Stimulus Bill -- Nationwide System of Medical Records?

[honugirl]

I can understand your concerns.

Your employer should not be able to see any of your medical records without your permission.

This is currently the case, but who knows what might happen within a centralized healthcare system.

With the way laptops get stolen from other governmental departments with increasingly frightening frequency, I'm not sure I want to risk that information being leaked into the hands of a hacker.

Currently, I get all my medical records from the doctors offices and labs, I bring them to my appointments with me. I send them to any new doctors. For the time and energy it takes, it's worth it because I have piece of mind and I know what information they are receiving. A little personal responsibility can go a long way.

 

[bicker]

I disagree that there will be any difference in cost because the Dr. already keeps records at no extra cost to me (it's built in).

I hope you realize that that one sentence is self-contradictory. The whole point is that a lot of the cost of our medical system is the inefficiency (READ: cost) of record keeping. Eliminating that inefficiency results in the same medical care at less cost. That's a bonanza -- most other cost-savings measures actually degrade medical care... this one doesn't affect the medical care (or, arguably, improves it).

Just because you don't pay separately for it, doesn't mean you're not paying for it. Just think of cable television: Is CNN "free"? Of course not; you're paying the $1 or so per month for it, in your basic cable fee.

 

[Laz]

As I have said in previous threads, this is the first step towards socialized medicine. The next step is to force medicare participating doctors to accept government prescribing guidlines for ALL patients. The government will be deciding your medical care, not you and the doctor. This is why this why they tried to slip it in and hope no one saw it.

 

[bicker]

That's not the case. This whole issue comes down to who's paying: Socialized medicine means you are not permitted to pay for something yourself; that is not what this is about. Controlling what federal and state benefits pay for is serving the interests of taxpayers; controlling what group insurance plans pay for is serving the interests of participants. In each case, it is a matter of not making the whole group subsidize the personal choices of individuals within the group. That's actually fiscal conservatism, not liberalism. Liberalism would work the other way, basically shifting more costs away from individuals onto groups and society.

 

[Charade]

I hope you realize that that one sentence is self-contradictory. The whole point is that a lot of the cost of our medical system is the inefficiency (READ: cost) of record keeping. Eliminating that inefficiency results in the same medical care at less cost. That's a bonanza -- most other cost-savings measures actually degrade medical care... this one doesn't affect the medical care (or, arguably, improves it).

Just because you don't pay separately for it, doesn't mean you're not paying for it. Just think of cable television: Is CNN "free"? Of course not; you're paying the $1 or so per month for it, in your basic cable fee.

Actually, I don't think it is. If the new law requires Dr.s to keep their data in a format that's universally compatible for a national database, it shouldn't cost anything for them not to include my information in the database. They'd be fools to run parallel systems (old and new) for those that wish to opt-out.

 

[Laz]

That's not the case. This whole issue comes down to who's paying: Socialized medicine means you are not permitted to pay for something yourself; that is not what this is about. Controlling what federal and state benefits pay for is serving the interests of taxpayers; controlling what group insurance plans pay for is serving the interests of participants. In each case, it is a matter of not making the whole group subsidize the personal choices of individuals within the group. That's actually fiscal conservatism, not liberalism. Liberalism would work the other way, basically shifting more costs away from individuals onto groups and society.

It will be

 

[Charade]

That's not the case. This whole issue comes down to who's paying: Socialized medicine means you are not permitted to pay for something yourself; that is not what this is about. Controlling what federal and state benefits pay for is serving the interests of taxpayers; controlling what group insurance plans pay for is serving the interests of participants. In each case, it is a matter of not making the whole group subsidize the personal choices of individuals within the group. That's actually fiscal conservatism, not liberalism. Liberalism would work the other way, basically shifting more costs away from individuals onto groups and society.

That was the case in Canada for a long time until they finally allowed people to venture out of the government system and go to private dr.s and clinics.

 

[bicker]

And that is not what this proposal talks about. Critics, of course, want to make it sound horrible, so that they can trick people into thinking it is bad and thereby apply pressure against it, but the reality is that this proposal does offer cost-savings without degradation of medical care, and is a rare instance of conservatism on the part of Democrats.

 

[Charade]

And that is not what this proposal talks about. Critics, of course, want to make it sound horrible, so that they can trick people into thinking it is bad and thereby apply pressure against it, but the reality is that this proposal does offer cost-savings without degradation of medical care, and is a rare instance of conservatism on the part of Democrats.

I know that but you have to be aware that this is how government encroachment works. It's like a slow growing cancer, not a fatal car crash. And this would be a cornerstone for a national healthcare system. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[honugirl]

And that is not what this proposal talks about. Critics, of course, want to make it sound horrible, so that they can trick people into thinking it is bad and thereby apply pressure against it, but the reality is that this proposal does offer cost-savings without degradation of medical care, and is a rare instance of conservatism on the part of Democrats.

Bicker, have you, yourself, actually been chronically ill? If you haven't, then you really can't understand the fear that is put into the heart of someone who is by measures like this. Do I think the system we have now is perfect? No, not by a long shot, but I do believe it's much better than what they are proposing.

 

[bicker]

I have personal knowledge of the concerns you have. However, that's irrelevant honugirl. I'm not talking about what's best for me, or what's best for you, or what you should or shouldn't fear. I'm talking about what's best for the country. I know you have fear. That's understandable. You also have to understand that what I've said doesn't contradict your fear. But also you have to understand that your fear doesn't justify mis-characterizing the proposal, just to make it sound worse than it is.

 

[minnie61650]

The HIPAA-type rules will still apply.

The government, your employers, your friends or neighbors should not be able to get access to your medical reacords.

That is why the data base is supposed to strengthen your privacy protections for your health records, and will require notifications when the data is breached.

 

[Muushka]

What is best for the country

That is a laugh. Nothing has 'the country' in mind. Agenda, yes, country, no.

 

[bicker]

Good point, Minnie: If the fear is of abuse, then oppose the abuse.

All this talk about fear misses the fear most Americans have, that medical care in this country is so incredibly expensive, and getting more so, that, even with benefits and insurance, they will not be able to afford what even the most conservative perspective would determine that they need.

 

[mamarazzo]

By my observations, it seems like if anyone wanted medical information, they'd just have to come to this board and we'd see some people's entire medical histories laid out in front of us.

And, I agree with Bicker.

 

[Charade]

By my observations, it seems like if anyone wanted medical information, they'd just have to come to this board and we'd see some people's entire medical histories laid out in front of us.

And, I agree with Bicker.

You're new here?

Really?

 

[mamarazzo]

You're new here?

Really?

 

[minnie61650]

You're new here?

Really?

Gee, is that way you like to welcome new members to the DIS?

This is the way I like to welcome new members:
----------------------------

To mamarazzo

I noticed you are new here.

to the DIS boards!

I think you will find lots of info on these boards.

Most of the DIS members are vey helpful and friendly on these boards. We have really wonderful moderators who monitor these boards.

Have fun exploring all the different boards on the DIS!

 

[Charade]

Gee, is that way you like to welcome new members to the DIS?

This is the way I like to welcome new members:
----------------------------

To mamarazzo

I noticed you are new here.

to the DIS boards!

I think you will find lots of info on these boards.

Most of the DIS members are vey helpful and friendly on these boards. We have really wonderful moderators who monitor these boards.

Have fun exploring all the different boards on the DIS!

The key word is "new".

 

[pooh4evr]

It will certainly make things easier for Drs and Hospitals when looking at patient history to determine a diag.- and drug interactions- as well as cutting down on drug seekers getting multiple scripts from multiple docs. Dh is a primary care Dr - hi is cautious aboyt it but thinks it will help in the long run IF done correctly.