ObamaCare to undermine financial, home privacy?

posted at 12:55 pm on August 21, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Will ObamaCare force Americans to reveal their banking data?  At National Review, Diana Furchtgott-Roth points out an interesting section of HR3200 dealing with health-care identity cards and what data will be required for them.  In Section 163, HR3200 envisions a national health-service card that handles electronic transactions for financial responsibility, including apparently patient-responsible payments:

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.

My reading of Section 163 is somewhat more ambiguous than NR’s.  Here is the complete text of the section:

SEC. 163. ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLIFICATION.

2
(1) IN GENERAL- Part C of title XI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 1173 the following new section:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(a) Standardizing Electronic Administrative Transactions-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘SEC. 1173A. STANDARDIZE ELECTRONIC ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSACTIONS.
‘(a) Standards for Financial and Administrative Transactions-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

1
‘(A) be unique with no conflicting or redundant standards;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(B) be authoritative, permitting no additions or constraints for electronic transactions, including companion guides;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(C) be comprehensive, efficient and robust, requiring minimal augmentation by paper transactions or clarification by further communications;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

25
‘(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;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

1
‘(E) enable, where feasible, near real-time adjudication of claims;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

1
‘(F) provide for timely acknowledgment, response, and status reporting applicable to any electronic transaction deemed appropriate by the Secretary;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

2
‘(G) describe all data elements (such as reason and remark codes) in unambiguous terms, not permit optional fields, require that data elements be either required or conditioned upon set values in other fields, and prohibit additional conditions; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

2
‘(H) harmonize all common data elements across administrative and clinical transaction standards.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

1
‘(A) clarify, refine, complete, and expand, as needed, the standards required under section 1173;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

1
‘(B) require paper versions of standardized transactions to comply with the same standards as to data content such that a fully compliant, equivalent electronic transaction can be populated from the data from a paper version;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

11
‘(C) enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

1
‘(D) require timely and transparent claim and denial management processes, including tracking, adjudication, and appeal processing;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

2
‘(E) require the use of a standard electronic transaction with which health care providers may quickly and efficiently enroll with a health plan to conduct the other electronic transactions provided for in this part; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

1
‘(F) provide for other requirements relating to administrative simplification as identified by the Secretary, in consultation with stakeholders.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(A) a process and timeframe with milestones for developing the complete set of standards;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(B) an expedited upgrade program for continually developing and approving additions and modifications to the standards as often as annually to improve their quality and extend their functionality to meet evolving requirements in health care;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(C) programs to provide incentives for, and ease the burden of, implementation for certain health care providers, with special consideration given to such providers serving rural or underserved areas and ensure coordination with standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria being adopted under the HITECH Act;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(D) programs to provide incentives for, and ease the burden of, health care providers who volunteer to participate in the process of setting standards for electronic transactions;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(E) an estimate of total funds needed to ensure timely completion of the implementation plan; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(F) an enforcement process that includes timely investigation of complaints, random audits to ensure compliance, civil monetary and programmatic penalties for non-compliance consistent with existing laws and regulations, and a fair and reasonable appeals process building off of enforcement provisions under this part.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall adopt and regularly update standards consistent with the goals described in paragraph (2).CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(2) GOALS FOR FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSACTIONS- The goals for standards under paragraph (1) are that such standards shall–CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

1
‘(3) TIME FOR ADOPTION- Not later than 2 years after the date of implementation of the X12 Version 5010 transaction standards implemented under this part, the Secretary shall adopt standards under this section.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(4) REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC STANDARDS- The standards under this section shall be developed, adopted and enforced so as to–CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

1
‘(5) BUILDING ON EXISTING STANDARDS- In developing the standards under this section, the Secretary shall build upon existing and planned standards.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

3
‘(6) IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT- Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a plan for the implementation and enforcement, by not later than 5 years after such date of enactment, of the standards under this section. Such plan shall include–CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

2
‘(b) Limitations on Use of Data- 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.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(c) Protection of Data- The Secretary shall ensure (through the promulgation of regulations or otherwise) that all data collected pursuant to subsection (a) are–CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(A) in paragraph (7), by striking ‘with reference to’ and all that follows and inserting ‘with reference to a transaction or data element of health information in section 1173 means implementation specifications, certification criteria, operating rules, messaging formats, codes, and code sets adopted or established by the Secretary for the electronic exchange and use of information’; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(A) Requirements for data content using available and established national standards.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(B) Infrastructure requirements that establish best practices for streamlining data flow to yield timely execution of transactions.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(C) Policies defining the transaction related rights and responsibilities for entities that are transmitting or receiving data.’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(A) by inserting ‘on behalf of an individual’ after ‘1978)’; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(B) by inserting ‘on behalf of an individual’ after ‘for a financial institution.’CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(1) used and disclosed in a manner that meets the HIPAA privacy and security law (as defined in section 3009(a)(2) of the Public Health Service Act), including any privacy or security standard adopted under section 3004 of such Act; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

1
‘(2) protected from all inappropriate internal use by any entity that collects, stores, or receives the data, including use of such data in determinations of eligibility (or continued eligibility) in health plans, and from other inappropriate uses, as defined by the Secretary.’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

1
(2) DEFINITIONS- Section 1171 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d) is amended–CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(9) OPERATING RULES- The term ‘operating rules’ means business rules for using and processing transactions. Operating rules should address the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(3) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 1179(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d-8(a)) is amended, in the matter before paragraph (1)–CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(b) Standards for Claims Attachments and Coordination of Benefits -CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

1
(1) STANDARD FOR HEALTH CLAIMS ATTACHMENTS- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall promulgate a final rule to establish a standard for health claims attachment transaction described in section 1173(a)(2)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d-2(a)(2)(B)) and coordination of benefits.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(2) REVISION IN PROCESSING PAYMENT TRANSACTIONS BY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(A) IN GENERAL- Section 1179 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d-8) is amended, in the matter before paragraph (1)–CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(i) by striking ‘or is engaged’ and inserting ‘and is engaged’; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(ii) by inserting ‘(other than as a business associate for a covered entity)’ after ‘for a financial institution’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

1
(B) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by paragraph (1) shall apply to transactions occurring on or after such date (not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act) as the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall specify.

This pertains more to being prepared for electronic transactions rather than requiring them, at least as far as the patient-provider transaction is concerned.  The point salient to the “individual” have to do with eligibility rather than payment, which already happens, especially in Medicare.  In fact, one of our providers has recently gotten very particular about calling for verification on every visit.  Section 1173A (4) covers payments and remittances, but only as regards to providers, not patients, and electronic payments and remittances from the insurers to the providers, at least as far as my reading goes.

This section does note that the establishment of electronic verification may include a machine-readable identity/insurance card, but it doesn’t mandate it.  The verification process is more on the backs of providers and insurers, not on the patient.  Some plans already have such cards, although most don’t.  The last two insurers I’ve had use simple plastic with text, and my wife’s Medicare Advantage plan uses a laminated paper card.

The same is true about the issue of home visitations.  People have construed Section 440 as mandating home visitations for implementing wellness programs aimed at children, but they’re missing a key word here:

SEC. 440. HOME VISITATION PROGRAMS FOR FAMILIES WITH YOUNG CHILDREN AND FAMILIES EXPECTING CHILDREN.
‘(a) Purpose- The purpose of this section is to improve the well-being, health, and development of children by enabling the establishment and expansion of high quality programs providing voluntary home visitation for families with young children and families expecting children.

That word, of course, is voluntary.  This section provides more funding in the form of block grants to existing state programs that already provide home visitation for families who are unable to get regular clinic visits for financial or other reasons.  It doesn’t provide any new federal mandate for such programs, although it does require states to prove the effectiveness of the programs they fund with the block grants.

There is a legitimate argument to make that any government program that is voluntary can be made compulsory at some time, especially once government becomes completely responsible for our health care.  That’s one good reason to oppose ObamaCare, among many, and certainly these sections make for good “what-ifs” along those lines.  As currently constructed, though, the evidence doesn’t support the conjecture for the specific arguments above.

We have plenty of good arguments against HR3200, especially on cost, government intrusiveness, efficiency, and much more.  Let’s not get too lost in the weaker arguments.

Update: Sorry about the formatting; the OpenCongress site isn’t terribly conducive to cut & paste.  Mea culpa.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

INcome and property taxes have already have undermined financial & home privacy. It’s just pile one time!!!

WashJeff on August 21, 2009 at 12:58 PM

Another garbage piece. EPIC FAIL. try again next time

liberal4eva on August 21, 2009 at 12:58 PM

No need for a question mark on the headline, really.

The Dean on August 21, 2009 at 12:59 PM

The formatting is messed up.

dmnari on August 21, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Old news, but well worth repeating.

Skywise on August 21, 2009 at 12:59 PM

They bark up the wrong tree and they have the nerve to complain about Palin?

promachus on August 21, 2009 at 12:59 PM

This post is all over my screen. Anyway to clean it up?

fbcmusicman on August 21, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Another garbage piece. EPIC FAIL. try again next time

liberal4eva on August 21, 2009 at 12:58 PM

I don’t think you read Ed’s post.

BadgerHawk on August 21, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Don’t forget that any ambiguity can be exploited in the regulations that implement the statute. This is in fact more scary than you seem to believe. Regs will be written by executive agency. Truly scary stuff!

jwp1964 on August 21, 2009 at 1:00 PM

SEC. 440. HOME VISITATION PROGRAMS FOR FAMILIES WITH YOUNG CHILDREN AND FAMILIES EXPECTING CHILDREN.

‘(a) Purpose- The purpose of this section is to improve the well-being, health, and development of children by enabling the establishment and expansion of high quality programs providing voluntary home visitation for families with young children and families expecting children.

Oh, hellllllll no.

Yeah, “voluntary.” How long will that last, I wonder, if we’re all in the system?

I was already freaked over the medical records being moved online, but the bank info and home visits are a no go for me.

Mommypundit on August 21, 2009 at 1:01 PM

Huge Constitutional issues with this. The “penumbra of rights” is going to come back to haunt them.

elduende on August 21, 2009 at 1:01 PM

“Home Visitation Programs” sounds like the “Sin-Bin” program in the UK where they are putting CCTV cameras in 20,000 homes of the “Worst” kids to insure that kids eat the right meals and are doing their homework.

PatriotRider on August 21, 2009 at 1:01 PM

I saw this myself in the bill already. But this is definitly worth repeating.

If this passes, I will simply open a garbage bank account and give them that account. Just keep the bare minimum amount of money in it and never use it.

jeffn21 on August 21, 2009 at 1:02 PM

I don’t think you read Ed’s post.

BadgerHawk on August 21, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Yeah and I can see the spittle coming out of their keyboard.

kahall on August 21, 2009 at 1:02 PM

This seems like as good a place to bring this up as any. If I’m not mistaken, wasn’t Roe V Wade decided on the basis as some sort of right to privacy, and that the government can’t invade that privacy between a woman and her doctor?

If that’s the case, then will all these mandates found in this bill that have government accessing medical records, and advising on what treatments may or may not be acceptable eventually be found to be unconsistitutional on the same basis as RvW?

I’m no lawyer, and don’t even pretend to know the intricasies of these things, but I think it would be absolutely hilarious if the hard line liberal issue is what could derail the hard-line liberal goals.

JamesLee on August 21, 2009 at 1:02 PM

This is going to be difficult to administer for illegal aliens, who rarely have the required documentation. I assume there will be a work-around.

Vashta.Nerada on August 21, 2009 at 1:02 PM

Another garbage piece. EPIC FAIL. try again next time
liberal4eva on August 21, 2009 at 12:58 PM

You were a lot more fun when you posted under “nice343″ or “money2″.

Bishop on August 21, 2009 at 1:02 PM

Another garbage piece. EPIC FAIL. try again next time

liberal4eva on August 21, 2009 at 12:58 PM

i think for once, commendably, ed was debunking false rumors, or attempting to.

sesquipedalian on August 21, 2009 at 1:03 PM

I’m Another garbage piece of troll. I’m an EPIC FAIL. I’ll try again next time

liberal4eva on August 21, 2009 at 12:58 PM

That’s much better.

Knucklehead on August 21, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Oh, hellllllll no.

Yeah, “voluntary.” How long will that last, I wonder, if we’re all in the system?

I was already freaked over the medical records being moved online, but the bank info and home visits are a no go for me.

Mommypundit on August 21, 2009 at 1:01 PM

I will not allow someone in my house from this program. I will crack the door and tell them “say what you need to and get off my lawn or I will go get my gun”.

jeffn21 on August 21, 2009 at 1:03 PM

” In addition, they will “enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with related health care payment and remittance advice.”

Whoa… whoa…hold on there…

I was told Obamacare would be FREE!!!!

katy on August 21, 2009 at 1:04 PM

So in an Obama America the Stasi will be able to come up to me and ask, “may I see your papers?”.

Tommy_G on August 21, 2009 at 1:04 PM

Another garbage piece. EPIC FAIL. try again next time

liberal4eva on August 21, 2009 at 12:58 PM

did you write hr 3200? you have so much faith in it, or are you just a worthless troll with nothing better to do but annoy people…..

SHARPTOOTH on August 21, 2009 at 1:04 PM

“Voluntary” –yeah, right. Anti-homeschooling Trojan Horse.

Beaglemom on August 21, 2009 at 1:04 PM

Shorter liberal4eva: “U R stoopid! Obama rulz!”

MODuh on August 21, 2009 at 1:05 PM

Let’s face it, HR3200 is an abortion. It contains all the pent up and regurgitated wishes of the far left in relation to their ‘vision’ of what health care should be. The whole mess deserves to be thrown into the nearest toxic landfill. ALONG WITH THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE IT!

GarandFan on August 21, 2009 at 1:06 PM

DO NOT TREAD ON ME

There should be a good old 10 million 100 million Mob, UnAmerican, Racist , Tea Party , person Town Hall march on D.C.

USMCDevilDog on August 21, 2009 at 1:07 PM

With the actual segment of HR 3200 posted here, will this still be considered “bearing false witness?”

Dr.Gills on August 21, 2009 at 1:07 PM

Another garbage piece. EPIC FAIL. try again next time
liberal4eva on August 21, 2009 at 12:58 PM

Such withering critiques.

How can Ed ever counter the sheer depth and breadth of this expert rebuttal?

Lily on August 21, 2009 at 1:07 PM

Ed – why so dismissive of the extreme interpretation of this crap bill?

gatorboy on August 21, 2009 at 1:08 PM

We need to read this Bill b/c our pinhead representatives are not! Obviously our representatives are no longer working in our interest!

BigMike252 on August 21, 2009 at 1:08 PM

I will not allow someone in my house from this program. I will crack the door and tell them “say what you need to and get off my lawn or I will go get my gun”.

jeffn21 on August 21, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Then I will run out in the lawn with my nerf machine gun, shooting at june bugs, yelling crazy tin foil hat stuff. They check the box marked crazy as hell and I get my disability check. Hey, this could work out.

kahall on August 21, 2009 at 1:08 PM

late to the game Ed. I pointed this out weeks ago.

mike volpe on August 21, 2009 at 1:08 PM

So what keeps an enterprising fella from keeping a $100 checking account? It is the same thing I do with my on-line card. Anyone steals that card number might be able order a box of M&Ms.

Limerick on August 21, 2009 at 1:08 PM

the home visitation stuff misses the point.

ObamaCare will be spending lots of money on home visits, marriage counseling, wellness programs and therefore Less money on the old/sick people

Transfer of healthcare from the old/sick to the young healthy.

People are very stupid if they can’t see this.

r keller on August 21, 2009 at 1:09 PM

This provision scares me nearly as much as the fact that the IRS is keeping tabs on your work so as to be able to tax you for any portion of the year you aren’t covered by a healthplan.

highhopes on August 21, 2009 at 1:09 PM

“Voluntary” –yeah, right. Anti-homeschooling Trojan Horse.

Beaglemom on August 21, 2009 at 1:04 PM

Good point.

The Dean on August 21, 2009 at 1:09 PM

What the frick!!!! Our federal goverment can produce health-care identity cards that are machine readable, but CANNOT implement voter ID procedures for federal elections.

WashJeff on August 21, 2009 at 1:09 PM

Another garbage piece. EPIC FAIL. try again next time

getalife-4eva on August 21, 2009 at 12:58 PM

Read the bill.

Del Dolemonte on August 21, 2009 at 1:10 PM

There are existing laws (the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) that make health-related data confidential in the US.

This looks to be no different than the information you give when you get a debit card or allow Paypal to have transactions with your checking account.

Jimbo3 on August 21, 2009 at 1:10 PM

That word, of course, is voluntary. This section provides more funding in the form of block grants to existing state programs that already provide home visitation for families who are unable to get regular clinic visits for financial or other reasons. It doesn’t provide any new federal mandate for such programs, although it does require states to prove the effectiveness of the programs they fund with the block

If it’s voluntary that means services will/could be withheld if one chooses not to participate.
With Obama you have to think the unthinkable.
Ed, as usual, you are more than generous with Obama and I do not for the life of me understand why.

The evidence to support complete suspicion in every area is overwhelming.

katy on August 21, 2009 at 1:10 PM

There is a legitimate argument to make that any government program that is voluntary can be made compulsory at some time, especially once government becomes completely responsible for our health care.

There’s a LOT of voluntary programs here. Used or unused, all these “voluntary” services COST MONEY!!!!! How on earth are all these new programs and bureaucracys saving cost?

NickelAndDime on August 21, 2009 at 1:11 PM

Great….no reason to prove your a Citzen of this country to get ObamaCare but I have to give my banking information…..

How many days until this clown is gone?

SDarchitect on August 21, 2009 at 1:12 PM

i think for once, commendably, ed was debunking false rumors, or attempting to.

sesquipedalian on August 21, 2009 at 1:03 PM

As opposed to the true rumors?

BuckeyeSam on August 21, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Breaking just now:

Hoyer: Public option may have to go

I won’t pretend I’m not enjoying the holy living hell out of this. ;)

Kent18 on August 21, 2009 at 1:13 PM

What the frick!!!! Our federal goverment can produce health-care identity cards that are machine readable, but CANNOT implement voter ID procedures for federal elections.

WashJeff on August 21, 2009 at 1:09 PM

Um, one card is racist and one card is helpful and caring. Kind of like the red pill, blue pill thing.

myrenovations on August 21, 2009 at 1:13 PM

“Patient responsible payments?!?!?” I thought this health care thingy was going to be FREE!!!

Spectreman on August 21, 2009 at 1:14 PM

Another garbage piece. EPIC FAIL. try again next time

liberal4eva343 on August 21, 2009 at 12:58 PM

portlandon on August 21, 2009 at 1:14 PM

I don’t like the sounds of this at all.

I also was made aware today of this possibility:
SEC. 2521. NATIONAL MEDICAL DEVICE REGISTRY. concerning the implantation of class II devices. Anyone know anything about this?

fbcmusicman on August 21, 2009 at 1:14 PM

When you read that crap and realize that it encompasses such a small portion of the bill, you have to wonder what kind of twisted bureaucratic mind wrote that stuff.

Lawyers craft documents so that they can be interpreted to mean anything that they want them to mean. Then, a liberal Federal judge can decide the issue.

The snake oil salesman in chief will never be able to talk his way around this issue. His numbers shrink every day. Just because many people were blind enough to elect him doesn’t mean that the vast majority of Americans are as dumb as liberals.

orlandocajun on August 21, 2009 at 1:14 PM

The IRS is the enforcement arm for the Health Care bill. They will not only have all of our financial information but they will have all of our health records to cross reference. I do not trust our government with this information.

d1carter on August 21, 2009 at 1:15 PM

How about the Fed stop block grants and let the states fend for themselves. It’s absurd to take money from a state’s citizens, launder it through the DC bureaucracy, and send it back to the states with strings attached. If the government Constitutionally weren’t upside down we’d pay higher state income taxes than federal income taxes. It’s time for states to protest at being blackmailed with the money taken from their own residents.

DerKrieger on August 21, 2009 at 1:15 PM

That’s much better.

Knucklehead on August 21, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Excellent! :-D

ladyingray on August 21, 2009 at 1:16 PM

The IRS is the enforcement arm for the Health Care bill. They will not only have all of our financial information but they will have all of our health records to cross reference. I do not trust our government with this information.

d1carter on August 21, 2009 at 1:15 PM

DerKrieger on August 21, 2009 at 1:16 PM

Fauxconservative Week-knee Ed wrote:
“Let’s not get too lost in the weaker arguments.”

—–

With no excuse to attack Palin today, Hot Air yet again jumps into it’s usual fallback mode of Calm Down and Play Nice, ODS sufferers.

whatcat on August 21, 2009 at 1:16 PM

Um, one card is racist and one card is helpful and caring. Kind of like the red pill, blue pill thing.

myrenovations on August 21, 2009 at 1:13 PM

The mental gymnastics required to be a statists is truly amazing.

WashJeff on August 21, 2009 at 1:17 PM

jeffn21 on August 21, 2009 at 1:03 PM

I approve.

Mommypundit on August 21, 2009 at 1:17 PM

Talk about trojan horse. This bill is SO vague that if the government gets one foot in the door, so to speak, what’s stopping them from coming all the way in? I would go without insurance for the rest of my life if the government was granted access to my house, medical records, and/or banking account. I’ll be saving money and airline miles to go elsewhere for treatment.

I’ll also be living a stealthy life in my own country.

txag92 on August 21, 2009 at 1:18 PM

How about the Fed stop block grants and let the states fend for themselves. …

DerKrieger on August 21, 2009 at 1:15 PM

If you have not read WSJ’s opinion page take on Maine’s state run health care, give it a read. The results you would expect from government run health insurance.

WashJeff on August 21, 2009 at 1:19 PM

I’m afraid Ed is missing the point. It is a simple matter to deny benefits, whether medical care or even admission to schools, if you refuse to “volunteer” access to your banking records or your home.

Doubt me? look at the treatment the states get if they resist any of Washington’s dictates. They have continually threatened to withhold highway money from any state that didn’t toe the line.

The whores in our state legislatures have become addicted to the Federal tit.

Obama wants to expand that addiction beyond the welfare recipients and the state legislatures to control the rest of us.

This man’s Socialist Agenda must be stopped. NOW.

MaaddMaaxx on August 21, 2009 at 1:20 PM

The problem I see is no particular detail or interpretation of any detail, it is, that the federal goverment is involved. The reason the pro-’health reform’ forces want work thru federal legislation, rather than state legislation is that states must balance their budgets, while the federal government need not. States can only do what they can afford. The federal government can simply tack on to our already crippling national debt.

AnotherDave on August 21, 2009 at 1:20 PM

WashJeff on August 21, 2009 at 1:19 PM

Read and commented on!

DerKrieger on August 21, 2009 at 1:21 PM

enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

They are giving themselves permission to read your financial information from your accounts and put and take money from your account. This is not ambiguous AT ALL. This text is as plain as the nose on your face.

dogsoldier on August 21, 2009 at 1:22 PM

From the bill:

‘(D) require timely and transparent claim and denial management processes, including tracking, adjudication, and appeal processing

And C4C has proven teh govt is GREAT at this.

WashJeff on August 21, 2009 at 1:22 PM

Also, why would the government need access to your bank account if healthcare is “free”?

txag92 on August 21, 2009 at 1:24 PM

Another garbage piece. EPIC FAIL. try again next time

liberal4eva on August 21, 2009 at 12:58 PM

That’s some awesome debating, dude. You really should update your resume. I wouldn’t be surprised if you got that job back at Mickey D’s.

Squiggy on August 21, 2009 at 1:26 PM

About all that is left is the bar coded tatoos and the implanted digitized GPS tracker.

fourdeucer on August 21, 2009 at 1:27 PM

Its also somewhat ironic isn’t it, that they want everyone to have a healthcare ID, but not one for voting.

In other parts of the bill they describe a national healthcare database and a federal registry of all medical devices used on or in a patient. WHO”S GOING TO ADMINISTER THAT? or the other for plus bureaucracies established by this bill?

This turkey is going to be a far worse mess than “cash for clunkers” is and the porkulus is. Many dealers still haven’t been paid, but the program is out of money. Luckily that “wee wee’d up” program only involves cars.

You want these fools messing with your LIFE? Your BANK ACCOUNT?

dogsoldier on August 21, 2009 at 1:27 PM

Another garbage piece. EPIC FAIL. try again next time

liberal4eva on August 21, 2009 at 12:58 PM

WOW. “Epic Fail”…is that a new one? Hey, yes, just the sort of ratiocinated analysis I expect from the left wing’s version of moonies.

The term EPIC FAIL is “right on” if applied to the Porklous.

IlikedAUH2O on August 21, 2009 at 1:27 PM

If they know what you spend your money on, buying non-approved foods might disqualify you from certain healthcare.

marklmail on August 21, 2009 at 1:28 PM

SEC. 440. HOME VISITATION PROGRAMS FOR FAMILIES WITH YOUNG CHILDREN AND FAMILIES EXPECTING CHILDREN.

The intrusion of the nanny state on families is getting scarier and scarier. For any mom who has been berated by the La Leche wackadoodles or breast-nazi busybodies…this is a nightmare situation. We cannot raise our voices at our kids in public for fear of liberal intervention.

The stack of forms needed to enroll my son in kindergarten was thicker than my mortgage paperwork. Not only did I have to provide the usual proof of immunization, they require birth certificate, proof of dental visits, medical history, and preschool records, among other forms.

Laura in Maryland on August 21, 2009 at 1:29 PM

marklmail on August 21, 2009 at 1:28 PM

Or tobacco products. Incidentally, the only explicitly denied medicines in the bill are for “Tobacco Cessation” Page 766.

dogsoldier on August 21, 2009 at 1:31 PM

SEC. 1173A. STANDARDIZE ELECTRONIC ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSACTIONS.
‘(D)

. . . including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility. . .

But shouldn’t everyone be eligible for everything everywhere?

Sounds to me like there is some rationing going on, maybe you won’t get to keep your doctor and maybe you won’t get a certain treatment if you’re near* death.

*the definition of “near” to be determined.

rbj on August 21, 2009 at 1:32 PM

That picture of Obama reminds me SOOOOO much of Anthony Fremond (Billy Mumy) in the Twilight Zone episode, “It’s a Good Life.”

His philosophy seems rather similar to little Anthony’s, also.

Alana on August 21, 2009 at 1:32 PM

Laura in Maryland on August 21, 2009 at 1:29 PM

An army of paperpushers will be required to handle all the new work detailed in HR3200. Every hack’s third cousin twice removed will have a lifetime position.

dogsoldier on August 21, 2009 at 1:33 PM

See, once a bill passes these crooks and radical freaks will start the scheming and fleshing out a massive power grab in the details, rules and regulations.

marklmail on August 21, 2009 at 1:34 PM

You folks have no idea how bad this can get! There will be no bank account in the world you can hide from Obama and his major supporter, Schmidt, head of Google.Note the latest round of Swiss banks cooperating with the IRS. The smart grid technology can monitor all household energy use and living habits. There is a reason that Obama and his Communists are called Totalitarian! Thy are working toward TOTAL control of our lives! They seem not to care if this is legal. They must be called out on these proposals.

Marco on August 21, 2009 at 1:35 PM

. . including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility. . .

Bwahahahahahahahaha…..I can see the bureaucrats now trying to insist that Juan Abdul Jones go see doc X at his office 150 miles away. It will still be ok for Juan Abdul Jones not to be able to find the voting booth but not his doctor. The plebs are going love that.

Limerick on August 21, 2009 at 1:36 PM

dogsoldier on August 21, 2009 at 1:33 PM

You betcha! And they wonder why we keep comparing it to the DMV.

Laura in Maryland on August 21, 2009 at 1:37 PM

An army of paperpushers will be required to handle all the new work detailed in HR3200. Every hack’s third cousin twice removed will have a lifetime position.

dogsoldier on August 21, 2009 at 1:33 PM

Lifetime position as well as access to your financial information and medical records.

myrenovations on August 21, 2009 at 1:38 PM

dogsoldier on August 21, 2009 at 1:33 PM

Sorry, meant to quote not to strike.

Laura in Maryland on August 21, 2009 at 1:38 PM

I agree. People are misreading. It’s just a method to allow for electronic payments. The hysteria over these measures does nothing to build credibility.

AnninCA on August 21, 2009 at 1:39 PM

With a little hope the Guvmint will have a 10 month waiting list for abortions.

Limerick on August 21, 2009 at 1:41 PM

I agree. People are misreading. It’s just a method to allow for electronic payments. The hysteria over these measures does nothing to build credibility.

AnninCA on August 21, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Misreading huh? This after having the administration asking people to report “fishy” information. I wouldn’t put anything past this administration.

fbcmusicman on August 21, 2009 at 1:43 PM

I protested CVS in their advertising reallocation. I had a legitimate complaint also. Guess who is being ignored on the unrelated matter?

Then imagine how politicized things are going to get when ACORN thugs are promoted to health care regulators.

Wasn’t President Bush supposed to be the divider?

IlikedAUH2O on August 21, 2009 at 1:43 PM

I’m certain that gummint respecting the privacy of our health care records will be kept as safe and confidential as those of Rush Limbaugh when the Palm Beach D.A. decided he wanted to score a political hit.

Then there will be the hackers or make-work hires wanting to make supplemental income on the side for keeping the National Enquirer stoked with everything from morgue photos to autopsy reports to medical or psychiatric test results. If you think the IRS has powers of intimidation now… just wait.

viking01 on August 21, 2009 at 1:43 PM

I agree. People are misreading. It’s just a method to allow for electronic payments. The hysteria over these measures does nothing to build credibility.

AnninCA on August 21, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Uh huh. Sure. Just ask Joe the Plumber or last years presidential candidates who’s passport information was gone through by State Department snoops. Do you really trust the government with your personal information?

I do not. And it does not matter whether there’s an R or a D or even an I in charge.

rbj on August 21, 2009 at 1:43 PM

what about the deadbeats who have no money in a checking acct or who have 3 or 4 credit cards already maxed out? how is the govt going to determine anything about their ability to pay other than they can’t pay so they get everything for FREE!

my congressman (Perriello, Democrat, 5th CD, Va.), when questioned about the constitutionality of this bill said, meh, you have a right to challenge it.

i’m getting so “wee-wee’d” off that i can’t sleep at night.

kelley in virginia on August 21, 2009 at 1:46 PM

See the future of no privacy.

Andy in Agoura Hills on August 21, 2009 at 1:48 PM

I wrote the national and my local ACLU to see if they will object to this provision. So far, no reply.

Jay on August 21, 2009 at 1:51 PM

AnninCA on August 21, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Sorry, Anni…anyone who has ever had a run in with the IRS wouldn’t want to have the government be able to just transfer funds willy nilly.

My bank once made a mistake deducting someone else’s debit card purchase out of my checking account. It was a nightmare to fix and could have caused my mortgage payment and other checks to bounce if I hadn’t been able to cover it. The government is the LAST entity I want having my bank info.

Laura in Maryland on August 21, 2009 at 1:54 PM

I agree. People are misreading. It’s just a method to allow for electronic payments. The hysteria over these measures does nothing to build credibility.

AnninCA on August 21, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Sorry toots. Most of the “elderly” possess excellent reading skills.

katy the mean old lady on August 21, 2009 at 1:55 PM

The singularity is approaching.

SouthernGent on August 21, 2009 at 1:56 PM

An army of paperpushers will be required to handle all the new work detailed in HR3200. Every hack’s third cousin twice removed will have a lifetime position.

dogsoldier on August 21, 2009 at 1:33 PM

The C4C processing office is up and running. This picture has been released so the dealers can feel confident they will get their money now. The ObamaCare office will be 10x as big!

WashJeff on August 21, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Velkome to de USS of A.

capejasmine on August 21, 2009 at 1:58 PM

I wrote the national and my local ACLU to see if they will object to this provision. So far, no reply.

Jay on August 21, 2009 at 1:51 PM

Forgive them. They are currently very busy. Treason is time consuming.

katy the mean old lady on August 21, 2009 at 2:00 PM

1
‘(A) clarify, refine, complete, and expand, as needed, the standards required under section 1173;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

Just as the autodealers found out that the rules change as c4c went along, doctors and patients will find out that the rules shift underneath them.

journeyintothewhirlwind on August 21, 2009 at 2:04 PM

i’m getting so “wee-wee’d” off that i can’t sleep at night.

kelley in virginia on August 21, 2009 at 1:46 PM

I think there is something you can take for that. See your doctor.

Lily on August 21, 2009 at 2:07 PM

Another garbage piece. EPIC FAIL. try again next time

liberal4eva on August 21, 2009 at 12:58 PM

Gotta love the YouTube-grade commentary liberals substitute for adult discourse.

Sharke on August 21, 2009 at 2:11 PM

What the hell are “denial management processes”? I thought in Obamautopia, EVERYTHING was FREE for EVERYONE ALL THE TIME. Except, of course, for the “top 5%”. Hmmm. Maybe not. I need to check Amendment 123 (a), part C3, Sec. 34 (b), Part E-345, subsection 1342343, paragraph 2134, section A (22) part B or C (subsection A3d) paragraph 93 (s, r, or z). Or maybe not.

Zzzzt.

bradley11 on August 21, 2009 at 2:18 PM

Comment pages: 1 2