Right to Privacy

[2manyrocks]

There is a lot of broad brushing going on here. The OP asked a deeply serious question.

The fact that I signed a waiver to allow my doctor to provide billing information to my health insurance company does not necessarily mean that I agreed that this information can be shared elsewhere. It's not limited to a right to privacy matter, but it also impinges on the question of how much the government has a right to know in the sense that our Constitution places limites on searches and seizures. Even the IRS in former years can't just walk in and demand all your records without jumping through several procedural hoops--and law enforcement is also subject to having to follow procedures to obtain search warrants. So when they start asking for your most private information, ie. information about your health, then we've stepped into the deep water if you want to carefully look at this.

 

[Bedlam]

Be careful once the records all go electronic. I have waited now for over a year for my hospital to "retrieve' One study (8000 dollars worth).They say it is 'offsite' who knows what that means even they cant tell.
There Will definitely be less privacy with the new part..Way to easy with the electronics.I remember once standing in the line at the hosp. and they said please step back. That was so i didn't over hear . And they didn't violate the law. Now adays I'm fine to stand in a line of three people and gather all the info Id need form the person in front of me.:confused2:
I give them my card and number etc, and the repeat it right back to me.(and the rest of the people):confused2:
Its a shame considering how many people have fought wars to protect these rights.Many would turn in their grave if they saw the world now..

 

[kidr]

GB...off the top of my head and as it relates to one's medical history, making it available to health care providers will likely result in better less expensive care. Remember, no more denying care for pre-existing conditions.

Develop a system that puts your medical history on an electronic strip and you avoid prescription drug mistakes, provide quicker diagnoses, avoid expensive and sometimes unnecessary testing.

No denying care for pre-existing conditions. Wow ,now I don't have to buy health insurance until I get sick! I'll just pay the small fine until something happens. Guess who administers the fine and has access to your health insurance information? The friendly IRS. I wish I could insure my car like that.Have an accident and THEN call my agent and buy insurance. That would really save every one a lot of money.

 

[dave1949]

Be careful once the records all go electronic. I have waited now for over a year for my hospital to "retrieve' One study (8000 dollars worth).They say it is 'offsite' who knows what that means even they cant tell.
There Will definitely be less privacy with the new part..Way to easy with the electronics.I remember once standing in the line at the hosp. and they said please step back. That was so i didn't over hear . And they didn't violate the law. Now adays I'm fine to stand in a line of three people and gather all the info Id need form the person in front of me.:confused2:
I give them my card and number etc, and the repeat it right back to me.(and the rest of the people):confused2:
Its a shame considering how many people have fought wars to protect these rights.Many would turn in their grave if they saw the world now..

Off site probably means the data is stored in a secure facility. Anyone dependent on data uses off site storage of backup and historical records. It's a key part of disaster recovery readiness for IT operations.

Some companies lease access to disaster recovery facilities too. They go through a drill usually twice per year where they pick up the off site data, take it to the recovery facility, config the equipment, load the data and programs and see if they can operate. For an IT dependent corporation, it has become a life or death capability.

Dave.

 

[dave1949]

Precious little is right!

Legally gray areas=Law enforcement types. I know

Actually it's not the FBI ,it's the NSA who monitor's communications for certain words. Mostly from Ft. Huachuca in AZ.

But doesn't it concern you, that whatever little privacy we do have left, is going to be eroded?
And also, at some time in the future, the traditional doctor-patient relationship will be in jeopardy?
I know that two old farts like us are not going to be affected greatly, but what about our kids? I worry.

I'm just using the FBI as a generic placeholder It's probably really being done by the agency so black it has no name - TASBIHNN

Yes, it concerns me. But for one thing, I'm not sure how my personal definition of privacy fits with constitutional protections. It's another one of those cases where the reality of modern life is far different from the era of the Constitution. It can provide wise guidance but not much detail, unless we stick to the literal words.

There is undoubtly a wealth of beneficial data to be mined from anonymous medical records that reveal one's medical history, zip code, age, ethnicity and occupation. Why shouldn't the medical community (and patients) benefit as much as the marketing folks from data mining? Walmart has been analyzing our shopping cart contents for years now, and they can combine it with financial and residence info if you pay with plastic. Walmart has amazing IT systems.

If one had a medical card on their person, like a debit card, the ability for a doctor to swipe it and obtain your medical history could be life saving.

Pros and cons.
Dave.

 

[keegs]

No denying care for pre-existing conditions. Wow ,now I don't have to buy health insurance until I get sick! I'll just pay the small fine until something happens. Guess who administers the fine and has access to your health insurance information? The friendly IRS. I wish I could insure my car like that.Have an accident and THEN call my agent and buy insurance. That would really save every one a lot of money.

Kidr

If you're someone with assets, maintaining health care insurance is important for your health and your assets. I don't think the new health care law relinquishes anyone from that.

If you're someone without assets or health care insurance, as it stands now, you show up at the emergency room and get treated.

Subsidies are scaled to make it affordable for everyone to buy insurance.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

There is a lot of broad brushing going on here. The OP asked a deeply serious question.

The fact that I signed a waiver to allow my doctor to provide billing information to my health insurance company does not necessarily mean that I agreed that this information can be shared elsewhere. It's not limited to a right to privacy matter, but it also impinges on the question of how much the government has a right to know in the sense that our Constitution places limites on searches and seizures. Even the IRS in former years can't just walk in and demand all your records without jumping through several procedural hoops--and law enforcement is also subject to having to follow procedures to obtain search warrants. So when they start asking for your most private information, ie. information about your health, then we've stepped into the deep water if you want to carefully look at this.

Thanks for recognizing the gist of my question.
I think that we can perhaps use the "crystal ball"
of looking at NHS health care in the UK to see perhaps where we are going.
You are absolutely right in pointing out the procedures/hoops that law enforcement/government agencies have to follow in order to glean information about citizens. I always thought that they were called "basic protections" and stood as a bulwark against government excess. But then again, I,m just a right wing nut job http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/...s/smilies/new/confused2.gif/new/confused2.gif

 

[dmccarty]

Young people will now pay more for insurance so that coverage on older people, the richest segment of the US population, will not have to pay so much. Even though the richest segment of the population is the largest consumer of health care dollars.

The IRS is getting 10 billion dollars to handle the new health care requirements. The IRS and supporters have stated that the IRS will NOT enforce the requirement to have insurance. Really?

If there is no enforcement of the requirement to have insurance then the people who are paying will have to pay more since people will make the very rational decision to NOT carry health insurance until they need it.

Since prexisting conditions will not prevent one from getting health care just wait until you need insurance. Why buy until you need the coverage?

OR the IRS WILL have to enforce the law. Which requires at some level a linkage between your health care and the IRS.

So take you pick. Health care costs will go up to cover everyone or the IRS will have to enforce the law. And just like DMV the IRS will have to monitor that you ALWAYS have insurance coverage. Of course there are still a high percentage of people without mandated car insurance driving cars inspite of the law. So the most likely answer is that many people will NOT have coverage even with enforcement by the IRS and people with coverage will pay more.

There was a story in the WSJ a few months back about a retired couple with pretty good health care coverage from their company. They lived in MA and the state required that their insurance plan have specific coverage that this couple did not want or need. The cost of the coverage was more than than the fine so they are paying the fine.

Later,
Dan

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

I'm just using the FBI as a generic placeholder It's probably really being done by the agency so black it has no name - TASBIHNN

Yes, it concerns me. But for one thing, I'm not sure how my personal definition of privacy fits with constitutional protections. It's another one of those cases where the reality of modern life is far different from the era of the Constitution. It can provide wise guidance but not much detail, unless we stick to the literal words.

There is undoubtly a wealth of beneficial data to be mined from anonymous medical records that reveal one's medical history, zip code, age, ethnicity and occupation. Why shouldn't the medical community (and patients) benefit as much as the marketing folks from data mining? Walmart has been analyzing our shopping cart contents for years now, and they can combine it with financial and residence info if you pay with plastic. Walmart has amazing IT systems.

If one had a medical card on their person, like a debit card, the ability for a doctor to swipe it and obtain your medical history could be life saving.

Pros and cons.
Dave.

As you probably would guess, Yes I wouldn't have ANY problem with a "literal" interpretation of the Constitution
While Wal-Mart, ATT,TOYOTA,etc, all gather marketing info on us, Only government has the power to imprison you.
BTW Are you getting soaked?

 

[brin]

Dave, you wrote " If one had a medical card on their person, like a debit card, the ability for a doctor to swipe it and obtain your medical history could be life saving."

I agree with you..In a perfect world it would be great to be able to load all our medical records on the internet but this is far from a perfect world and there are just too many opportunities for government misuse and abuse as well as hackers but I see no reason we could not all carry a card that has a magnetic strip on it that is updated every time we visit our doc or get medical care. We would have control of it...on our person that way and it would be a lot more secure. I feel less free everyday...I don't know about the rest of you but that is how I feel.