RE: We have to pass it to see what's in it... (Full Version)

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



Message


kalikshama -> RE: We have to pass it to see what's in it... (9/16/2013 9:27:52 AM)

quote:

That really is getting crazy. Go to school for a zillion years to make sound medical decisions, and have the government make the call on your expertise? Next they will be doing surgery, with a spoon. Who will want to be a doctor?


Requiring questions /= making calls on the doctor's expertise.

Perhaps we should all look at the actual provision before discussing it. I'm unable to find it. Hopefully someone has better google-fu.




mnottertail -> RE: We have to pass it to see what's in it... (9/16/2013 9:30:21 AM)

Section 2716 of the ObamaCare law bars the federal government from compelling doctors and hospitals to ask you if you own a firearm.


this is from the original article.

Near as I can determine, there is no section 2716.




Kirata -> RE: We have to pass it to see what's in it... (9/16/2013 10:02:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Section 2716 of the ObamaCare law bars the federal government from compelling doctors and hospitals to ask you if you own a firearm.

this is from the original article.

Near as I can determine, there is no section 2716.

Possibly a typo. It's Section 2717(c) in the copy I'm looking at:

(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.—A wellness and health promotion activity implemented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to—
   (A) the presence or storage of a lawfully-possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or
   (B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual.
(2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the collection of any information relating to—
   (A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition;
   (B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or
   (C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition.


Source

K.




mnottertail -> RE: We have to pass it to see what's in it... (9/16/2013 10:12:00 AM)

Yeah, I find that unfortunate, you cant ask that question of suicidals or depressives. So the nutsuckers are still howling about the wellness programs, which are not as being characterized by the post or other nutsucker articles accurately.

Perhaps the nutsuckers should read it and find out what is really in it, before they futilely flounder about unable to repeal it.




Kirata -> RE: We have to pass it to see what's in it... (9/16/2013 10:25:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Yeah, I find that unfortunate, you cant ask that question of suicidals or depressives. So the nutsuckers are still howling about the wellness programs, which are not as being characterized by the post or other nutsucker articles accurately.

Perhaps the nutsuckers should read it and find out what is really in it, before they futilely flounder about unable to repeal it.

Jeeez, take a deep breath. "May not require the disclosure or collection" doesn't mean the doctor can't ask if it's pertinent.

K.




mnottertail -> RE: We have to pass it to see what's in it... (9/16/2013 10:30:16 AM)

Yeah, that is not may not. (permissive) it is may not (imperative) see limitation (2) for a redundant imperative.


Yeah, my panties aint in a bunch over some stupid tinfoiler article that is prima facie wholly incorrect being posted as an op by someone who makes an opposite case now.




DaddySatyr -> RE: We have to pass it to see what's in it... (9/16/2013 10:37:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Yeah, I find that unfortunate, you cant ask that question of suicidals or depressives. So the nutsuckers are still howling about the wellness programs, which are not as being characterized by the post or other nutsucker articles accurately.

Perhaps the nutsuckers should read it and find out what is really in it, before they futilely flounder about unable to repeal it.

Jeeez, take a deep breath. "May not require the disclosure or collection" doesn't mean the doctor can't ask if it's pertinent.

K.



If only the country or, at least, the elected officials had been able to look at the bill. But that cock-gobbler, Pelosi insisted that only way to see was to pass it, first. No "dictator" issues, there.





mnottertail -> RE: We have to pass it to see what's in it... (9/16/2013 10:40:22 AM)

Anyone who wanted to read it could have, but as we see, the nutsuckers still havent read it, they are commenting however on whatever brietbart and boortz and other nutsucker felching gods tell them is in it.




DesideriScuri -> RE: We have to pass it to see what's in it... (9/16/2013 11:50:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
one is a medical question, and one is a political outlook.


Actually, either could be either. [:D]




VideoAdminRho -> RE: We have to pass it to see what's in it... (9/16/2013 2:46:17 PM)

Several posts were removed. Please do not make other posters the topic.




DomKen -> RE: We have to pass it to see what's in it... (9/16/2013 8:20:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


And the more we find out, the worse it gets.

"Are you sexually active? If so, with one partner, multiple partners or same-sex partners?” Be ready to answer those questions and more the next time you go to the doctor, whether it’s the dermatologist or the cardiologist and no matter if the questions are unrelated to why you’re seeking medical help...

"This is nasty business," says New York cardiologist Dr. Adam Budzikowski. He called the sex questions "insensitive, stupid and very intrusive..."

Doctors and hospitals who don’t comply with the federal government’s electronic-health-records requirements forgo incentive payments now; starting in 2015, they’ll face financial penalties from Medicare and Medicaid...

The administration is ignoring these protests from privacy advocates. On Jan. 17, HHS announced patients who want to keep something out of their electronic record should pay cash.

Gee, couldn't they just check with the NSA?

Source: New York Post

K.


I've had other things to deal with all day so I'm sorry anyone has believed this pile of horseshit for so long.

Did no one notice the author, she of "death panel" lies, never once indicates where she got this specious claim? Did no one notice she never says this is a rule issued by some agency or is a section in some part of the ACA? That's because it does not exist.





popeye1250 -> RE: We have to pass it to see what's in it... (9/17/2013 2:15:56 AM)

I still say I want the same medical/dental program as those in Washington have.
The Teamsters Union members are walking around with big smirks on their faces.
How come the biggest champions of "Obamacare" are now all getting... "exemptions"?




Kirata -> RE: We have to pass it to see what's in it... (9/17/2013 3:08:24 AM)


~ FR ~

I've found several stories relating to what types of information do not have to be included in the electronic health records required by Obamacare, which isn't much, but I haven't been able to find a list of what information must be. Some of these policies are apparently being determined by HHS, and therefore aren't in the Act itself. But since preventitive care/counseling is covered, it doesn't seem too far fetched to imagine that those types of questions, and many others, might be necessary to identify at-risk populations in need of such services. Which, after all, is a laudable goal. The weak spot is going to be maintaining the privacy of that information. We have a less than stellar record of maintaining the security of even highly classified information.

K.




mnottertail -> RE: We have to pass it to see what's in it... (9/17/2013 6:24:06 AM)

Those questions are asked today. They were asked years ago. What is the big deal? You can answer or not, your answers may or may not help you die. Lets not act like this is new shit, the only non permissive thing is asking about guns. Thats what is new. Hell of a lobby, the NRA.




Kirata -> RE: We have to pass it to see what's in it... (9/17/2013 6:59:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Lets not act like this is new shit...

Let's not act like recording what you tell your doctor in national government database isn't new.

K.




mnottertail -> RE: We have to pass it to see what's in it... (9/17/2013 7:28:14 AM)

Lets not act like it is in the law, that is pure asswipe. There is nothing in the law that allows that or assists in that endeavor.






NotTellingUAgain -> RE: We have to pass it to see what's in it... (9/17/2013 7:36:00 AM)

Just tell your Doctor lies. He'll record it. Oh yeah Doc I get laid every night, a dozen times on weekends. You know, that kind of stuff.
Let them fill their notes with it




Kirata -> RE: We have to pass it to see what's in it... (9/17/2013 7:46:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Lets not act like it is in the law, that is pure asswipe.

the federal government is planning to quietly enact what could be the largest consolidation of personal data in the history of the republic ~USA Today

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, is building a giant database of everyone's personal information ~Newsmax

Obamacare's Big Brother Database

K.




mnottertail -> RE: We have to pass it to see what's in it... (9/17/2013 8:09:18 AM)

t will compile files on everyone in the United States and will get its information from the IRS, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the Veterans Administration, the Office of Personnel Management, the Social Security Administration, state Medicaid databases, and the Peace Corps.

(from Newsmax) from the DailyMail. lets hear that nutsucking sound.

Everything? But what about Obamacare? In spite of the blatant, political corruption at the IRS, the Obama administration is moving full steam ahead with Obamacare, a law that gives unprecedented new access and powers to bureaucrats at the IRS and at least four other federal government agencies. Is that really going to undo the cynicism we have about government and protect Americans from further targeting? Consider the potential for abuse with Obamacare's mystery Federal Data Services Hub, "the largest personal information database the government has ever attempted," according to the Wall Street Journal.

Rep. Black, a nutsucker in the house (we dont know what it is, what is on it, but lets start getting the feeble-minded in an uproar, because we just don't know. Think about it, a doctor might (we dont know) be able to look at your records if you are in a coma in Los Angeles (we dont know), and we dont know how you got there from Pluto, FL (we just dont know) so all in all we just dont know)

(thats big brother)


By mid-December, the federal government is planning to quietly enact what could be the largest consolidation of personal data in the history of the republic. If you think identity theft is a problem now, wait until Uncle Sam serves up critical information on 300 million American citizens on a platter.

Hyperbole? Unlikely. Here's why: As the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act lurches toward full implementation on Jan. 1, 2014, only a handful of states (California, Massachusetts, Maryland, Oregon and Washington) are likely to be truly ready to operate state exchanges by next October. These exchanges are supposed to be the primary mechanism for giving federal subsidies to uninsured, low-income Americans. Without state exchanges, ObamaCare runs into trouble.

ObamaCare's fail-safe mechanism is the creation of a federal exchange the administration has quietly put in motion. If the plan were simply a Travelocity-style portal for choosing different insurance products across state lines, we would support it. In fact, the federal government already has similar exchanges for Medicare Advantage plans and Part D prescription drug plans.

ObamaCare's federal exchange, however, will be very different from these earlier efforts or emerging private exchanges such as eHealthInsurance.com. In order to determine eligibilty for health insurance subsidies, the new exchange has to bring together information about you and your family from the Treasury Department and IRS, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, as well as your Social Security number — all coordinated by the Department of Health and Human Services.

(USA today)

Well, not really anything they dont already have on you, not asking Kirata how often he takes it in the ass mandated by law, afterall.

Don't know what Medicaid has on me, I aint in it. HHS, dont have nothing, no reason, Treasury dont give a fuck. IRS has what they have for as long as I have earned, its on their fucking computer and always has been.

Seems like the overwhelming nutsucker wins at the state levels crowed about in the last couple Obama terms has sort of put those of you wearing the tinfoil in this position, given two years to decide if you make your own exchange, or if you join the fed exchange, and here you are. Looks like a states rights issue, and the states are wanting to take your guns away and tell your family how many times a day you take it up the ass, doughnut?

But this is all if if if if and chicken little says the sky is falling, all slippery slope and potential this and shitting my pants that, but nothing in the law, as has been felched out here about anyone taking it up the ass, or collecting that information for use in your trial for not letting Obama take your guns away.

Say it with me now . . .

EE-YUL!! EE-YUL!! EE-YUL!! Be afraid, its the weltanschuuang of the feeble-minded hallucinators and hallucinatrixes.




Kirata -> RE: We have to pass it to see what's in it... (9/17/2013 8:55:40 AM)



~ FR ~

In a proposed rule from Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and the Department of Health and Human Services, the federal government is demanding insurance companies submit detailed health care information about their patients. ~Washington Examier

Medical records are a goldmine

Obamacare "Navigators" already a security hole...

As the chief legal officers of our states, we are concerned that U. S. Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") has failed to adquately protect the privacy of those who will use the assistance programs connected with the new health insurance exchanges.

K.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875