Chris_Balsz on August 12, 2009 at 2:35 PM

Wasn’t all that long ago the usual suspects were aghast, up in arms, frothing at the mouth, over “data-mining” by government, even when it was directed to key word research directed against the very real threat of terrorism and jihad across the globe.

“Data-mining” back then(just a few years ago) was merely looking for sparkle in the pan.

This…the all encompassing swath under Obamacare is the Comstock Lode.

And to make things worse, provision of all sorts of personal information, to include financial, is required for access and services and enrollment….mandatory.

Anyone old enough to remember the various civil service employees who took it upon themselves to seek and publish information on Joe the Plumber, may wish to give this little provision buried deep deep within the bill(s) a serious second thought.

Kill Obamacare. It will be one huge Pandora’s Box we will never be able to close.

But the purpose of the measure is to set up a standardized payment system between insurers and doctors’ offices, according to the House Ways and Means Committee report on the bill. It would require procedures to “enable the real-time (or near real-time) determination of an individual’s financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service,” and authorize electronic payments and require systems to be set up for “near real-time adjudication of claims,” the legislation states.

The Verdict: False. The provision cited doesn’t affect individuals, but companies involved in medical billing.

Now, let’s not let the fact that it isn’t TRUE stop us from wringing our hands about it, just like we’re all wringing our hands over the “death panels” that do not exist…

Pg 58 of the bill here makes it quite clear to all but liberal “factcheckers” that it indeed involves SOMEBODY doing a credit check on the PATIENT:

163 (2) (D) enable the real-time (or near real-time) determination of an individual’s financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility, which may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card; [emphasis added]

NOT whether an individual PHYSICIAN or the Company is liable.

Verdict: Socialist Propaganda.

If you don’t like the operation of the agency you must exhaust its internal selfmade rules on administrative relief before you can sue in federal court.

Remember the old IRS rule that you had to pay in full and then argue you hadn’t owed to begin with? That was lawful. It was a political decision to scrap it.

That’s apart from the fact that we won’t read a “final” version until the conference committee is done nipping and tucking and sending it to the President’s desk.

Any pol who says “euthanasia will not be allowed” without demanding explicit language to bar the Commission from creating regulations to impose cutoffs, is a despicable liar.

metric on August 12, 2009 at 11:16 AM

Let’s say you start a self-owned small business and this year you lose $15k.

Next year, 2010, you lose $20k.

The next, 2011, you lose $25k

The next, 2012, you lose $30k.

The next, 2013, $35k

The next, 2014, $40k.

The next, 2015, you lose $45k.

The next, 2016, you lose $40

The next, 2017, you lose $35k

The next, 2018, you break even.

The next, 2019, you actually have $20k in the black for that year, for the first time.

How much have you saved? How much have you lost?

Only government would view the ten year succession of losses followed by one year of breaking even and one year of actually having a surplus as a positive model.

In business, you’d have closed shop around the third year or so, if that long.

And, with this Obamacare we still do not have reliable figures as to projected real costs. The CBO may be erring to the side of caution on their estimates. We really do not know. No one in DC knows either.

Death by Free Market, A-OK!

bschmalfeldt on August 12, 2009 at 10:29 AM

In a competitive free market insurance companies that rip off their customers will not last long. People will move away from those companies towards ones that provide good service. Where do you go when your government is the one ripping you off?

Recently, congress passed a bill, called T.A.R.P, to bail out the financial sector.

It wasn’t but a few days, congress had to play grab-ass and shuffle to undo the bill, because it was found, that it was paying the wages of Millionaires.

This was just one bill.

And now, you want to pass a bill, containing thousands of regulations, without any debate, and have us believe, every one of these regulations are perfect?

Do you have any evidence that this will save money? CBO says not before 2019.

That is a total money question. Now if any of the congressmen would actually organize a town hall here in MN besides Mr Muslim.

There’s lots of choices in private industry – there’s only one government and they own the, laws, the judges, the guns.
My private insurance company isn’t forcing consultation about my end of life decisions with a government paid hack, who no doubt, will be reimbursed by the number of pills he disburses to someone’s timid guilt ridden granny.

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Patient Coverage? How is that not Death Panel.

This bill allows government to do what is not in its scope: determines who gets saved and who is left to die. How is this not a Death Panel?

Now where does this bill state what Government cannot do to you. No where does it state what Government must do for you.

…

coldwarrior on August 12, 2009 at 10:59 AM

I’m with you 100% coldwarrior. The entitlement mentality and class envy is human nature. It is the basest mode of operation. The people that subscribe to that mentality think they are sophisticated or intelligent when in reality they are operating a modicum above animal instinct. It is sad really.

Insurance not covering a treatment does not mean you cannot get that treatment. You can always pay out of pocket. You can always buy additional insurance. You can always switch providers. There are charity funds out there to help.

With Government Health Care you do not have a chance to get treatment if they do not let you have that treatment. There is an exclusivity clause, Government insurance is it. Once you are on Government insurance, you cannot go back, you cannot get out. It is like Organized Crime.

Moreover, this bill has no specific protections, no declaration of Patient Rights. Nowhere does it state you have a right to life saving treatment, no where does it state that a woman has a right to bring any pregnancy to term that she wants, no where does it state that Healthcare must be equal across the board.

This is not about healthcare. It is about Control.

daesleeper on August 12, 2009 at 10:51 AM

Face it, there are those who view free “anything” from government as their birthright. And there are those same people who are malevolently jealous of those who have accomplished great and not so great things in their lives by their own hard efforts.

I’m entering my sixth decade, and did not accomplish all those wonderful dreams of my youth, but, dammit, I still strive each day to make my life a bit better and for my kids, through my own efforts.

And I want no government taking that away from me…ever.

Would you please specify which article and section of the United States Constitution gives the Congress the right to forcibly interfere with my right to contract for my own health care and that of my family? Please cite the constitutional article.

To me, asking other questions ceeds that it is OK for the government to do this. Obviously it is not.

Makes me wonder where all this concern over privacy was when many of the same folks were in her lauding Bush’s warantless wiretaps and e-mail browsing…

bschmalfeldt on August 12, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Makes you wonder why Obama strengthened those wiretapping programs?

bschmalfeldt on August 12, 2009 at 10:29 AM

It is more fun when Dear Leader commands it, no?

CNN offers this “Fact Check”

The Statement: Twice during a Pennsylvania town hall meeting with Sen. Arlen Specter on Tuesday, constituents urged him to fight a provision of pending health care legislation that one woman said “gives the government access to private individual bank accounts at their free will.”

“I do not think the government has the right to do that,” she said. “I would think I would have to brush up on my Constitution, but I would think that’s unconstitutional. I know definitely it’s un-American.”

The Facts: The woman cited section 163 of the more than 1,000-page bill now before the House of Representatives. The section, titled “Standards for financial and administrative transactions,” calls on the government to set “comprehensive, efficient and robust” rules for electronic transactions with as little need for paperwork as possible. It’s being painted by opponents as a measure that would give the government access to bank accounts and records, and it’s one of the items on a list of allegations about the bill that has been widely circulated online.

But the purpose of the measure is to set up a standardized payment system between insurers and doctors’ offices, according to the House Ways and Means Committee report on the bill. It would require procedures to “enable the real-time (or near real-time) determination of an individual’s financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service,” and authorize electronic payments and require systems to be set up for “near real-time adjudication of claims,” the legislation states.

The Verdict: False. The provision cited doesn’t affect individuals, but companies involved in medical billing.

Now, let’s not let the fact that it isn’t TRUE stop us from wringing our hands about it, just like we’re all wringing our hands over the “death panels” that do not exist…

Bottom line… you don’t seem nearly as upset about insurance companies violating your rights as you are about the potential of government having access to some personal data…

Makes me wonder where all this concern over privacy was when many of the same folks were in her lauding Bush’s warantless wiretaps and e-mail browsing…

Death by Free Market, A-OK!