Why Obamacare is the best thing that's happened to this country in years

[Chany]

I have no proof, but someone i know said a guy told him...

You lost me here.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Ad for implanted RFID chip - YouTube

 

[JacktheCatholic]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/microchip.asp

 

[Antigone]

You lost me here.

The burden of proof isn't really a burden when it's this light, is it?

 

[AMDG]

I have no proof, but someone i know said a guy told him because he is on welfare - they asked if they wanted his baby [just born] to be implanted with medical information [a chip]
I asked him if he has proof or if the guy is making up stories. He also didnt know for sure.

He said the man declined the chip.

I would think that worried parents would all be lining up for that. Just think! No more worries that child could go missing.

But honestly Warrior, it doesn't have to be a chip in the skin of a person. One school is issuing ID cards with RFI chips to their students--although I don't think all parents are happy about the schoold keeping tabs. But I wouldn't be surprised to hear more stuff like this--like that one lawsuit against a school for loaning out laptops to the students that had the ability to take photos of the students (even when they were sleeping!) The defense said it was to track the computers and that the school won't do it again.

 

[MikeK]

Wow. People, just...read the...


Wow.

 

[AMDG]

Well we can all agree that Obamacare did not bend the cost-curve down. and we have a bunch of personal experiences that seem to indicate that reality is different from what we were told. Here's yet another's personal experience:

Hey, Who Knew, Obamacare Isn’t Free | The Lonely Conservative

Wow! All those personal questions recorded into the computer records. A real "pot of jam" for nefarious people needing to sell some "info" for some easy cash. Can't help but think that maybe one of the industries that got "kickbacks" for passing Obamacare was the one protecting folks from identity theft.

 

[TheOtherHockeyMom]

Well we can all agree that Obamacare did not bend the cost-curve down. and we have a bunch of personal experiences that seem to indicate that reality is different from what we were told. Here's yet another's personal experience:

Hey, Who Knew, Obamacare Isn’t Free | The Lonely Conservative

Wow! All those personal questions recorded into the computer records. A real "pot of jam" for nefarious people needing to sell some "info" for some easy cash. Can't help but think that maybe one of the industries that got "kickbacks" for passing Obamacare was the one protecting folks from identity theft.

I gotta ask, are you a hacker...maybe a member of the Anonymous collective? You seem to think it's very easy for anyone to just get into these computer records regardless of the security in place, making me wonder if either you're a hacker with experience, a top IT security pro (like my little brother...although I don't see him losing much sleep about this kind of stuff), or have some other relevant knowledge.

 

[Tallguy88]

I believe that your tracker is your medical records, not you. Your medical records are being tracked, as are mine. That computer record sharing is actually liked by some (and of course, it was sold as being "cost effective".) One of my daughters likes the "convenience" of every medical entity she comes in contact with able to get her private records. Unfortunately those who have had their identity stolen before aren't so pleased at this development--nor are many elderly and those that prize their privacy.

At my last exam, I felt like I was in "Star Trek the Next Generation" with the staff entering information on their flat little IPADS connected to the computer. Your private records are the ones that can be accessed by every Tom, Dick, Harriette, and summer hire--not to mention anyone who wants the information for identity theft.

In 2013 you, like me, will be having to inform the IRS on your IRS filing (although can't figure out why since, as I understand, the IRS can't enforce your health insurance compliance other than to withold tax refunds.)

I'm not sure if this is what you're getting at, but there is currently no national database of people's medical history. There is for criminal history, but not medical history. I know this because the Air Force recruiter told me that it was basically up to me to be honest about my medical history because there's no way for them to check where I've been treated or what the treatment was, without me telling them about it and giving them consent to look.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I would think that worried parents would all be lining up for that. Just think! No more worries that child could go missing.

But honestly Warrior, it doesn't have to be a chip in the skin of a person. One school is issuing ID cards with RFI chips to their students--although I don't think all parents are happy about the schoold keeping tabs. But I wouldn't be surprised to hear more stuff like this--like that one lawsuit against a school for loaning out laptops to the students that had the ability to take photos of the students (even when they were sleeping!) The defense said it was to track the computers and that the school won't do it again.

ID badges let Texas school officials track students, raising legal questions | Fox News

 

[AMDG]

I gotta ask, are you a hacker...maybe a member of the Anonymous collective? You seem to think it's very easy for anyone to just get into these computer records regardless of the security in place, making me wonder if either you're a hacker with experience, a top IT security pro (like my little brother...although I don't see him losing much sleep about this kind of stuff), or have some other relevant knowledge.

No, in 1997 I suffered identity theft--you know, police reports, reporting this to the fraud unit of my bank, freezing credit records, having to deal with people who would call at night "wanting their money" (even when I hadn't the foggiest notion what they were talking about), having to report this to my mail carrier--so there could be a lookout there, the trial, and personal call from the prosecuter years later to tell me that the nightmare was finally over. Then a few years later some worker in the VA left a company laptop compromising my husband's private information and causing my husband to but a freeze on his credit and our bank accounts. My son was a victim of a burglar who took his computer--with all his finacial records are on it. Yep, he had to freeze his credit and bank accounts. Just this past Spring I read where the computer records of our bank were compromised (employee bringing some work home....) Good thing I read about it, because in June we got a bill showing that our credit card was used *a whole continent away*. When we said that it wasn't us, the bank didn't believe until their own newspaper was shown to them that the personal information had been compromised by one of their employees. (Back to freezing credit and changing bank account numbers.) Yeah, but we were all so trusting. It could never happen to any of us. Funny, it was employees in several cases that put our private information at risk.

Honestly there are warnings not to let personal information out on computers--not pictures, not any information that could be identifying, or any behavior which one might not want a future employer to know. I still remember that one ad warning young girls not to put certain private information on the computer: an obvious older man--a stranger--accosted a little girl--about thirteen--by name and asked her what color underwear she was wearing for the day.

 

[AMDG]

I'm not sure if this is what you're getting at, but there is currently no national database of people's medical history.

Snipped to portion addressed. Longer post above.

No. That is not what I am getting at.

Our medical records--info, treatments, personal info--can be shared with all medical personel. It's all computerized. Doctors had to begin changing to it in 2012. (When my doctor changed his records to computer--I complained, as a number of elderly patients did as well, but we were just told that the Doctor had no choice to change to computers because of Obamacare. It was sold as "cost effective". But I can't see how, it must have cost a good penney for the computers and the IPADS that are connected--think regular paper files would cost less, especially if that was the way the records were always done.)

BTW some large medical groups already had something like it--one of my daughter likes it, and I know the VA has something like it too.

 

[LoAmmi]

Paper records:

Take up more space.
Take more manpower to maintain.
Are not easy to backup or transfer.

Digital records:

Take up no space.
Do not require as much manpower to maintain.
Are easy to backup and transfer.

Digitizing records is a cost savings. I work in the IT field and have worked these problems before. Yes, there's an up front cost to it, but once it is in place it saves money.

 

[AMDG]

there's an up front cost to it, but once it is in place it saves money.

Snipped to portion addressed. Larger post above.

Well it's the upfront cost that counts. Computers aren't inexpensive. IPADs aren't either. The special software sure isn't. And the training isn't cheap either. If the office is already doing fine with the paper records and they are well established, it seems rather unfair to force doctors to pay a lot of money just to computerize just so they can remain in practice.

You know in the office I worked, we kept some very critical records. And when the rest of the building went computer, we still kept those critical records in paper form. Of course then we had to lock them and guard them, because it turned out that our "paper" files (with long interviews) were wanted very badly because they were more complete, and therefore more accurate.

BTW, we never had to "back-up" our paper records since they were permanent. Never had to worry about a "crash" and lost information. Also, digital records leave a person more open to identity theft than he was under the paper records.

And don't you know, "it takes a computer to really mess up."

 

[LoAmmi]

Snipped to portion addressed. Larger post above.

Well it's the upfront cost that counts. Computers aren't inexpensive. IPADs aren't either. The special software sure isn't. And the training isn't cheap either. If the office is already doing fine with the paper records and they are well established, it seems rather unfair to force doctors to pay a lot of money just to computerize just so they can remain in practice.

You could easily digitize records with existing computers (I assure you they have them) and without iPads. If you are seeing iPads at a doctor's office, they have decided to make that expense. The special software may be expensive, but I have never really priced it.

Paper records are a liability, as your story shows. A bad enough fire or disaster wipes out the records whereas a digital file can have a backup at a remote location that would not suffer that fate.

 

[LoAmmi]

BTW, we never had to "back-up" our paper records since they were permanent. Never had to worry about a "crash" and lost information. Also, digital records leave a person more open to identity theft than he was under the paper records.

And don't you know, "it takes a computer to really mess up."

Paper burns. Paper can be damaged by water.

Digital records may leave a person open to identity theft depending on the system in place. Believe it or not, I have been a part of teams that tried to infiltrate secure areas and it's amazing what the right uniform and the ability to act like you know what you are doing will get you. Maybe not at your place, but I could probably get into a records room with a maintenance uniform.

 

[AMDG]

Paper records are a liability, as your story shows. A bad enough fire or disaster wipes out the records whereas a digital file can have a backup at a remote location that would not suffer that fate.

Snipped to portion being addressed. Longer post above.

My post does not show that paper records are a liability, it only shows that computer records are. We *never* had to back them up (or pay extra so that they could be "backed up at a remote location) *AND* they records were more accurate and not supject to human errors that got bigger and bigger and bigger with each passing cycle or any "crashes" that create missing information.

My husband was actually a "computer scientist" (no I have no idea what the employment title meant and I really am not all that interested) at a VA Hospital and had to fix nurses' mistakes using computers more than once. "Garbage-in, garbage-out" is what he used to say. Problem is when there's "garbage-in" with a computer, it really "messes up" and the mistake just gets larger and larger.

I wish my doctor was allowed to keep his old paper records system. They were safer. Oh well, Obamacare put an end to that.

 

[LoAmmi]

Snipped to portion being addressed. Longer post above.

My post does not show that paper records are a liability, it only shows that computer records are. We *never* had to back them up (or pay extra so that they could be "backed up at a remote location) *AND* they records were more accurate and not supject to human errors that got bigger and bigger and bigger with each passing cycle or any "crashes" that create missing information.

My husband was actually a "computer scientist" (no I have no idea what the employment title meant and I really am not all that interested) at a VA Hospital and had to fix nurses' mistakes using computers more than once. "Garbage-in, garbage-out" is what he used to say. Problem is when there's "garbage-in" with a computer, it really "messes up" and the mistake just gets larger and larger.

I wish my doctor was allowed to keep his old paper records system. They were safer. Oh well, Obamacare put an end to that.

My entire career has been in IT and IT security and the entire "messes up" thing makes no sense to me. I have no idea how paper records are less prone to someone entering the wrong information than electronic. What year are we talking about when he was doing this work?

 

[TheOtherHockeyMom]

I would be really interested in the statistics on this but I wonder if there is more identity theft due to paper...throwing out important documents in the trash without shredding, someone grabbing your outgoing mail with payments in it , etc, or fraud when you give up your credit card a resturant or store than there is from someone hacking a secure server. I believe of course that identity theft exists, but wonder if we should be less worried about digital records on secure servers and more about what's in our trash and if we should have left that credit card payment in our mailbox with the flag up.

 

[AMDG]

My entire career has been in IT and IT security and the entire "messes up" thing makes no sense to me. I have no idea how paper records are less prone to someone entering the wrong information than electronic. What year are we talking about when he was doing this work?

With our records, we would record the information once. (If later it was found that a mistake was found, it could easily be corrected.) I have noticed though that with computers, a mistake is multiplied over and over again--a teeny tiny error on a phone bill or so becomes gigantic. Of course it always starts out as human error (the "garbage-in" part) but by the time one is able to bring it to the attention of someone able to correct the error, the error is great and the people calmly say "oh that's just a computer error"--that why it's said that it "takes a computer to really mess up."

Husband worked with computers in the VA Hospital from the middle 1980s to 2003, when he retired. Before then he was a "lifer" in the military.

The files that I am talking about were from the office where I worked in the juvenile court system in the 1990s. Our records were more complete--I suspect that it had something to do with the generalization of permanent "fields" (err--space that was allotted to each individual interview on computer records).

From my experience, will probably always consider paper records more accurate also those of a certain age are not computer fans--just you young folks. And I really, really with my doctors office didn't have to computerize according to the Obamacare rules.