RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure

RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

rulemylife -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/25/2010 8:30:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity No, tort reform is another subject. What I am referring to here is the hatred that a lot of Doctors have toward lawyers. No, it's a completely related issue because that hatred stems from the fact they are held accountable.

barelynangel -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/25/2010 8:36:26 AM)
~~FR~~ You know, i don't think it would be THAT easy for a doctor to access records -- first of all, ETHICS is involved. I think there will be laws and rules etc involved where a doctor will need to have a damn good reason for accessing a NON-PATIENT's records. Come on people, i understand the concern about electronics to a point but to believe that doctors and their offices are sitting around rubbing their hands together to see what medical dirt they can find out about random people etc and that they have the time to sit around browsing medical records or that their professional integrity etc would allow them to do so. Yes are their SOME people out there who would -- sure no system is absolute in security yet, but most doctors i highly doubt are sitting around waiting to look at the average citizen who isn't their patient. As many people like to express -- privacy laws still apply no matter what type of record it is -- paper or electronic. To me, i don't think it will be that easy to get away with simply browsing people's medical records if they are not a patient or on a consult etc. Maybe i am wrong, but with people who love to sue especially in this country, i doubt doctors will risk their license and such to unethically utilize an electronic system. angel

Vendaval -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/25/2010 9:30:38 AM)
Too true, greed can trump ethics, not matter what safeguards are in place. An intranet within a doctor's office, clinic, hospital, etc is a good idea to avoid mistakes of all sorts. Wrong dosages on medication, lost test records, mistaken identity and repeating of procedures, for starters. quote: ORIGINAL: Louve00 Seeing as how a medical employee had leaked Farrah Fawcett's cancer information when her cancer came back to her, enabling the whole nation to find out before she told her family (all for financial gain) is proof the answer to your question is a big, fat "None", Vendaval.

Blackburn -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/25/2010 12:32:11 PM)
Hmmm, Although I'm not paranoid enough to assume immediate abuses of a centralized medical database, I do have to keep in mind that the government has a long history of overstepping the original intention of legislation. Remember, for the original income tax, Congress levied a 1 percent tax on net personal incomes above $3,000 with a peak of 6 percent surtax on incomes of more than $500,000. Someone objected that the base rate might someday climb to 2% and he was laughed at. Sometimes, the the govt gets out of control.

Thadius -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/25/2010 12:53:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse It is very clear. The federal government via the IRS will now have access to everyones health care records. Then show us that Servant. As in facts, documentation, citations to prove what you are saying. Or is this another something Rush whispered in your ear? I usually don't do requests but this one is a special case. IRC sec. 6055(b)(2), as added by H.R. 3590, sec. 1502(a). Psst... but don't worry we are all just paranoid fringe elements. Where exactly does this say the IRS or any other government agency has access to your health records? The only thing this does is give a mandate to the IRS to monitor and enforce the health insurance requirement. You obviously didn't follow the other references in that section to the other sections of the bill, which would lead you to the answer you seek. It is through the new national medical database that these public servants will be monitoring your compliance with the insurance mandates, via monthly reviews. Further in the reading you would also see that for some reason the Sect of Health and Human services also has access to our tax returns. I mean they work for the government which means they would never violate our privacy. Nothing to see here, and definitely nothing to worry about.[8\|]

zephyroftheNorth -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/25/2010 1:59:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity You don't understand the legislation or what is being discussed, and I still don't think you've read the article. The medical records won't be in the doctors office, they're fixing it so that whenever you have a zit popped that information gets entered into a centralized computer database over the Internet which the government ultimately has control over. Not the citizen, and not the doctor - the insurance companies and the bureaucrats. I don't get how it is that you think you're the be-all and the know-all regarding medical records policies in the United States in the first place, much less pending legislation or future plans. Aren't you Canadian? Some kind of a Caribou Barbie or something? quote: ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth No, they make you sign a consent form, then they contact your doctor's office to get the info. It does not give them free access to the file. What, do you think they just walk into your doctor's office to look at the file any time they want? NO, the info is sent to them and nothing will change in that respect. It's just as illegal to access the electronic record as it is the paper one now. I did indeed read the article and nowhere does it say people's health records will be online for anyone to read. Know why? Because that would be ILLEGAL and as angel said, there isn't a doctor out there who would risk their license. How do I claim to be the be all - know all on this. As I said before it's my job to enter notes for Oncology in a hospital setting into the database. The only access is within the hospital, from department to department. Anyone else who wants to see them has to request them - including insurance companies. As for the records being in a doctor's office, I never said that. What I DID say is that doctors will be able to access them in their office on their computer....with a special program, a password and a username. Honestly, I trust the Wallstreet Journal for lots of things, info on the healthcare bill not so much. ETA after thinking a bit, I was wrong, it isn't just inside one hospital, access is between hospitals on a network via an itranet access. Nonetheless, the program, password and username are needed.

takemeforyourown -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/25/2010 8:45:27 PM)
No, your Medical Records are not secure. Sorry. They never will be. Stop telling your Doctor how many times you smoke Crack every week. Duh. LIE! Your average nursing student is educated enough to know that. Your doc/insurance co./local crazy clinic is NOT your friend. LIE. They already assume the worst about you anyway.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125