NCAAbbs

hmmm. Is the honeymoon over? A CBS report................

August 26, 2009 8:26 PM
Democratic Health Care Bill Divulges IRS Tax Data
Posted by Declan McCullagh
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/26/...8079.shtml

One of the problems with any proposed law that's over 1,000 pages long and constantly changing is that much deviltry can lie in the details. Take the Democrats' proposal to rewrite health care policy, better known as H.R. 3200 or by opponents as "Obamacare." (Here's our CBS News television coverage.)

Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for "affordability credits."

Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details -- there's no specified limit on what's available or unavailable -- to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose, again, is to verify "affordability credits."

Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a "low-income prescription drug subsidy" but has not applied for it.

Over at the Institute for Policy Innovation (a free-market think tank and presumably no fan of Obamacare), Tom Giovanetti argues that: "How many thousands of federal employees will have access to your records? The privacy of your health records will be only as good as the most nosy, most dishonest and most malcontented federal employee.... So say good-bye to privacy from the federal government. It was fun while it lasted for 233 years."

I'm not as certain as Giovanetti that this represents privacy's Armageddon. (Though I do wonder where the usual suspects like the Electronic Privacy Information Center are. Presumably inserting limits on information that can be disclosed -- and adding strict penalties on misuse of the information kept on file about hundreds of millions of Americans -- is at least as important as fretting about Facebook's privacy policy in Canada.)

A better candidate for a future privacy crisis is the so-called stimulus bill enacted with limited debate early this year. It mandated the "utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014," but included only limited privacy protections.

It's true that if the legislative branch chooses to create "affordability credits," it probably makes sense to ensure they're not abused. The goal of curbing fraud runs up against the goal of preserving individual privacy.

If we're going to have such significant additional government intrusion into our health care system, we will have to draw the privacy line somewhere. Maybe the House Democrats' current bill gets it right. Maybe it doesn't. But this vignette should be reason to be skeptical of claims that a massive and complex bill must be enacted as rapidly as its backers would have you believe.

Update August 27 11 a.m: Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center says in e-mail: "We would oppose section 431(a) of the bill because it violates the intent of the Privacy Act which generally requires agencies to obtain information directly from individuals and not from other agencies." EPIC still hasn't updated their Web site to reflect this sentiment, but it's good to know that other folks have concerns too.

Wow, the government is going to tell the government information that I've provided to the government. I am so scared.

then I'm certain you'll be happy the government has access to all your banking info., also.
yeah, it's in HR3200.
WOW. I guess there really isn't a right to privacy within our Constitution.

There is nothing in the bill about the government having access to all of your banking information. It authorizes automatic bank drafts for payment of premiums.

so, you STILL haven't read the bill (HR3200).
who am I to believe, you or my lying eyes?

I've read the section that supposedly gives the government access to your banking information and it doesn't, it allows the government to setup automatic bank drafts--with your permission--to pay premiums, and nothing more. Alabama Power can already do it, and I trust the government more than I trust Alabama Power.

you better keep reading. HR3200 allows access to all banking info.
I find it quite amusing someone who hasn't read the bill can tell me what's NOT in HR3200.

Quote:I trust the government more than I trust Alabama Power.

You can sue Alabama Power, you can't sue the government. I don't trust this administration one bit simply because I am a moderately successful citizen.

(08-27-2009 09:22 PM)oldblazer79 Wrote: [ -> ]
you better keep reading. HR3200 allows access to all banking info.
I find it quite amusing someone who hasn't read the bill can tell me what's NOT in HR3200.

Tell me which section of the bill says the government has unfettered access to all of your banking records. Have you read the entire bill? I doubt it. I will admit I have not read every page, but the 'controversial' parts I've read, and if you have a modicum of reading comprehension skills you would understand that it's not nearly as bad as Glenn Beck wants you to believe.

(08-27-2009 09:29 PM)STLouis Blazer Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:I trust the government more than I trust Alabama Power.

You can sue Alabama Power, you can't sue the government. I don't trust this administration one bit simply because I am a moderately successful citizen.

Actually, no you can't. You can't sue almost every company you deal with because of binding arbitration agreements. Might as well not bother because mediators rule for the companies over 90% of the time.

(08-27-2009 10:17 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-27-2009 09:22 PM)oldblazer79 Wrote: [ -> ]
you better keep reading. HR3200 allows access to all banking info.
I find it quite amusing someone who hasn't read the bill can tell me what's NOT in HR3200.

Tell me which section of the bill says the government has unfettered access to all of your banking records. Have you read the entire bill? I doubt it. I will admit I have not read every page, but the 'controversial' parts I've read, and if you have a modicum of reading comprehension skills you would understand that it's not nearly as bad as Glenn Beck wants you to believe.

doubt away. but, you'd be wrong once again.
Since you HAVEN'T read HR3200 or Public Law 111-5, you can't possibly tell me what IS or ISN'T in either.
I HAVE read both. I don't need anyone to tell me what is or isn't in either. I like it that way.
Once again, I'll suggest you read both before commenting. Knowledge is good.
How much do you listen to/watch Glenn Beck? You must watch/listen regularly to know so much about what he says.
Or,
are you just parroting what other radical lefties say Glenn says?
I'm choosing the second, since you've proven you're pretty good with the other radical left talking points.

(08-27-2009 10:17 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-27-2009 09:22 PM)oldblazer79 Wrote: [ -> ]
you better keep reading. HR3200 allows access to all banking info.
I find it quite amusing someone who hasn't read the bill can tell me what's NOT in HR3200.

Tell me which section of the bill says the government has unfettered access to all of your banking records. Have you read the entire bill? I doubt it. I will admit I have not read every page, but the 'controversial' parts I've read, and if you have a modicum of reading comprehension skills you would understand that it's not nearly as bad as Glenn Beck wants you to believe.

MUT,
As has been suggested before, READ ALL OF HR3200 AND PUBLIC LAW 111-5, and, do a little reading comprehension and critical thinking of your own (not the typical liberal cliches and talking points on healthcare) BEFORE trying to say what actually is or is not in either the proposed bill or public law. As the great Abraham Lincoln said, "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt."

Please read the entire bill and Public Law 111-5, as the former makes many references to the latter, AND the former has many references within itself to other parts of itself that must all be read in order to actually understand it all. Lincoln also said something else that I hold dear: "I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crises. The great point is to bring them the real facts."
Until you have read both HR3200 and PL 111-5 in their entirety, you cannot bring real facts to this discussion.

Out of curiousity, if one's tax information is used for dealing with health care, as soon as that happens, would it not be covered under the HIPAA privacy rule?

"The HIPAA Privacy Rule establishes national standards to protect individuals’ medical records and other personal health information and applies to health plans, health care clearinghouses, and those health care providers that conduct certain health care transactions electronically. The Rule requires appropriate safeguards to protect the privacy of personal health information, and sets limits and conditions on the uses and disclosures that may be made of such information without patient authorization. The Rule also gives patients rights over their health information, including rights to examine and obtain a copy of their health records, and to request corrections.

The Privacy Rule is located at 45 CFR Part 160 and Subparts A and E of Part 164." - US Dept. of Health and Human Service website.

The way the bill currently reads, tax information used to generate any health information would probably be covered under HIPAA; to use personal tax data to determine anything health care related would violate the HIPAA law, as this health care bill is written.

Thoughts?

(08-27-2009 10:19 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-27-2009 09:29 PM)STLouis Blazer Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:I trust the government more than I trust Alabama Power.

You can sue Alabama Power, you can't sue the government. I don't trust this administration one bit simply because I am a moderately successful citizen.

Actually, no you can't. You can't sue almost every company you deal with because of binding arbitration agreements. Might as well not bother because mediators rule for the companies over 90% of the time.

You are only going to go to arbitration with companies you sign a contract with that includes an arbitration clause. How many of those have you signed recently? About the only company you will not be able to sue is the one you bought your vehicle from. And do you want to tell me where you got that 90% from?