Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"According to a solicitation posted by the Department of Health and Human Services on Sept. 4, the CMS is commissioning the National Academy of Sciences to study how best to add social and behavioral factors to electronic health record (EHR) reporting...“It’s including more pay for performance requirements on physicians to collect all sorts of data in order to get government reimbursements,” he said...Though the program is “totally voluntary,” eligible professionals who are not using EHRs by 2015 will see a 1 percent reduction in their Medicare and Medicaid fees each year."
They are currently collecting that data for Medicare and Medicaid patients and now they want to gather it for everyone.
Remember electronic medical records were squirreled into the Stimulus bill (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ) that was passed in February 2009, not Obamacare so killing Obamacare won't prevent this.
Better start reading that Privacy stuff the doctor's office asks you to sign.
They are currently collecting that data for Medicare and Medicaid patients and now they want to gather it for everyone.
So this is a matter of fairness, as well as efficiency and efficacy. I think there should be an investigation into why EHR reporting didn't include social and behavioral factors, for everyone, consistently, from the start.
So this is a matter of fairness, as well as efficiency and efficacy. I think there should be an investigation into why EHR reporting didn't include social and behavioral factors, for everyone, consistently, from the start.
Possibly because your lawful behavior is not the government's business. Remember "my body, my choice"?
Possibly because your lawful behavior is not the government's business.
How do you know? The article doesn't include the full proposal. I've seen previous such proposals for data to be added to EHR systems, and each time the need for the data is clearly explained. I know you like to jump to the conclusions that everything the government does is wrong, everything the government has is bad, and your preferences are more important than how having such data in EHR systems may make things better for other people, for society overall, and probably for you too (despite your claims to the contrary), but that's just your personal preference. It's not the law. The law actually allows for establishment of requirements for collection of data, with sufficient protections for privacy as outlined by a set of standards. Your personal rejection of the sufficiency those standards is just a reflection of your bias, and your insistence that your personal bias should override society's standards, which factor in your concerns but arrive at a difference conclusion, is without any merit whatsoever. And make no mistake: This type of data has already been established as needed and the measures to safeguard that data has already been established as sufficient, by society (since it is already collected for some people), despite your personal preferences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swingblade
Now now that only apllies to abortion in leftist ideology.
If data is stored on a hard drive inside your body, it absolutely should be protected in the manner you suggest. Is that the issue? Are you a computer, rather than a human being?
If data is stored on a hard drive inside your body, it absolutely should be
protected in the manner you suggest. Is that the issue? Are you a computer,
rather than a human being?
That is almost a good argument, but how about what I put into my body or do with my body? Is it the gvts role to know how many beers I drink weekly? how many times I had sex? etc etc. I say it is none of their bussiness to pry into my life by having doctors collecting data for them or face penalty.
That is almost a good argument, but how about what I put into my body or do with my body?
The stuff inside - that's yours and yours alone. The records of the transactions that transferred it from someone else to you isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swingblade
Is it the gvts role to know how many beers I drink weekly?
My brother legally brews his own beer. The amount of hops he purchases is something that is in the public sphere, because he pays using US currency, but how much beer that produces is something that is kept within the confines of his own home for now, so his beer consumption is essentially protected. But there is no absolute right to keep secret what goes on outside your body - that's a matter for society to decide and codify within its laws and statutes. Even pro-choice advocates support regulation of the abortion service providers to ensure the pregnant woman's safety.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swingblade
I say it is none of their bussiness to ...
For the second time in as many threads, I'm replying to a comment of yours with the same response: There is a problem with projecting your own personal perspectives into something more than they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goinback2011
Let's see Obummer's and Michelle's records. Let's see the kids records too.
This is a good demonstration of that corruption of perspective I alluded to: This thread is talking about the collection of data in the context of privacy safeguards that society determines are sufficient, for well-established and well-regarded purposes, and here we see someone trying to claim that that justifies his own personal invasion of privacy, for almost assuredly scurrilous purposes (made obvious by the puerile tenor of the comment itself).
What's going to happen when the government starts analyzing all this new personal social and behavioral data they're collecting and find that those who earn the most income and have the most wealth are the same group who makes the most personally responsible choices? Will they start being penalized for that, too, because it's "not fair" that they have more self-discipline so that puts them at an "unfair" advantage?
What's going to happen when the government starts analyzing all this new personal social and behavioral data they're collecting and find that those who earn the most income and have the most wealth are the same group who makes the most personally responsible choices? Will they start being penalized for that, too, because it's "not fair" that they have more self-discipline so that puts them at an "unfair" advantage?
The government will data mine and analyze this data for their own advantage.
Social engineering is much easier to accomplish when you start from a known source and this will provide them with that.
The government will have your EHR, phone and internet usage, credit card purchases, etc. all in their supercomputer databases.
Just think what all that information can do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
