you big dufuss
wackos like you
the dork you are
Since you seem to have some understanding of this, I think that Haiku is beneath you.
Everyone, just how safe do you feel when you get "privacy notices" that say "we do not release any personal information except as permitted by law?" Not safe.
I do not think that some understand the privacy regulations contained in HIPAA, because if they did they would not be defending any aspect of it, including the recent "adjustments." Moreover, just because you think that any individual can somehow by taking uncommon actions avoid losing his or her privacy is no reason to advocate ill-advised and illegal federal programs that will in fact hurt the privacy of most of the population.
HIPAA was permitted to pass by a pathetic REPUBLICAN Congress simply because RINO Bob Dole did not want RINO Nancy Kassebaum to retire without ever having done one proactive thing in her career. It's a classic example of a bill too big to be understood by Congress critters. Few even read the bill, as usual. It handed a huge victory to HillaryCare advocates. We thought we won in 1994, and then let down our guard and so were sabotaged by Bob Dole and his ilk.
Moreover, in its implementation Congress specified (illegally abdicating its job to make the laws) that if Congress had not written HIPAA privacy details by a certain date that they would let the regulations be written by none other than Donna Shalala, the woman who once cluelessly confused cirrhosis and psoriasis, and her bureaucratic minions. The Republicans then IRRESPONSIBLY sat on their hands until the deadline passed so the Democrats got to craft the details!
HIPAA therefore represents a disgusting and traitorous (to true Republicans) and wholesale surrender by the Republicans to the Democrats. Loyal Republicans who are not RINOs are therefore very much upset by HIPAA and see nothing good about it, and your defense of it is therefore remarkable.
The fact of the matter is that Electronic Medical Records were not the true impetus for the HIPAA "privacy" regs -- just the opposite. Electronic Medical Records are what finally make wholesale massive privacy invasion possible for the government and its little fascist allies like RAND. The removal of explicit permissions is exactly what they have been after all along because they want to mine the information. The HIPAA act itself STANDARDIZES all electronic healthcare transactions (as to transmission protocols) and therefore makes it much more likely that privacy violations can occur on a massive scale. Moreover, it virtually REQUIRES electronic medical records because it is too hard to comply with many of the provisions without them. And the more electronic records there are, the easier they are to steal. Therefore it meets the classic MO of the Clintonistas:
(1) decide what freedoms you want to limit in order to gain power,
(2) pick a method for stopping the freedoms which can be named something exactly the opposite of what is actually happening (steal medical privacy by using a "privacy protection act"),
(3) write regulations that will cause a massive outpouring of protest by conservatives who were not fooled in the first place,
(4) read the protests and deduce from them the methods by which the opposition will plan to get around those rules,
(5) ignore the protests but re-write the regulations to route around the conservative opposition and be even more onerous and self-sustaining,
(6) IMMEDIATELY upon implementation make sure that you steal the gold--make sure that many corporations like RAND, in the name of "research," steal all the information and do all the damage they can, and even ship the information offshore; and when the Republicans finally wake up most of the genie will be out of the bottle forever even if they repeal HIPAA.
So now they get the final piece of what they want. Instead of an unworkable act that would be repealed promptly due to its unworkability, they now get even more permission to export and mine personal medical information combined with a de facto packaging of that information into electronic records systems which are required to communicate using a standardized health information transfer protocol. A perfect setup for the government medical complex / Big Brother.
HIPAA needs to be completely repealed right now. Maybe the frustrating and idiotic parts will help assure its repeal sooner. People who are willing to fight and pay cash for medical care (which actually will only help if the physician is not a "covered entity" on HIPAA) in the name of privacy should not be advocating "sugar coating" of HIPAA to make it more palatable to either patients or the medical care community, because that will only permit HIPAA to become more firmly entrenched.
Tell me if you have home owners insurance do you allow the company to come in with a camera and take pictures of all your belongings and personal items as a term of coverage? Or would you say hey it's my privacy either except the risk and my money or go away? Privacy is privacy. Insurance by employer is part of EARNINGS or in LEU of WAGES FOR WORK PERFORMED. One way or another either through Higher Wages or by benefit this need will have to be addressed. So referring to the stockholders like they are some mistreated party paying for it is Hog Wash. A worker is worthy of pay. Services are provided by worker Bartering is done by employee & employer as to the terms of payment & benefits.
There are several reasonable issues to address. One is HMO and Insurance companies contract or sub contract their pharmaceutical coverage. Among the big names involved is Merck/Medco. So much for the promised privacy and the pharmaceutical companies not getting your info. As a sub contractor the info won't be sold but rather shared with them.
There's good reasons for medical insurance though. This is not the good old days. The good old days before MRI's and nuclear medicine and other treatment and diagnostic measures. A week in the hospital with prudent testing I think if paid out of pocket would wipe out about 90% of the posters in here lifesaving's then some. Catastrophic Illness Insurance will work to just a certain extent. It has to reach a very substantial amount to kick in. So in the mean time which do you do feed the family or pay the hospital?
Private Insurance can work. Medium sized companies {voluntarilly} not mandatory} can cut the expense on the share holders by becoming at least partially self insured. They should be encouraged to purchase such by tax breaks as well as self employed and others worker who pay private premiums. The payroll clerk or some one in the companies office oversees & writes the re-embursment checks to the employee. You need answers they give them. In event of catastrophic illness the company carries a separate policy to cover this so it doesn't wipe out the companies assets or effect profits.
The major fault right now in health care was done by congress itself when it created the HMO act. Up until that time market pressures kept private pay insurance in check. The insurance company diversifies a portion of their premiums into other investments. HMO's on the other hand are shell companies set up to ration out health care with little or no capitol or investments to cover their risk. All money above payout goes into CEO & management wages and shareholders while providers set by trying to work through the gauntlet of justifications and paper work the HMO's can dish out. Yes they will spend $15 in labor to deny payment for a $15 dollar procedure.
As well in HMO's you have so called medical directors playing ghost doctor second guessing your private care physician and diagnosing you without so much as ever seeing you in person. What is driving up health care? HMO's that's what.
My pharmacist has 6-8 persons doing what he and 2 others were doing just 10 years ago. The others are writing out paper work dotting I's crossing T's for the HMO looking for even the slightest hint of a very small clerical error to deny payment for as long as possible.
The doctor had to hire extra staff & take extra patients for the same reason. Yet you will see both parties cheering this on. The HMO & insurance industry is the most represented business in this nation. It as well enjoys having nearly two thirds of our laws & codes on the books written for the sole purpose of protecting their profit margins.
Somewhere in between these problems is answers all can live with. Number one rescind the HMO act. If they want business then they should be held to the standards of any other business. If they want to play doctor then they should be subject to malpractice if their decisions result in harm. Like I said before cap the liability either to a reasonable amount for damages or loss or if a life long damage they should be made to cover it. Why are HMO's being allowed better protection than a skilled surgeon who risk life, livelihood, and does the work at risk? Yes they are human and things happen either by act of GOD or the patient simply doesn't make it.
Too many doctors are sued over just this. Yet the same doctor can also say hey I think there is a likelihood of cancer I want such and such test done. Let me call your HMO and see about it. Well there's two kinds of test one is much less revealing of early stage cancer the other test can not only find in real early but during the testing can be removed. The doctor says I really feel better with a full test. The HMO says our medical director says do a partial. And partial it is. No cancer detected though medical warning signs indicated a possibility.
The same patient in two months shows up in the Emergency room with stage 4 cancer possibly curable but likely not. Now who do you think is responsible for this? The doctor who did the test? Not me! I would blame the HEY MOE'S Stooge medical director who did a diagnoses without seeing the patient and dictated the type procedure to be done. I think the patient is entitled to damages. Congress thinks otherwise. Now the person needs money, needs treatment, and has a family to support. Who is sueable? Who is going to be held accountable? In far too many cases the doctor who was right to begin with. The person who wanted to do what he knew was right.
Both parties need a good kick in the teeth for what they have done. Neither party could care less about you privacy, your rights, or even justice in a court of law.
BTW I'm not an ambulance chaser. I've know some one close to me who had just cause to ruin to doctors careers who needed ruining. One eventually killed a teenager through gross negliance. Neither were sued nor a settlement asked for. I'm sick and tired of paid off politicans giving away rights to corporate interest.
Yes, but they're part of salary packages. And most don't have the option of taking the money and using it to provide for ones own health care.
The HIPPA regs that Bush is trying to set aside was a major grab of your health info by the government and privacy was just a cover story to get wackos like you to go for it. Do a little research on the actual law and then come back rather than attack GW and reveal yourself to be the dork you are.
Actually, I have not only researched the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act at length, but I have written about it many times, both here on FreeRepublic and on Action America (see Tick-Tick-Tick - The Economy Bomb, among others). Here's a question for you. Who was it who sponsored HIPPA. Does the name Bill Archer ring a bell? We aren't talking about some fringe Republican here. And, what party were the cosponsors of that hideous legislation from? Here's a hint. The party name begins with the letter "R". And, which party overwhelmingly supported inclusion of Title V, Subtitle B of HIPPA (now 26 USC 877(a)(1)), that granted the US government the unprecedented right to tax FORMER CITIZENS for 10 YEARS after they have renounced their citizenship and taken citizenship in another country, but only if that ex-citizen was rich?
Dubya is not trying to repeal ALL of HIPPA. Check the facts. His only interest in HIPPA is in repealing certain parts of Title II of HIPPA. Not only has Dubya given no sign that he would like to repeal any part of Title V, his other actions and statements on capital flight issues places him firmly on the side of liberalism, by attempting to punish those who leave, rather than on the side of conservatism, by rewarding those who stay.
Adopting a purely liberal tone, Dubya said, "I think we ought to look at people who are trying to avoid US taxes as a problem" (GWB, AP 8/1/02), rather than acting conservatively and properly identifying punitive and intrusive US laws as the problem. He chose to abrogate his constitutional responsibility as the people's ELECTED representative, when he signed Campaign Finance Reform, leaving the fate of blocking that law to the least representative branch of government, the courts. He not only signed, but supported the USA (UN-)Patriot Act, which virtually gutted the 4th Amendment.
I applaud Dubya's token move to repeal a small portion of HIPPA. But, compared to the damage that he has done, it is just that - an insubstantial token to give his supporters something to point to and say, "See! See! I told you he was conservative! I told you!" He knows that as long as he throws a conservative bone to his supporters every few months, they will stay loyal to him, despite his significantly liberal actions.
Just a thought here. Instead of calling names, maybe you are the one who should be doing the research.