Maybe none of you are aware of the fact that medical devices have been registered and kept track of for a while.... Officially since 2007, but also long before that.....
http://nationalmedicaldeviceregistry.org/
They don't just implant a device and forget about it, all implants (whether they are artificial {pacemaker, hip implant} or biological {organs, tissues}) are kept track of on a national level via serial numbers and patient information.
"The Unique Device Identification (UDI) System is intended to assign a unique identifier to medical devices within the United States. It was signed into law on September 27, 2007, as part of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007."
(quoted from the above links homepage)
This is why I am confused, why are they proposing a law or program that is already in place??? Sounds to me that they do have something sinister up their sleeve, I just don't know what... Either that, or they just love wasting our tax dollars on redundancy.
Devices are NOT currently kept track of. No registry was established. The 2007 legislation passed by congress was just the first step, directing the FDA to establish regulations to implement UDI. The other proposed legislation seems to be a more stripped down version of this, covering fewer devices. The blog you linked to is the site of a company that will make a lot of money when UDI is implemented, so they are trying to encourage it.
The FDA did actually propose a rule quite recently, and it's currently in the comment phase. There's no need for additional legislation if the FDA already has the authority to create regulation. Possibly that's why the language was removed from the Obamacare bill.
Here's the announcement:
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm310505.htm
Here's the proposed rule:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-07-10/pdf/2012-16621.pdf
What is interesting about this proposed rule is that it requires identification of implantable devices via "AIDC", (Automatic Identification and Data Capture - basically a machine readable number). This would be either a bar code or some kind of RFID (or NFC, essentially a more complex RFID). This is primarily required on the packaging, but is also required on the device itself (Direct Marking). For many implantable devices an RFID chip would seem like a good option, as it can be read without having to cut the patient open or x-ray them. Here's the proposed requirement:
(Direct Marking is not required if it's unsafe or not technically feasible)External Quote:If your device is
an implantable device, or is intended to
be used more than once and to be
sterilized before each use, the direct
marking would have to be provided
through either or both of the following:
• Easily-readable plain-text;
• AIDC technology, or any alternative
technology that will allow for
identification of the device. Examples
include providing the UDI of the device
on demand to an external reader or
sensor, or making the UDI or a barcode
or other representation of the UDI
discernible to an x-ray or other imaging
system.
I predict that once the conspiracy crowd realized what the implication of this rule are, they will start trumpeting "FDA is the Beast", "AIDC is the mark of the beast", or at least "FDA chips everyone via back-door move".
But again, this legislation does not require everyone have an RFID chip, it just requires that if you have SOME implantable device, then there's some way of externally reading its unique number (the UDI). If that's an RFID chip (not required, but likely in many cases) then there are some privacy concerns, but those can be addressed by making sure the implementation is very short range.
And like I've said before, the Illuminati giving everyone RFID chips is pretty pointless when you can do a better job of identifying and tracking everyone via biometrics.