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

mnottertail -> RE: We have to pass it to see what's in it... (9/17/2013 9:14:40 AM)

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


From this lying piece of shit headline to the actual proposal. (contained in your link, dont let the feeble-minded actually tell you what to believe, you can read it yourself).

In our consultation, AAA laid out a
number of different ways to implement
the reinsurance payment provisions. A
letter outlining this issue can be found
on their Web site at https://
www.actuary.org/pdf/health/
Reinsurance%20Options%209%2022%
202010.pdf. With respect to the
determination of who will be covered,
AAA identified four possible
approaches:
(1) Identification of individuals with
specific conditions based on claims
data.
(2) Identification of individuals with
specific conditions based on survey
data.
(3) Identification of high-risk
individuals using risk adjustment data
and a condition-based risk adjustment
model.
(4) Identification of reinsurance-
eligible individuals based on medical
cost to the health insurance issuer for
covered benefits.
The last option, which we propose to
adopt, focuses on all high-cost enrollees
without respect to the conditions that
caused the increased cost. This
approach would be most familiar to
health insurance issuers and
administratively less burdensome than
the first and second options. Data will
be immediately available and dependent
only on health insurance issuers filing
proof of payment for claims. While the
third option might mitigate some of the
burden and cost concerns, it would not
eliminate the timing issues that are
critical to effective reinsurance
implementation. In 2014, we will be
able to collect reliable condition
information only for those conditions
that are diagnosed during that benefit
year. In other words, condition-based
reinsurance will not be a predictive
model until at least 2015 due to lack of
sufficient and timely data. As a result,
we found all of the condition-based
approaches to eligibility identification
to be considerably more burdensome in
comparison to the medical cost
approach without significant
improvement in outcomes from a
determination standpoint. We solicit
comments for a suitable method for
ensuring that issuer costs are
appropriate and accurate.



Kirata -> RE: We have to pass it to see what's in it... (9/17/2013 11:43:25 AM)


What exactly to you think claims data are, if not part of an individual's health records?
    Within Part 153, subpart C we describe reporting requirements and maintenance of records for States for reinsurance. States would ensure that the applicable reinsurance entity collects the data required from issuers...

    List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 153 Administrative practice and procedure, Adverse selection, Consumer protection, Health care, Health insurance, Health records...
Odd... I set the above in color, but on my screen at least the color tags are being ignored.

K.



mnottertail -> RE: We have to pass it to see what's in it... (9/17/2013 11:55:19 AM)

yeah . . . . . that was the give away that it was nutsuckerism. Continuing on with the sentence..... because . . .


States would ensure that the applicable reinsurance entity collects the data required from issuers (and go to definitions, and see reinsurance entity and see issuers and also note that it is in the medicaid section. . . (so the reinsurers of high risk populations (anyone remember that discussion?) where the insurance companies are losing their ass are properly compensated by the state/fed.

Quit fucking around and spinning asswipe here:

List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 153 Administrative practice and procedure, Adverse selection, Consumer protection, Health care, Health insurance, Health records...

again with the not going to do the context.

Show us a credible citation that this occurs because you haven't shown anything credible or factual yet.

That is a list of subjects, and having read 45 CFR Part 153 it says that only nutsuckers will need to say if they take it up the ass, because those nutsuckers will only be insured thru government mandated death squads, regardless if they do or not.

Anyone can make impugnations.

Lets see an actual FULL and COMPLETE citation of 45 CFR Part 153. (oh, yeah, doesn't exist) simpletonian impugnations and hallucinations.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/45/153

(Uh, isn't that what Sebelius is trying to work out there in the document I quoted? (Policy, not law there)). So, now that it has passed don't you think we should SEE what is in it rather than pretend what is in it?



Kirata -> RE: We have to pass it to see what's in it... (9/17/2013 12:22:13 PM)


I pretty much finished with this thread here: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4547389

But since you've already used the word "nutsucker" a dozen times, I might as well give you a chance to go for the record.

K.



mnottertail -> RE: We have to pass it to see what's in it... (9/17/2013 12:28:44 PM)

Well, now we know that the laudable print you made of your stance, (but not the one you followed or argued) and the fact that the government (the same one who can decrypt google, facebook and other encryptions, without their knowledge and exploit them) might not be a safe bet for keeping any nutsuckers under wraps, and the fact is that from the OP on down, no nutsucker has read the statutes, but had them felched for refelching by another feeble-minded nutsucker.

Seems like if there is some data protections issues the nutsuckers could bring that up in the house, rather than the repeal 42 and counting times. Or maybe they should have done something, anything at all in the crafting of this. Or fix it now.

So your entire point is, what about the safety of data? Strange fuckin shit given your OP and subsequent posts now, I could agree down the line with you pretty much in that post, but not terribly worried about the safety issue.

That is a long long long way around the barn.



DomKen -> RE: We have to pass it to see what's in it... (9/17/2013 1:27:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


I pretty much finished with this thread here: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4547389

But since you've already used the word "nutsucker" a dozen times, I might as well give you a chance to go for the record.

K.

IOW you got busted for using reposting a crank liar and now want the thread to go away. Why not just admit your mistake?



Kirata -> RE: We have to pass it to see what's in it... (9/17/2013 1:54:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

IOW you got busted for using reposting a crank liar and now want the thread to go away. Why not just admit your mistake?

You call everybody you don't agree with a "liar." And considering your record, I've come to regard it as an indication that they're probably right.

One of the statements made in the story was that, "On Jan. 17, HHS announced patients who want to keep something out of their electronic record should pay cash." Turns out that's true. I found it. Why would anyone want to keep something out of their electronic record if deeply personal information isn't going to be reported?

HHS adopts an exception to the provision that permits a Covered Entity to decline an individual’s request for a restriction on uses and disclosures of his or her PHI. Under the Final Rule, in instances where the individual has paid out of pocket and in full for the services provided, the Covered Entity is required to comply with such requests.

Interestingly, the same Final Rule specifies, "additional limits on a Covered Entity’s ability to sell PHI and use or disclose PHI for marketing purposes." Well damn, how nice of them. I mean, seriously. Selling and/or disclosing personal health information for marketing purposes?

What could possibly go wrong?

K.



DomKen -> RE: We have to pass it to see what's in it... (9/17/2013 2:14:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

IOW you got busted for using reposting a crank liar and now want the thread to go away. Why not just admit your mistake?

You call everybody you don't agree with a "liar." And considering your record, I've come to regard it as an indication that they're probably right.

One of the statements made in the story was that, "On Jan. 17, HHS announced patients who want to keep something out of their electronic record should pay cash." Turns out that's true. I found it. Why would anyone want to keep something out of their electronic record if deeply personal information isn't going to be reported?

HHS adopts an exception to the provision that permits a Covered Entity to decline an individual’s request for a restriction on uses and disclosures of his or her PHI. Under the Final Rule, in instances where the individual has paid out of pocket and in full for the services provided, the Covered Entity is required to comply with such requests.

Interestingly, the same Final Rule specifies, "additional limits on a Covered Entity’s ability to sell PHI and use or disclose PHI for marketing purposes." Well damn, how nice of them. I mean, seriously. Selling and/or disclosing personal health information for marketing purposes?

What could possibly go wrong?

K.

Did you find anything about death panels, the author is the liar who started that lie? Or the lie about requiring all doctors ask about the patients sex life that is what you posted about in the OP and which is the headline claim in the article?

If not I stand by my statement she's a liar and you posted her crap without making even a cursory attempt to verify her claims.



DesideriScuri -> RE: We have to pass it to see what's in it... (9/17/2013 2:35:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
IOW you got busted for using reposting a crank liar and now want the thread to go away. Why not just admit your mistake?

You call everybody you don't agree with a "liar." And considering your record, I've come to regard it as an indication that they're probably right.
One of the statements made in the story was that, "On Jan. 17, HHS announced patients who want to keep something out of their electronic record should pay cash." Turns out that's true. I found it. Why would anyone want to keep something out of their electronic record if deeply personal information isn't going to be reported?
HHS adopts an exception to the provision that permits a Covered Entity to decline an individual’s request for a restriction on uses and disclosures of his or her PHI. Under the Final Rule, in instances where the individual has paid out of pocket and in full for the services provided, the Covered Entity is required to comply with such requests.
Interestingly, the same Final Rule specifies, "additional limits on a Covered Entity’s ability to sell PHI and use or disclose PHI for marketing purposes." Well damn, how nice of them. I mean, seriously. Selling and/or disclosing personal health information for marketing purposes?
What could possibly go wrong?
K.


According to that statement, the only time you'll be allowed to request a restriction on your info remaining private is if you pay out of pocket, and in full. But, who is going to do that? Who can afford to do that?



mnottertail -> RE: We have to pass it to see what's in it... (9/17/2013 2:38:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

IOW you got busted for using reposting a crank liar and now want the thread to go away. Why not just admit your mistake?

You call everybody you don't agree with a "liar." And considering your record, I've come to regard it as an indication that they're probably right.

One of the statements made in the story was that, "On Jan. 17, HHS announced patients who want to keep something out of their electronic record should pay cash." Turns out that's true. I found it. Why would anyone want to keep something out of their electronic record if deeply personal information isn't going to be reported?

HHS adopts an exception to the provision that permits a Covered Entity to decline an individual’s request for a restriction on uses and disclosures of his or her PHI. Under the Final Rule, in instances where the individual has paid out of pocket and in full for the services provided, the Covered Entity is required to comply with such requests.

Interestingly, the same Final Rule specifies, "additional limits on a Covered Entity’s ability to sell PHI and use or disclose PHI for marketing purposes." Well damn, how nice of them. I mean, seriously. Selling and/or disclosing personal health information for marketing purposes?

What could possibly go wrong?

K.


Please note that this is in regards to HIPPA, not really new business at all, a change in a long existing law policy implementation. That was out there long before Obamacare and really has nothing to do with the ACA other than what is required by that existing law. It was passed into law (after signing by Clinton) in 1996 by a Republican House and Republican Senate. So, passed in 1996 and we still don't know what is in that one.....



Kirata -> RE: We have to pass it to see what's in it... (9/17/2013 3:02:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Did you find anything about death panels, the author is the liar who started that lie?

Well now you can add Howard Dean to your "liars" list, along with Sen. Mark Pryor, and Reps. Ron Barber, Ann Kirkpatrick, Kyrsten Sinema and Elizabeth Esty, all of whom support repealing the Independent Payment Advisory Board's powers.

You're welcome, glad to help.

K.



VideoAdminChi -> RE: We have to pass it to see what's in it... (9/17/2013 3:48:11 PM)

FR,

People, please, stop with the "you"s / making other posters the topic.



DomKen -> RE: We have to pass it to see what's in it... (9/17/2013 7:02:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Did you find anything about death panels, the author is the liar who started that lie?

Well now you can add Howard Dean to your "liars" list, along with Sen. Mark Pryor, and Reps. Ron Barber, Ann Kirkpatrick, Kyrsten Sinema and Elizabeth Esty, all of whom support repealing the Independent Payment Advisory Board's powers.

You're welcome, glad to help.

K.

Did any of them call it a death panel? Did any of them claim it would deny care to the elderly and disabled?



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625