Healthcare Reform; No financial privacy?

[Potemkin]

http://article.nationalreview.com/pr...ZkZTMwN2YzNTg=

Turning Uncle Sam into Peeping Tom
Another target of Obamacare: Americans’ right to financial privacy.

By Diana Furchtgott-Roth

Buried in the 1,017 pages of the House Democrats’ health-care bill is a little-noticed provision that for the first time could give the government access to the checking or credit-card information of every American. Under section 163, which is entitled “Administrative Simplification,” the bill sets new “standards” for electronic transactions between individuals and their health-care providers.

According to section 163, the standards will “enable the real-time (or near real-time) determination of an individual’s financial responsibility at the point of service . . . ” In addition, they will “enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with related health care payment and remittance advice.”

What is envisioned is a “machine-readable health plan beneficiary card” that, in addition to information about a person’s medical history, will contain checking-account or credit-card information, so as to allow electronic payments and, if a person is lucky, occasional remittances. Since under the proposed legislation everyone would be required to have health insurance, all Americans would have to provide this information.

The required collection of such data is unprecedented. At no other time has the government sought to collect this type of financial information from everyone in America.

True, the federal government has records of the checking accounts of its employees for direct deposit of salaries. But that is linked solely to employment. And yes, the Internal Revenue Service has checking-account information for those Americans who are due tax refunds and who have requested direct deposit of the refunds into their bank accounts. This, however, is strictly voluntary. Those who want to receive paper checks in the mail and take them to their banks are free to do so.

The idea of wholesale collection of checking-account information by Uncle Sam raises many questions. Who would see it? How would people be protected from theft of their account numbers? Fundamentally, who would control this sensitive information?

The answer to that last question is that it would not be the person who should control it: the individual to whom it belongs. Although section 163 has a clause that reads “Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the use of information collected under this section in a manner that would adversely affect any individual,” there are news stories all too frequently of government data being lost or misused.

Just this week Kevin Young, a State Department career employee, pleaded guilty to illegally accessing more than 125 passport applications for celebrities, professional athletes, and a politician. He was the fifth employee to plead guilty. And last January the Department of Veterans Affairs paid current and retired military personnel $20 million because a laptop with their personal data was temporarily lost in 2006.

There is no reason why the government, a health-care provider, or an insurance company needs immediate electronic payment for any medical service. Such services are no different from many others. Charges for goods and services can be paid at the time of service with cash, a check, or a credit card — think grocery stores, barbershops, department stores. Or the provider of the service may send a bill — think utility companies and mortgage holders. When people pay bills through direct withdrawal from a bank account, they have chosen to do it this way, with other options available.

Many people who reveal intimate details of their social lives are scrupulous in guarding information about their earnings and bank accounts. These matters are considered more personal than whom you went to dinner with last night and what you did afterwards.

With section 163 of the House health-care bill, information we keep from our closest friends would be open to government snoopers. We would not know which bureaucrats were looking into our checking or credit-card accounts, or what they intended to do with that information.

In America financial data are still private, and they should stay that way.

[Potemkin]

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...=f:h3200ih.pdf


Sec. 163 (p.58)

5 ‘‘(D) enable the real-time (or near real
6 time) determination of an individual’s financial
7 responsibility at the point of service and, to the
8 extent possible, prior to service, including
9 whether the individual is eligible for a specific
10 service with a specific physician at a specific fa
11 cility, which may include utilization of a ma
12 chine-readable health plan beneficiary identi
13 fication card;

[Glockd]

Dave??? Individual Freedom, Trouncing the Constitution, Trampling on Rights. Anything, Anything?

[Lars]

Originally Posted by Potemkin

http://article.nationalreview.com/pr...ZkZTMwN2YzNTg=

Buried in the 1,017 pages of the House Democrats’ health-care bill is a little-noticed provision that for the first time could give the government access to the checking or credit-card information of every American. Under section 163, which is entitled “Administrative Simplification,” the bill sets new “standards” for electronic transactions between individuals and their health-care providers.

In America financial data are still private, and they should stay that way.

Even worse than nasty surprises like this will be the hundreds of gobbledy-gook clauses that must be litigated to derive a legal meaning

[spinnerholic]

Even worse than nasty surprises like this will be the hundreds of gobbledy-gook clauses that must be litigated to derive a legal meaning

Yeah. Gotta write these bills in all that convoluted language so lawyers can make big bucks taking this stuff to court.

Why not write the bills in plain language, you know, like our house and car insurance is now.

[CanadaSue]

The most polite response I can come up with to this is:

GET STUFFED!!!

Every other answer I have is so laced with invective, Hefner would blush. Hell, Larry Flint would have too.

Oh yeah, anybody else catch this?

***so as to allow electronic payments and, if a person is lucky, occasional remittances.***

Anyway, as a health care insurance beneficiary, if I want an electronic fund transfer between moi & my provider - I'll arrange it with them.

Govt. can piss off.

[Mama Alanna]

Originally Posted by spinnerholic

Yeah. Gotta write these bills in all that convoluted language so lawyers can make big bucks taking this stuff to court.

Why not write the bills in plain language, you know, like our house and car insurance is now.

When lawyers make the laws, you get laws that can only be understood by lawyers. It keeps them in business.

[Fiddlerdave]

Originally Posted by Glockd

Dave??? Individual Freedom, Trouncing the Constitution, Trampling on Rights. Anything, Anything?

FIrst, I will note the irony of these privacy concerns appearing under a thread about the TSA's new requirement for DOB, and further identification specifics in order to fly. Identity theft heaven opens up as we provide this info along with credit card numbers, PINS, and the secret code on the back to airline and travel agent clerks. Not a peep.

Anyway, look at Potemkin's post of the details. In medical insurance, "Determination of a person's financial responsibility" means seeing if you are covered by active paid-up insurance! Its NOT some massive exploration of your financial holdings and status. This is exactly what happens now when you check into a hospital or doctor's office - they want to see who's responsible for paying, which may determine how they will bill you, or what procedures are covered to what extent (does your Basic or possibly Premium policy pay for inpatient stays or only outpatient, etc.)

No one is going to have your financial information EXCEPT for a SINGLE account you will link to your card, so you can pay a premium bill or a deductible by putting the money in that account and approving the payment, or get a refund back. This will COMPLETELY eliminate the separate billing systems and personnel required to handle, particularly, minor billings or collect premiums. EVERYTHING, your medical records locations, premium payments, doctors, current medical conditions, $20 copays, pharmacy verification for buying drugs and ALL your drug information so a Pharmacist can immediately know (and be warned by oversight software) about interactions with your other drugs or health history, alergies etc. (This will save ENORMOUS numbers of deaths, and hospitalizations each year, 100,000 PLUS).

Diana Roth's COMPLETELY FATUITOUS extension of this card into some kind of financial oversight and data collection system is UTTERLY BASELESS AND BS, unprovided for in any part of the legislation, and is conceptually ridiculous.

Is attaching a SINGLE CHECKING ACCOUNT or A CREDIT CARD allowing the government to "take over your finances"? Geez, do what I would do and simply set up the next free checking account offer as a"medical money checking account" and tie it to the card ( I do that with any direct debit situation), which is simply going to be how you pay the premiums if you take the government option, I am sure lots of providers will take cash, credit or whatever. I wouldn't be surprised if this card ITSELF ended up as one of those money cards where you can take cash off or put it on at an ATM, but you could get a CASH CARD and link it, for pity's sake. This hysteria is astounding!

You do the this same kind of thing with your Health Savings Account and report it to the IRS.

Originally Posted by CS

Anyway, as a health care insurance beneficiary, if I want an electronic fund transfer between moi & my provider - I'll arrange it with them.

And many will say they will only take the card because it saves them paying for billing ssytems and personnel. I am sure they will be plenty of providers, though, who will take payment from patients in many forms, but they will probably charge more because it costs them more. You arrange it by approving the transaction, like everything else. Of course,none of this is mentioned in the actual details Potemkin posted.

The idea that this allows the government into your personal fortune is a bunch of BS. Note Ms. Roth made an enormous leap based on complete illogic to come up with her conclusion, from "having A checking account or CC attached" to "the government has never sought to collect this amount of data". WHAT THE HELL DOES HAVING TO PUT YOUR SSN ON EVERY ACCOUNT YOU HAVE MEAN THEY DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO ALL YOUR FINANCIAL DATA? In no way does it do that. Sticking a credit card or Cash Card number on your ID in NO WAY does what she describes.