is The Immigration Act which was intended to stem the tide of illegal aliens coming into our nation. It prohibits the use of state driver's licenses after Oct. 1, 2000 unless they contain Social Security numbers as the unique numeric identifier "that can be read visually or by electronic means." The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 authorizes the federal Department of Transportation to establish national requirements for birth certificates and drivers' licenses. It would, in essence, transform state drivers licenses into national ID cards. Under the current state of the law, the citizens of states which have drivers' licenses that do not conform to the federal standards by October 1, 2000, will find themselves essentially stripped of their ability to participate in life as we know it. On that date, Americans will not be able to get a job, open a bank account, apply for Social Security or Medicare, exercise their Second Amendment rights, or even take an airplane flight, unless they can produce a state-issued ID that conforms to the federal specifications. Already the airlines have begun requiring photo id before you can board an airplane. Further, the Immigration Act orders the development of a smart card that "shall employ technologies that provide security features, such as magnetic stripes, holograms, and integrated circuits." This magnetic stripe is expected soon to contain a digitized fingerprint, retina scan, voice print, and other biometric identifiers, and it will leave an electronic trail every time you use it.
The establishment of a "national" drivers' license and birth certificate makes a mockery of the 10th amendment and the principles of federalism. While no state is "forced" to accept the federal standards, is it unlikely they will refuse to comply when such action would mean none of their residents could get a job, receive Social Security, leave the state by plane, or have access to medical care. So rather than imposing a direct mandate on the states, the federal government is blackmailing them into complying with federal dictates.
To overcome this "federalism" issue, in May 1998, Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 13083, "Federalism," which substantially redefined federalism as envisioned by our Founders, and the authors of our American Constitution. Set to become law on August 14th, EO 13083 mandates broad "exceptions" to those powers enumerated in the 10th Amendment, and justifies the abrogation of those powers by the federal government. A few of those exceptions are: "When there is a need for uniform national standards..." "When States have not adequately protected individual rights and liberties..." "When decentralization increases the costs of government..." "When States would be reluctant to impose necessary regulations..." and, "When placing regulatory authority at the State or local level would undermine [federal] regulatory goals..." Quite handy when he institutes National ID cards.
The welfare reform act requires that, in order to receive federal welfare funds, states must collect Social Security numbers from "commercial driver's license" applicants. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997, under the pretense of making "technical corrections" to the welfare act, deleted the word "commercial," thereby applying the requirement to all driver's license applicants.
The "cradle to grave" aspect was originally started with the 1993 Comprehensive Child Immunization Act which authorized the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) "to establish state registry systems to monitor the immunization status of all children." HHS has since sent $417 million of taxpayers' money to the states to set up these databases. At least half the states have been putting children on state databases, often without their parents' knowledge or consent.
The Deadbeat Dads act established a federal "instant check" New Hires Directory. Employers are now required to "screen" every new employee or job applicant against the new government database of child support order obligees.
And, under the Brady Act, starting Dec. 1, no one will be allowed to buy a gun without an "instant background check" with various government databases.
Dr. Richard Sobel, a research fellow at Harvard Law School said, "What ID numbers do is centralize power, and in a time when knowledge is power, then centralized information is centralized power. I think people have a gut sense that this is not a good idea." Phyllis Schlafly points out, "Allowing the government to collect and store personal medical records, and to track us as we move about in our daily lives, puts awesome power in the hands of government bureaucrats. It gives them the power to force us to conform to government health care policy, whether that means mandating that all children be immunized with an AIDS vaccine when it is put on the market, or mandating that expensive medical treatment must be withheld from seniors. Once all medical records are computerized with unique identifiers such as Social Security numbers, an instant check system will give all government agencies the power to deny basic services, including daycare, school, college, access to hospital emergency rooms, health insurance, a driver's license, etc., to those who don't conform to government health policies."
While it is easy to give in to the rhetoric of "protecting" children or some other defenseless group, we must be cautious that in a rush to provide protection in the short-term, we do not do permanent damage to our national heritage of liberty. Benjamin Franklin once wrote, those who would give up essential liberty for temporary security deserves neither liberty nor security.
The Department of Health and Human Services is charged with creating the system.
Insurance companies and public health researchers, say the advantages to a national health identity card would outweigh the disadvantages. Doctors and hospitals would be able to monitor the health of patients as they switch from one insurance plan to the next. Patients would not have to wade through a cumbersome bureaucracy to obtain old records. Billing would be streamlined, saving money. A national disease database could be created, offering unlimited opportunities for scientific study.
One advantage mentioned is that if we had a streamlined system like what's being proposed, it could decrease the cost of health care delivery or reduce the cost of insurance. Does anyone honestly believe they would receive that benefit? I contend that if a savings were realized, it would be the insurance companies that reaped greater profits and the patient would get nothing. Much of the high price of health care delivery now is caused by bureaucracy and greed of the insurance industry.
Few people today can trust the IRS, the VA, or any of those alphabet agencies with private information. National security agencies can barely keep a secret. And insurance companies are already trading information. If they have your Social Security number, they can virtually look up the entire gamut of information about you. This national id card system would just makes things easier for HMO's to get together and deny claims. Or maybe the information gets back to people in the town you live. The banker finds out that you had a heart attack and they don't want to give you a loan because of it. In 1996, a Medicaid clerk in Maryland tapped into a computerized database and sold patient names to an HMO for as little as 50 cents each. About one-third of all Fortune 500 companies review health information before making hiring decisions.
Privacy advocates and some doctors' groups warn that sensitive health information might be linked to financial data or criminal records and that already tenuous privacy protections would be further weakened as existing managed care databases, for example, are linked. They say that trust in doctors, already eroded by managed care, would deteriorate further, with patients growing reluctant to share intimate details. And in a world where computer hackers can penetrate the Pentagon's computer system, they ask, will anyone's medical records be safe?
So far, they have not decided on what kind of identifier should be used. Some have proposed using the Social Security number, which is already used as an identifier by many health plans. Others have suggested a composite number, consisting of the patient's date of birth, the latitude and longitude of the hometown and some additional digits. Still others say the identifier should not be a number at all but rather a "biomedical marker," like a thumb print or an electronic scan of the retina. I wonder if anyone has suggested some variation on the numbers: 666?
Dr. Christopher Chute, the head of medical information resources at the Mayo Foundation, who participated on a panel advising The Department of Health and Human Services said, "We have the technology to do such a thing. What we don't have is the social infrastructure to support it."
A.G. Breitenstein, director of the Health Law Institute, an advocacy group based in Boston, said: "That information will be irrevocably integrated into a cradle-to-grave medical record to which insurers, employers, government and law enforcement will have access is, to me, exactly what privacy is not. People are not going to feel comfortable going to the doctor, because now you are going to have a permanent record that will follow you around for the rest of your life that says you had syphilis, or depression, or an abortion or whatever else."
History shows that when government gains the power to monitor the actions of the people, it eventually uses that power to impose totalitarian controls on the populace.
Just Say NO to Government Tracking of Innocent Citizens!
Liberty vs. Totalitarianism, Clinton-Style, The Phyllis Schlafly Report, July 1998
What do you think?