Roll Call: Latest News on Capitol Hill, Congress, Politics and Elections
April 20, 2014

Americans Prefer Obamacare to a GOP Alternative

Aaron Blake and Sean Sullivan reveal Obamacare’s silver lining:

“Despite the country’s opposition to the Affordable Care Act and Obama’s leadership on it, it doesn’t want to turn the reins over to Republicans.”

According to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, when respondents were asked “whether they would rather see Obama or the GOP in charge of that implementation, 42 percent pick Obama, while 37 percent pick Republicans.”

“The GOP’s laser-like focus on repeal — and things like the shutdown that resulted from it — have mitigated the advantage that they otherwise might have on this issue. The fact that Republicans trail on an issue on which Obama’s approval rating is 34 percent speaks volumes and suggests the GOP message on that issue, at the very least, isn’t resonating.”

  • pbrower2a

    The Republicans have nothing to offer but the old way of “Profits First or Die”.

    “Repeal and Replace” is meaningful only if the Republicans have a viable replacement — like single-payer. “Repeal only” implies a Presidential veto.

    • markbuehner

      Yeah, the problem with the current plan is not enough government. Just
      imagine how awesome it would be if the obamacare website interfaced
      directly with your doctor when youre trying to get care. Happy days.
      We’ll never go back to those horrid days when 85% were happy with their
      insurance. We’re all gonna be unhappy together, and so happy about it.

      • Jesse4

        ” . . . imagine how awesome it would be if the obamacare website interfaced directly with your doctor when youre trying to get care.”
        ——————————————————————
        Imagine how awesome it would be if the boogy man came in during a medical exam and Batman beat him up!

        • markbuehner

          The next time you get a checkup, note the creepy questions your doctor is forced to ask you about your mental health and get back to me.

          • dectra

            Mark

            You don’t have to answer anything you don’t want to on those forms,

            You know this, and yet you pass on this canard as if some guy in a trench coat is standing next to the person filling out the form, threatening to beat you up if you don’t answer…..

          • markbuehner

            That sound you hear is the goalposts moving.

          • aman12345

            No, he was showing your hyperbole for what it is… hyperbole.

          • markbuehner

            Soooo- if the feds passed a law forcing doctors to ask women seeking abortion questions about their sex lives, options for adoption, if they had seen an ultrasound (of course nobody is forcing them to answer), that wouldnt be coming between you and your doctor either?

          • markbuehner

            And note- im completely against this. But Obamacare opened that door. If you dont think forcing your doctor to ask you questions so they can pop them into a federal database is creepy, maybe you ought think about the questions President Ted Cruz will have them ask.

          • aman12345

            No, it didn’t and your hyperbole is noted for the the stupidity it represents..

          • markbuehner

            Nice counter argument. Dont get your fingers stuck in your ears. I’d keep in mind that the rules Sebelius is cooking up today are entirely open to renovation under the next president. But you dont wanna think about that. I’d refer you to section 4103 of the ACA.
            “The term ‘personalized prevention plan services’
            means the creation of a plan for an individual—
            ‘‘(A) that includes a health risk assessment (that meets theguidelines established by the Secretary under paragraph(4)(A))”

          • aman12345

            You do know what HIPAA is right?? Again hyperbole is just that.. A bunch of stupidity from the republicans pissed. Because a democrat President got their idea off the ground..

          • markbuehner

            Certainly i do. And you do know that HIPAA doesnt prevent the HHS from collecting and using private medical information dont you?
            “The Privacy Rule recognizes the important role that persons or entities
            other than public health authorities play in certain essential public
            health activities. Accordingly, the Rule permits covered entities to
            disclose protected health information, without authorization, to such
            persons or entities for the public health activities discussed below. ”
            http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/special/publichealth/

            You do know what the Electronic Medical Records Mandate is dont you? And government would NEVER abuse a database full of your private information right?

            Lets put it all together in a way even stupid republicans can understand- ACA requires doctors to ask certain personal questions, particularly about mental health and family living situations (oh, and guns), as defined by HHS. The EMR mandate requires doctors to record this information and make it accessible to the HHS and other entities (HIPAA not withstanding) in what the HHS defines under ‘meaningful use’.

            We can debate whether this is a bad, even dangerous idea little removed from the NSA collecting all our emails and cell phone metadata, but I dont think we can debate the facts that these are the laws of the land.

          • aman12345

            Seriously do you have even a clue as to what you are talking about.. No I didn’t think so.. You are increasingly coming across as some sort of conspiracy nut case..

            All information collected can NOT be shared UNLESS the patient Or the guardian/The Person that holds the power of attorney for the patient gives a Signed release. This had to be pointed out to you???? SHHESSHH!

          • markbuehner

            I just cited you the text of the law. Does that have to be pointed out to you? Here’s what the exeutive order from TODAY says:
            “The rules, proposed by the Justice and Health and Human Services departments, would allow the federal database access to some mental health records by giving it an exemption from existing privacy law and “clarify” that people involuntarily committed to both inpatient and outpatient institutions could be prohibited from purchasing guns.”

            Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/gun-rules-mentally-ill-101724.html#ixzz2pNXLrdUb

            Should I not believe what the White House is telling me? Sound advice, typically, but they seem serious.

          • aman12345

            That is again called a background check.. it only will show a mental health issue. Not the particulars.. You just keep right on proving that you really do not know what you are talking about.

          • markbuehner

            There go the goalposts moving again…

          • aman12345

            There you go keep on proving you do not know what you are talking about.

          • markbuehner

            Mmmhmm. Didnt you just earlier say:
            “All information collected can NOT be shared UNLESS the patient Or the guardian/The Person that holds the power of attorney for the patient gives a Signed release.”

            And now you’re claiming… well, ok, SOME of the information can be shared.. but its just a background check. So either YOU dont know what youre talking about, or you just cant wrap your head around the fact that the law doesnt do what you think it must do. You’ve been proven wrong about what you so adamantly (and ill-manneredly) were SO SURE was true, shouldnt you maybe take a step back before jumping to defend more things you clearly dont know as much about as you think you do.

          • markbuehner

            “Before the Newtown massacre, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote that the health care privacy law known as HIPAA does not prevent state court and justice systems from sharing mental health information with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. States could, Sebelius wrote in an Aug. 2012 letter to Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), compel agencies that are covered by HIPAA to share information with the federal background check database.

            (QUIZ: Do you know Kathleen Sebelius?)

            The proposed new HHS rule would allow HIPAA-covered agencies “an express permission to submit to the background check system the limited information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands,” the White House said.

            Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/gun-rules-mentally-ill-101724.html#ixzz2pNXuCNkC

          • markbuehner

            And i might as well cite this again. FROM THE HHS WEBSITE:
            “The Privacy Rule recognizes the important role that persons or entities other than public health authorities play in certain essential public
            health activities. Accordingly, the Rule permits covered entities to disclose protected health information, WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION, to such
            persons or entities for the public health activities discussed below. ”
            (emphasis mine)
            http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy

            So how the hell can you possibly say that information cannot be shared…. when it DEMONSTRABLY can be shared (under the linked circumstances) WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION?

          • aman12345

            Again dim wit.. You have to give permission before any information is shared. taking something out of context shows either a lack of reading comprehension or you are really that stupid…

          • markbuehner

            Really? Ok- please explain to me what this means. From the HHS website:
            “Permitted Uses and Disclosures

            Permitted Uses and Disclosures. A covered entity is permitted, but not required, to use and disclose protected health information, WITHOUT THE INDIVIDUAL’S AUTHORIZATION, for the following purposes or situations: (1) To the Individual (unless required for access or accounting of disclosures); (2) Treatment, Payment, and Health Care Operations; (3) Opportunity to Agree or Object; (4) Incident to an otherwise permitted use and disclosure; (5) Public Interest and Benefit Activities; and (6) Limited Data Set for the purposes of research, public health or health care operations.18 Covered entities may rely on professional ethics and best judgments in deciding which of these permissive uses and disclosures to make.”

            Emphasis mine. http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/summary/index.html
            Please explain to me what ‘without the individuals authorization’ means, because I seem to think it means something very different than you are claiming.

          • aman12345

            It means you idiot. That no information can be shared WITH OUT YOUR consent. Are you seriously this stupid or do you have to work at it.

          • markbuehner

            I see. So when the language reads ” A covered entity is PERMITTED, but not required, TO USE AND DISCLOSE protected health information, WITHOUT the individual’s AUTHORIZATION”

            we should take that to mean that a covered entity is FORBIDDEN to use and disclose protected health information without the individuals authorization? Or is it possible you have a problem with reading comprehension?

          • aman12345

            You still have to sign the form that gives consent.. What part of that is getting by you.. or do you just cherry pick. to look foolish.

          • markbuehner

            Do you know what the word authorization’ means? Do you know what the term ‘without authorization’ means?
            If you sign a release, you have provided authorization. That is what a release is.
            But the law allows them to share information with government agencies ‘without authorization’ under the circumstances listed, which by definition means… without authorization.

            Are you arguing with me or with the english language?

          • aman12345

            You have to sign off.. What part of this is getting by you..Or are you simply trolling.

          • markbuehner

            Ok, I get that you’re straight trolling now. Who you gonna believe, the voices in your head or your lying eyes. I’ve presented to you proof positive that HIPPA has numerous exceptions to the privacy rule allowing government to share data without your authorization. I’ve literally showed you the language. Nobody on the planet except for you is disputing it. So please, feel free to go about your life making a fool of yourself by refusing to even acknowledge facts you disagree with, much less attempt to refute them with anything but what you think you know. I’m sure you’re a real hit at cocktail parties.

          • aman12345

            I do not argue with a fool that chooses to cherry pick.. and your projection is noted for the lack of intelligence that you have displayed here..

            To iterate the obvious. Before any information can be shared with a third party.. You will have signed a release form of the stating as much.. You stupidity, that is what it is in the end, shows you are nothing more than a fool. Working against your own best interests. Which is pathetically typical of you tea baggers.

          • markbuehner

            You’re wrong, i’ve proved you wrong, this is not even controversial. Your information can be released without your authorization, i provided the exact language, for a number of reasons by government agencies.

            You really think the CDC needs you to sign a release to collect your medical charts during an epidemic? Are you really that obtuse? What if you’re in a coma? Why am i appealing to your logic anyway? I provided for you the exact languages of exceptions to the privacy rule and you still cant understand it.

          • aman12345

            Again your projection is pathetically noted. What you provided was your interpretation of what it meant. And your continuing projection is ridiculous. Again You have to sign the form that gives permission for any medical provider or facility the right to share your medical information. Why you continue to keep ignoring that fact can be for only one reason. You are trolling.

          • markbuehner

            Listen genius, what you are SO sure of, is wrong. Its not my interpretation, its the well known fact.
            Google ‘Hippa exceptions’, its really not this complicated.

            Better yet- please give me your ‘interpretation’ of what the ACTUAL TEXT OF THE LAW means:
            ” 164.512 Uses and disclosures for which an authorization or opportunity to agree or object is not required.
            A covered entity may use or disclose protected health information without the written authorization of the individual, as described in § 164.508″
            http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/45/164.512

            Just do me this one little favor- explain to me what that means.

          • markbuehner

            My Doctor Can Disclose My Medical Records to the NSA Without My Authorization (and So Can Yours)
            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-van-buren/medical-records-nsa_b_4608883.html

            “Exceptions – Disclosure without Patient Consent

            “There are exceptions under HIPAA that permit or require the disclosure of PHI without patient consent or authorization. Before disclosing PHI under any of these exceptions, make sure the disclosure is also permitted under any other rules that might protect the type of information to be disclosed (e.g., behavioral health information or HIV information).”

            http://www.goer.ny.gov/Training_Development/Resources/hipaa/helpFiles/PermittedUsesandDisclosures.htm

            I can provide as many more as necessary. You are flatly wrong- their are very well known exceptions to HIPPA that allow government entities to share medical information without the patients consent. Its astonish that you’re so convinced it is not so. If someone is shot and in a coma- information can be provided to the police. If there is an outbreak of a contagious disease, information can be provided to the CDC without consent. And a number of other scenarios. Do you really think thats not the case? Despite the mounds of evidence I’ve provided you? And the sheer common sense that there are of course situations (as the above) that the government has exempted itself from requiring your authorization? Surely you’re not this pigheaded. Admit you we wrong, move the goalposts by saying ‘well yeah there are very tightly controlled exceptions’ and move on with your life.

          • markbuehner

            And I do SO love a good timely discussion:
            Jake Tapper ‏@jaketapper 24m

            2) HHS proposes rule giving some HIPAA covered entities express permission to submit to the background check system some limited info.
            Expand

            Jake Tapper ‏@jaketapper 25m

            1) DOJ to “clarify that statutory term ‘committed to a mental institution’ includes involuntary inpatient as well as outpatient commitments”
            Expand

            Jake Tapper ‏@jaketapper 28m

            WH: 2 exec actions to “help strengthen” fed. background check system relating to those banned from gun ownership for mental health reasons

      • EricFromTheHill

        The problem with the 85% figure is that it was taken among people who had insurance at the time, completely shutting out the tens of millions who didn’t/don’t have it and were/are unhappy about that.

        There’s also the inherent flaw of lack of comparison: they’re happy with it compared to what? Has this 85% ever lived in one of the two dozen or so developed countries that have lower costs and better outcomes than the U.S.? What is the metric for their ‘happiness’?

        • markbuehner

          There happy with it compared to THIS. That much is pretty clear. But your formulation is flawed, although it does highlight the usual class warfare relative comparisons- they are happy, period. Not compared to someone else. There is such a thing as objective happiness.

          Regardless, we could have just expanded medicaid and called it a day. Instead the medicaid expansion is looking to be the only thing that is actually covering more people as opposed to less.

          • EricFromTheHill

            That is incorrect. The “this” you indicate isn’t affecting the vast majority of insurance plans, despite one’s refusal to believe otherwise. What IS happening is that patterns that were present in the insurance market prior to and independent of the ACA are suddenly being noticed and people are mistaking correlation for causation.

            Further, using the insurance happiness statistic to bolster the argument that the status-quo is preferable to ACA reform absolutely is fallacious, for three reasons.
            1. We aren’t even that far along. I’m not painting a rosy picture of a law that has had a mishandled implementation, but we are simply too early in the game to declare anything, period.
            2. It doesn’t really relate to the ACA because the numbers of people losing insurance coverage is a very small percentage. What happens to that 85% figure when people who wanted affordable coverage and couldn’t get it before have it? This is a question worth considering. High numbers of coverage satisfaction and skeptical or disapproving opinions of the law don’t go hand in hand. This argument depends on a link that very well could not exist. Also bear in mind that a huge portion of cancellation notices have already gone out, while a relatively small proportion of eligible sign-ups have occurred.
            3. I’m not sure what is meant by “objective happiness”, but this is an oversimplification. It’s been shown when researching developing areas of the world that people in impoverished communities with low educational attainment are often “happy” when they achieve what we consider to be a sub-par standard of living, because they are unaware of anything different. This acts as an impediment to upgrades in infrastructure and education. The same is true of American health care: people form an entirely subjective opinion of their situation but few of them have any concept of the difference between what they think is a good deal vs. what actually is a good deal.

            What does help put the ACA into context is considering objective data: that the US spends seven or eight times as much on health care as do other developed countries and gets worse results. That a majority of personal bankruptcies are at least partially resulting from health care costs. That millions of the elderly, women and people with health problems have been the victims of economic discrimination and undue hardshipfor decades.

            Of course, this would probably be better served by, like you say, expanding Medicaid so that every American is eligible. I’d take that over Obamacare as it is in a heart beat. Even though it is plain to some of us that the ACA is a vast improvement over the previous status quo, it will become even more plainly obvious in the next few years.

      • dectra

        Mark

        You do realize you’re already paying for these people to get health care…….through the emergency rooms they use.

        And the ‘cost’ you whine about?

        It’s passed on to YOU in the form of higher premiums.

        At least the ACA makes people by their own insurance.

        I can see where making people pay their own cost is sooooo hard on YOU.

        • markbuehner

          And all that has changed with the ACA is that it has gotten worse. My company’s premiums jumped 50% this year (a small business). You really want to talk to me about higher premiums?

        • markbuehner

          Oh, and turns out that having health insurance doesnt necessarily reduce non-emergency ER use (at least w medicaid, according to the Oregon Study):
          “Medicaid increases use for visits classified as “non-emergent,” “primary care treatable,” and “emergent, preventable.” We find no statistically significant change in use of visits classified as “emergent, not preventable.”

          Medicaid increases outpatient emergency department visits (visits that did not result in a hospital admission). We find no statistically significant increase in emergency department visits that did result in a hospital admission.”
          http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-02/another-problem-obamacare-won-t-solve-health-costs.html

          “”I would view it as part of a broader set of evidence that covering people with health insurance doesn’t save money,” says Jonathan Gruber, a health economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who has also studied Oregon’s Medicaid expansion but is not affiliated with this study. “That was sometimes a misleading motivator for the Affordable Care Act. The law isn’t designed to save money. It’s designed to improve health, and that’s going to cost money.”

          Might wanna hold off on how much money this is gonna save us all.

    • EricFromTheHill

      Obamacare is obviously a more comprehensive, economically just and viable plan. But I can’t be overly optimistic when Obama’s margin over the GOP on this issue is only 5%, and well below a majority. The questioning also asks about implementation and not policy, which really only says they see Obama as more competent.

      Even the Republican “plan” that has been circulating lately is more of a band-aid and a political face-saver, though. It does nothing for accessibility and adequate coverage, and only marginally addresses affordability. As far as cost controls and universalizing, forget about it.

  • F Michael Addams

    Republican alternative: Die..cheaply and somewhere we can’t see ya’…

  • Shade

    Anything is better than 0bamacare, as it stands we have more people uninsured because of it.

    • mrbeenie

      “Anything is better than 0bamacare.”

      Any ideas? Any exact program you can advise? Or is it just bluster on your part?

    • EricFromTheHill

      “As it stands we have more people uninsured because of it.”

      Even if we are to assume this is true, it will be rendered untrue within a couple of years at most. To date, there have been half a million enrollments with thousands more happening each day. The rate of sign-ups is accelerating. Somewhere between 2 and 3% of policy holders will be “losing” their “coverage” (read: schemes that don’t cover a single meaningful thing) as a result of insurers having to take some responsibility for their business practices.

      And you think a plan that would restore their freedom to abuse would be better?

      • Shade

        Of course it’s true, by the White Houses admission (if you’re still foolish enough to believe what they say), 2 million have signed up, yet we know over 5 million have lost their coverage due to cancelations.
        BTW, neither you nor the president have to right to declare what other people purchased for themselves and their families to be junk insurance, it wasn’t your choice to make then and it isn’t your choice to make now,
        Enough said.

        • EricFromTheHill

          The duly elected government absolutely has the right to tell insurance companies that they can’t grift people into shoddy products. And it isn’t just “the president” telling people this– the law was passed by Congress.

          By your logic, the government doesn’t have the right to tell GM or Ford that they can’t sell me a car that explodes on the highway, or that food producers can’t sell me a box labelled as food filled with styrofoam and sugar packets.

          Try learning a little bit about governmental powers under the constitution. But, yes, you’ve definitely said more than enough.

          • Shade

            You should know that every insurance policy ever sold comes with a book that explains exactly what was purchased, The policies that were cancelled were chosen, freely by the holders precisely because of the types of policies they were, that was their choice (freedom), not your (tyranny). I said you have no right to arbitrarily proclaim them to be junk just because the situation is harming your precious political agenda.
            Nowhere in my post did I claim the government can’t regulate the insurance industry, your comparison to exploding cars and poisonous food demonstrates just how far you missed the point.

          • EricFromTheHill

            What you describe is commerce, and the right to regulate it falls on the Congress (passing the law) and the Executive (executing the law). There’s nothing stopping insurance companies from simply adding benefits to these plans to comply with the law. Their previous state is simply no longer legal. Neither are exploding cars, toxic items or falsely advertised food. How exactly does this translate into the tyranny of a political agenda?

            Flippantly throwing around buzzwords like “tyranny” and “freedom” won’t change the reality of the situation. You don’t have to like it, but it is the law and it is fully constitutional. Get over it.

          • Shade

            I’ll explain this as simply as I can, according to the ACA, any policy that was changed in any manner (including price)after 2010 could no longer be “grandfathered in”, so no, the insurance companies could not “simply add benefits to these plans to comply with the law”, that would be considered a change, thus cancelled.
            At least you admit that because of the law these policies are no longer legal.
            A person having the ability to choose the type of healthcare coverage (if any) they want is not a buzzword, it literally is freedom.
            And a government taking away that ability and doing so with force and mandates is not a buzzword either, that’s literally tyranny.

          • EricFromTheHill

            Condescend all you want, it doesn’t magically make you right. The insurance companies very well could offer customers a new plan at a similar rate that conformed with the new requirements. I guess it all depends what your definitions of freedom and tyranny are. I suppose you think this makes you sound like a patriot or something. Far be it from me to shatter your pathetic little pseudo-Libertarian delusion.

        • dectra

          “of course it’s true…”

          Why because YOU said so?

          You live in a fact free world, shade.

    • dectra

      Shade,

      Your stupidity is legendary.

      • Shade

        Says the little boy who can do nothing but ad hominem attacks.

      • Shade

        And of course after 3 days you don’t reply back, seems like it would be easy to do considering how stupid I am.
        Troll.

        • lookolook

          Shade, you’re the classical troll. Bye now.

      • lookolook

        I agree.

    • lookolook

      Liar pants on fire.

      • Shade

        I posted some facts, linked with sources.

        You post nothing but name calling, because you obviously have no rebuttal.

        “Liar pants on fire” Really?
        I think your mom wants her tablet back.

        • lookolook

          What facts? Your own stupid lies as facts? I’m not obligated to confirm or rebut them. Why should I? You’re a stupid, common and cheap troll. That’s the fact. Bye now.

          • Shade

            If 0bamacare is such a brilliant idea, why does it have to be mandated?
            What’s with the thousands of wavers 0bama handed out ?
            Why do the unions want exemption?
            Why did Harry Reid exempt his staff?
            Why have almost 80% of the jobs create this year been part-time?
            Why does it have only 30% support in poll after poll?
            And why has 0bama repeatedly delayed the implementation deadlines?
            You can’t answer one of these questions.

  • lookolook

    Fool’s song, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. That’s the typical Republican attacks and ideas since Obama became President of the USA.

  • aman12345

    Yes, you do.. It s simple as that..

    • markbuehner

      “A covered entity may use or disclose protected health information without the written authorization of the individual, as described in § 164.508″

      • aman12345

        Only after you have signed off on that.. Walk into any clinic, doctors office , or hospital. In order for your information to be shared you must sign a consent form.. That is reality or are you just seeing how far you can push this for your own amusement.

        • markbuehner

          So your theory is that you have to sign an authorization allowing there to be no authorization?

          If you already provided the written authorization, it would not be ‘without written authorization’. It would just be WITH written authorization. Because thats what you signed. You are making zero sense.

          • aman12345

            It is not a theory. it is reality.. something that i hope become acquainted with one day. In order for any information concerning your medical history can be shared with a third party. you must sign the release forms. it is not a theory it is stander practice. I am to understand that you do not see a doctor or visit a clinic….

          • markbuehner

            Except… for the exceptions. Which I have quoted to you over and over again.
            The Hippa form you are given at the doctors office is an explanation of your rights… which includes when they are required to share information without your consent. When you sign that form, all you are doing is ACKNOWLEDGING YOU RECEIVED THE FORM, providers are required to prove you have been shown your hippa rights. There is no way to ‘opt out’ of the privacy rule exceptions.
            In other words, you dont know what you are talking about. And you assumdely never will considering your refusal to read the explanations i keep providing you from HHS directly. Again- you think you know what you think you know, and thats it. But you’re not very smart, and that makes you a bore.

          • aman12345

            The only bore here is you as you seem to not want to understand the very real fact. That information can not be shared until a person has signed the release forms. Again walk into any clinic, doctors office, or hospital.It is one of several papers that a person signs.

            But continue to show what a fool you are here.

          • markbuehner

            Wait- so that release your are REQUIRED TO SIGN to receive treatment is what allows them to share your information.
            Interesting- so the law says you have total privacy rights for your medical treatment, but you cant receive any treatment until you sign away those rights.
            Thats your story?

            And btw- YOU should read that document. What you are signing is an acknowledgement that you have received a copy of your HIPPA rights, nothing more nothing less. you are not signing them away, which is ludicrous and Orwellian. The providers are required to prove (via your signature) that they have informed you of your rights.

          • aman12345

            And that is just one of the forms. You will sighn a form that allows them to share information with tgird oarties as well. Depending on doctors office, clinic, or hospital. Will detail just whom they will share that information with. You should pay more attention to what you are signing. As it is evident that you are clueless as to what you are talking about.

          • markbuehner

            God you’re an idiot. Nobody signs a form allowing all those government entities i listed in the HHS website to share their info. FIND ME THAT FORM. And ill believe you. You sign a form acknowledging you received a copy of your rights. You sign allowing insurance or family access. Who the hell signs to allow the CDC and 10 different levels of law enforcement to have access? Nobody, because you’re wrong- those are built in exceptions… as i’ve proved 10 times.

        • markbuehner

          and that consent form is to allow them to share your information OUTSIDE the exceptions we are talking about- with other doctors, pharmacies, insurance companies for which there is no existing exception to the privacy rule.

          One last time I will try this:
          “I. Disclosing protected health information
          To disclose PHI to law enforcement, a hospital must EITHER receive a valid authorization executed by the individual whose information is sought (or his or her personal representative) OR the request must fall within a specific circumstance under both HIPAA and state law that allows the disclosure of PHI WITHOUT AN AUTHORIZATION.”
          Emphasis mine: http://www.wsha.org/files/62/HIPAA_Guide_2010.pdf
          The only logical way to read that is that either a patient provides written consent OR the sharing falls into one of the exceptions that allow sharing with no consent. Note that nowhere is there some nonsensical loop that would allow for authorization without authorization.

Sign In

Forgot password?

Or

Subscribe

Receive daily coverage of the people, politics and personality of Capitol Hill.

Subscription | Free Trial

Logging you in. One moment, please...