User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/22/2002 8:41:37 PM EDT
[#1]
And this should worry you.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2002 9:19:07 PM EDT
[#2]
And it does. The freedom or death voice in me despises the ease with which the majority of the folks out there will accept this without even a second thought.
In truth, though, all of these little victories by the side that opposes life no longer worry me. Let 'em win all the little shit. I still won't like each individual freedom squashing thing these folks do, but the truth is that the side of Freedom\Life\Spirit\God has already won this battle, so to that extent this stuff doesn't matter. Maybe that's just me, though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2002 9:32:09 PM EDT
[#3]
The article seems to imply that the proposal will allow insurance companies to place policy holders under close scrutiny without their consent in an attempt to find more ways to deny coverage and reimbursement. Is that what you are worried about? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2002 11:49:19 PM EDT
[#4]
This article seems to also imply that health plans will be allowed to investigate fraud without you throwing up roadblocks by refusing to let the providers release your records.
So you won't be allowed to keep the health plan from proving that when you signed up, saying that you were perfectly healthy, you actually lied, having been diagnosed just beforehand with a life-threatening illness. That could be a problem for some people, fortunately they're in the minority. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/23/2002 12:25:56 AM EDT
[#5]
If proposed by a democrat: intrusive and tyrannical.
If proposed by a republican: "reasonable" and "common sense". |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/23/2002 2:06:29 AM EDT
[#6]
The problem isn't with doctors disclosing information with others worried about your health.
The problem is with those who would disclose your health info with those who want to save a buck by making sure they don't have to pay for your ailment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/23/2002 2:09:56 AM EDT
[#7]
I hate the way it's done now.. but "written consent" for any disclosure is out of line. It should be (in my opinion),... open disclosure to all in the medical profession (who swore the oath)... and no disclosure without written or copied oral acceptance for everyone else.
Any problems with that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/23/2002 2:25:28 AM EDT
[#8]
I don't know the full implications of this change in policy, but I do know I am against anything that impowers HMOs to micro-manage the medical care I need to receive. I assume there is already full disclosure between health care providers and insurance companies, so I really don't know how this new policy changes things.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/23/2002 3:39:00 AM EDT
[#9]
Hey guys, don't believe the crap the media puts out.
A good part of my law practice is health care law. The regs Clinton made up were pure punishment for the medical community for not letting Hillary be supreme ruler of all medicine for life in America, and nothing else. The regs were written totally by Clinton appointees and railroaded through. They were written with pre-conditions on the medical and billing use of every bit of information at all. The Hospital couldn't get you advil from their own pharmacy or the ER couldn't send you to a bed without getting your permission in writing to disclose that data (most pharms and ERs are now staffed by contract corps) And there were tons of inter entity agreements, too. Just lots of crazy paperwork. And anyone in health care, even the family doc, was in the sights. Why? Cause a single violation of these insane regs meant that the certification of the provider that they were in compliance with all regs was not true. That means massive massive civil (fines), criminal penalties, exclusion from medicare (which in real life means 5 years no practicing medicine at all). Bush wants to change some of the crazier provisions. The media still wants to suck Bill and Hill off. Result? Headline: "Evil Bush wants to kill your childern and release their medical information freely" That's total bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/23/2002 6:40:24 AM EDT
[#10]
Hey, [b]grimshaw[/b], if you're so paranoid about HMO's getting to your medical records here's a simple solution...
Be the "independant" man you really claim to be. [b]Insure yourself.[/b] Don't sign up for any HMO/PPO/Insurance racket and you won't have to worry about their intrusiveness. [b]Pay your own damn bills![/b] What? You can't afford to pay your own medical bills? You want BCBS/Cigna to pay your bills? Then sit down, shut up, fill out the form, and do as they say! |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/23/2002 6:53:08 AM EDT
[#11]
I'll talk to my wife about this, she works on this stuff.
Health Insurance Accountability and Portability Act of 1996 (HIIPA)is the 800lb gorilla of health care privacy and security. It's a series of regulations that is going to cost the health care industry $11 billion to implement, and supposedly save $29. It's being implemented right and covers protection of private, personal information. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/23/2002 8:59:12 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: Hey, [b]grimshaw[/b], if you're so paranoid about HMO's getting to your medical records here's a simple solution... Be the "independant" man you really claim to be. [b]Insure yourself.[/b] Don't sign up for any HMO/PPO/Insurance racket and you won't have to worry about their intrusiveness. Frankly, Macallan I don't need your advice. I don't have any health insurance now, but thats none of your business. The post refers to hospital records, not insurance. Doctor confidential stuff that could be used in whatever way the government chooses. Its a loss of freedom. I think if I actually met you, you would not be quite as terrifying as your tone in your posts. I'm sure it would be my privilege to tell you to sit down and shut up. I'm sure you need to act big on the Internet because you are really a very small man with a bossy wife. [b]Pay your own damn bills![/b] What? You can't afford to pay your own medical bills? You want BCBS/Cigna to pay your bills? Then sit down, shut up, fill out the form, and do as they say! |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/23/2002 11:46:41 AM EDT
[#13]
Yet ANOTHER example of how Bush looks out for the corporate insurance and big business instead of US citizens.
If you're not for a database of gunowners how could you support a database in private and/or government hands of people who have cancer, AIDS, or other ailments. This could lead to more discrimination and denial of medical coverage. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2002/03/22/national1047EST0552.DTL (03-22) 09:17 PST WASHINGTON (AP) -- Doctors and hospitals could disclose private information about patients and provide medical services without prior consent under proposed Bush administration revisions to Clinton-era patient privacy rules. Privacy advocates protested that the administration is stripping out a core element of the privacy rules. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., promised hearings and legislation to reinstate the mandatory consent forms. "The administration has come down on the side of major health corporations at the expense of individuals," Kennedy charged Friday from the Senate floor. Years in the making, the privacy rules are scheduled to take effect in April 2003. They offer the first comprehensive federal protections for health privacy and apply to nearly every patient, doctor, hospital, insurance plan and pharmacy in the nation. The rules prohibit health care providers from disclosing patient information for reasons unrelated to health services and establish civil and criminal penalties for violators. They give patients the right to inspect and copy their records and to ask for corrections. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2002 11:02:04 AM EDT
[#14]
This isnt just about getting health coverage. An employers insurance company could say to them "hey, we'll give you better insurance rates if you gives us potential applicants names so we check their medical records and make sure they are acceptable." So if you have a predisposed medical problem you get hosed from getting a job. Also many states have inacted minors having rights to have medical records kept private, signed by a democratic president. Now a republican president wants to take away states rights. Does Bush know what party he is in or does he just want to bed big business? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2002 12:04:12 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: Now a republican president wants to take away states rights. Does Bush know what party he is in or does he just want to bed big business? Criticizing our savior is grounds for being reported a probable domestic terrorist to the Office of Homeland Defense. Let's roll. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
