Comments on: U.S. stimulus bill pushes e-health records for all
commentary A large chunk--about 140 pages of 800--of the Senate bill creates electronic health records for "each person in the United States by 2014," with no clear way to opt out.
commentary A large chunk--about 140 pages of 800--of the Senate bill creates electronic health records for "each person in the United States by 2014," with no clear way to opt out.
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
News at the intersection of technology, politics, and law, ranging from intellectual property to censorship to tech policy.
Add this feed to your online news reader
Just because the title doesn't read "E-medical Records to Create 1000s of Jobs" doesn't mean that it won't do just that.
Jobs = people with money to pay bills, buy things and put more money back into the economy.
At least that is how this thing is supposed to go, let's hope.
Oh yeah, and Cnet, how about a bit less bias. I mean come on, the title says 'Stimulus' in quotes and you use "convoluted legislation", a term that often times has negative connotations.
1) It comes from our pockets, meaning each of us will have even <i>less</i> money than we do now to spend on things that *actually* stimulate the economy.
2) The Federal Reserve prints more money, which contributes to inflation, ultimately destroying the value of our money.
This is not a stimulus bill. This is socialism. Plain and simple.
I wish that were true. But me, my children, and my grandchildren will be sending the majority of our paychecks to the IRS to pay for these "stimulus" bills. I fear the days of iPhones, HDTVs , and other extras for most folks are over.
Here's hoping I (and hundreds of economists) are wrong.
And even if the information remains "secure," do you want junk mail based on your medical history? Do you really want the Secretary of HHS and anyone they deem necessary to have access to such private information? Your family can't access it without your consent - but the government can? What happens when this is used to determine your ability to get insurance, qualify for government assistance, get a job? How can we be outraged over the Patriot Act and say nothing about this?
On another note:
If you watched C-Span yesterday, you would have seen Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) state that "the people don't care" about the pork.
I don't think many of the politicians we put in office believe we're smart enough to understand what's going on.
Privacy protections should be the first priority in every element of this, not an afterthought as it appears to be. I don't just want notice of breaches; I want my data encrypted so that it can only be accessed with my direct approval. Individuals should also have to give approval for any transfer or usage of their data.
We have a terrible record of protecting data that gets into electronic form in this country. We clearly need a data protection law similar to what they have in EU countries.
it just exhibits a bit of healthy skepticism regarding a bill for which the mainstream media is merely acting as unquestioning cheerleader.
thanks cnet for an insightful article that's truly newsworthy.
An example how a real reporter would write this story for this audience would focus on the fact that MS and Google already have extensive health records software. A real reporter would call both, then call some Congresspeople and maybe some people at HHS, and ask if they could bolt together these already existing systems. A good reporter might then call some major hospital chains and insurance companies and ask what it'd take to get them to use it, then call Google and MS back and ask them if they'd go along. Of course, that wouldn't leave room to insert long and irrelevant opinions about the merits of government spending.
Privacy is an issue in paper and in electronic records. Data IS encrypted. People in my profession work hard to maintain privacy and security while trying to build a system that will help the people of this country get better healthcare and it really bothers me to see so many take for granite that it is a bad idea without knowing ANYTHING about it. And this article only mentions gloom and doom prospects. It doesn't mentioned how many people are saved b/c of the REDUCTION OF MEDICATION ERRORS!
If we are asked to move en masse to an electronic medical records system, there should be a caveat that these systems must be compatible with each other. A simple suggestion is that all the EMRs have the same underlying database system, even if the front ends might be varying products, commercial or otherwise. The underlying database product could be a basic open source project that would receive update suggestions from the commercial vendors, public, etc. With a single database format, all of this printing/faxing/scanning could be avoided.
This is one of the most intelligent posts/analyses I've read in a long time. You are *exactly* right about the many programs/many incompatible formats problem. Without that being solved, everything reduces to paper and crappy scanned images of paper. It's virtually useless from a portability perspective and a data-centered systems design approach.
That is simply BS. Electronic records have to comply with HIPAA just like paper records and if you have ever read HIPAA which I HAVE you will see that parts of it apply to electronic information as well as paper information.
If you thought HMO's were bad.. you are in for a new treat!
GOD HELP US!
But, will that Medicare/Medicaid dose be enough to change the system for everyone else, most especially those in their teens, 20?s and 30?s who will benefit most from wellness, preventive care, and complete medical records over their lifetimes? How will such efforts expand beyond rural areas and selected populations? Are we ready to start creating portable records for uninsured children, or are we going to let them slip through the cracks in our imperfect information environment? The goal of comprehensive care first requires comprehensive records.
Learn more: www.healthcaretownhall.com
So if you stay off the grid then no need to sign up.
Everything in the current stimulus package is using tax dollars for not only stimulating the economy, but also invests towards improving America's future. It's a far better way of spending than the 1 trillion dollars we already blew away from a war we shouldn't have ever started or 325 billion for banks who just gave billions to their CEOs. Spend the money for the people! tax cuts, infrastructure, modernize EMR systems, affordable housing, health care and education. This is a step in the right direction by investing for the American people.
By the way, this bill is not paid for by "taxpayer dollars". That term insinuates that the money is already there, or will be soon. It will actually be money borrowed from countries that most definitely do not have the best interests of the U.S. at heart, at least economically.
Socialized medicine is unconstitutional and immoral. It takes life and property from one group of people to give to another. That is an undeniable fact.
So let me get this straight. You complain about our government doing what is mandated in our Constitution, provide for the defense of the country, saying it costs too much, but then when the government wants to do what is UNCONSTITUTIONAL according to the 10th amendment, it's OK and in fact spending/borrowing more just fine? What's wrong with you?
Your right, this doesn't create socialized medicine. It's a fascist system where the government dictates how a private company will use it's funds and operate. And that's exactly what the liberals of this country want.
And, yet, I am scared ******** at this development. So, sorry, your ad hominem fails.
They will scour your medical records from birth to death every time you make a claim for anything to claim "pre-existing condition," or that you didn't do as much as you could have to improve yourself, or any other reason they can come up with to deny coverage, employment, or other benefits.
Count on it - if you tried a cigarette when you were 13 and told your doctor, you will be labeled a "smoker" for life and denied coverage for lung cancer caused by exposure to asbestos at your employer 50 years later. If you sought family counseling, or therapy after traumatic events, or other mental health treatment, you will be labeled mentally ill and this will be held against you in background checks and otherwise.
When do the government or insurers or most companies ever use information about people other than against them? Come on - when your W-2 is submitted, this isn't for your BENEFIT, it's so that they can TAKE from you. This is no different, and anyone telling themselves otherwise is deluded.
In terms of government medical database. You must be joking. I do not ask or welcome anyone to be involved in my medical care (or that of anyone I care about) except myself and my doctor. If you can't keep track of the drugs you are taking and your own medical conditions then expecting a federalized bureaucracy to do it for you is beyond idiocy.
An "invisible hand' and 'self-correcting' markets are MYTHS designed to allow corporations and investors to do anything to make money.
The results of this lie are now bared to the world.
Seriously, people in Canada who can afford it come to the USA for health care; especially for time-critical operations. Why? Because the waiting list is so long thanks to Canada's "free" health care that they couldn't wait.
We need to take note of the senators and representatives that allowed this bill to pass into the hands of our new socialist president and vote them out at the next available term. We also need to find ways to get this bill thrown out as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of our Nation -- that is if the activist judges will do their duty and protect our constitution.
- by chuckwh February 11, 2009 10:32 AM PST
- What part of the Hipaa laws does the author not understand?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by Endbringer February 12, 2009 5:54 AM PST
- Whenever Congress passes a new law, it'll trump any older ones. So if anything in this new one violates HIPPA, then the new one will override it. Because this porkulus bill was passed without anyone ever paying attention to the consequences of it little things like HIPPA will just have to be fixed later, if at all.
- Like this
-
- by pentest February 12, 2009 7:13 AM PST
- Endbringer,
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (81 Comments)http://personalinsure.about.com/od/health/a/aa041806a.htm
Thank you liberal democrats and President Obama for this "Change we can believe in!".
You are irrational. Unless a new law SPECIFICALLY states that it supersedes an older law, it does not invalidate it.
There is nothing in there saying that some mysterious board now makes decisions.
There is plenty to fear from government, but when wackos like you start exaggerate it makes it difficult for sane watchdogs to do their work.
Idiots like you are the reason Bush was able to marginalize his opposition and destroy our country.