Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Now the government wants all our personal information

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Now the government wants all our personal information

    Originally posted by John Drake View Post
    Oh stop it already. The government (and just about everybody else) already HAS all your personal information. If fracking several UNIVERSITIES archive the Internet, apparently just for laughs, don't you think the NSA is doing so?

    It's what they can use against you that's of concern, and that's why you better vote Democrat and support a single payer Universal insurance system.....didn't grandma have Genetic Expensive Care Syndrome. Otherwise, no plan for you buddy, doesn't matter how much money you got
    Universities don't worry me. The government however has a big ass stick.

    ?


    • #17
      Re: Now the government wants all our personal information

      Originally posted by Invisible-Bob View Post
      Apparently there is a provision in the law that may allow the government to farm personal information from insurance companies. Now what does the government want with this information? What is the government going to do with this information?
      Why is everything a great mystery? The feds have been very good about explaining each piece of the law in layman's terms along the way, including this one.

      It's called risk adjustment. It levels that playing field by compensating health insurance plans that happen to come up with higher-risk risk enrollees.

      You'll find this in proposals on both sides of the aisle. Two years ago, back when GOP darling Paul Ryan supported state-based exchanges for individual market private insurance plans, his legislation (the Patients' Choice Act) contained risk adjustment between insurers. His Medicare proposal from this year contains risk adjustment between insurers in his proposed Medicare exchange ("In addition, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services would collect fees from plans with healthier enrollees, on average, and convey the proceeds to plans with less healthy enrollees, on average, with the goal of appropriately compensating plans for the health risks of their insured population. This risk-adjustment mechanism would be known as the risk review audit and would be budget-neutral.")

      The point of this minor hubbub is that determining actuarial risks requires data. Namely claims data, i.e. for what are providers billing insurers? Right now there are proposed rules out for public comment on data collection. Interested parties are encouraged to weigh in, which is why you get articles like the one in the OP. In this case, HHS is suggesting going for a Goldlocks approaching to analyzing the data to figure out the actuarial risk of each plan so the adjustments can be made: they're not suggesting the data be given to the federal government to do it and they're not suggesting it be left to each individual health plan to figure it out. They're suggesting an "intermediate" approach in which the process be managed at the state level.

      HHS considered three possibilities for data collection: (1) A centralized approach in which issuers submit raw claims data sets to HHS; (2) an intermediate State-level approach in which issuers submit raw claims data sets to the State government, or the entity responsible for administering the risk adjustment process at the State level; and (3) a distributed approach in which each issuer must reformat its own data to map correctly to the risk assessment database and then pass on self-determined individual risk scores and plan averages to the entity responsible for assessing risk adjustment charges and payments.

      A fully distributed approach would leverage existing infrastructures established to support Exchanges. A distributed approach also keeps individual-level data with the issuers, eliminating privacy risks related to transmission. However, there is reason to be concerned that some issuers would make errors in calculating individual risk scores and plan averages. Furthermore, we believe that the complicated nature of a distributed risk adjustment model may prove challenging for some issuers, especially smaller issuers and would thus require significant involvement by the State, or HHS on behalf of the State. In addition, this approach would require issuers to be able to respond to multiple queries to support other functions, such as data to recalibrate the Federally-certified risk adjustment model, reconciling cost- sharing reductions payments, verifying risk corridor submissions, or auditing cost-sharing reductions or reinsurance payments. We seek comment on use of this data for auditing purposes. We believe the proposed intermediate approach would result in the most complete, actuarially sound risk adjustment methodology and provides support for other functions that also require encounter level data, while maintaining State flexibility. We recognize this approach may raise concerns related to consumer privacy and standard submission formats. Accordingly, we propose national standards to address each of these issues. We seek comment on the proposed approach, as well as comments on the potential advantages and disadvantages of the alternative approaches.
      If you're a true policy nerd and want to dig deeper into this issue, HHS put out a draft white paper earlier this month exploring how things like this will actually be implemented.

      It's not some shadowy conspiracy, it's a pretty standard idea whose details are being fleshed out right now.
      Last edited by Greenbeard; 09-29-2011, 06:52 PM.

      ?


      • #18
        Re: Now the government wants all our personal information

        Originally posted by Vuld Edone View Post
        Just a linguistic assumption, I think "this" is far less important, the way the message is written, than warrantless wiretaps.
        Yeah, that makes sense.

        In the case of a warrantless wiretap you need to be communicating with a known or suspected terrorist outside of the United States in order to fall into the net.

        Here you just need to be an American citizen making a credit card purchase.

        Since you're Swiss I fail to see why either would concern you but as an American who doesn't communicate with terrorists I'm much more concerned with this more recent development and therefore find it to be far more important.

        The accumulation is a clue. Logically, it would be something like "accepting warrantless wiretaps implies accepting this". Implication doesn't allow such a conclusion that "accepting this implies accepting warrantless wiretaps". And that's assuming "this" is fine, which doesn't seem that obvious.
        Right, since I accept the right to real property that implies I also accept slavery, but not necesarially vice versa.

        Makes perfect sense as a completly acedemic deductive syllogism but once you drag it into the real world it kind of falls apart as being retarded.

        Whether or not we accept the government collecting personal and private financial data as being "fine" there is no way to hold up warrantless wire tapping as a reasonable predicate, hell, as any kind of predicate. They have nothing to do with one and other.

        ?


        • #19
          Re: Now the government wants all our personal information

          Originally posted by soot View Post
          So you're saying that you agree with both warrantless wire tapping and this?
          Yes that's right. I encourage all forms of government surveillance and information gathering.

          ?


          • #20
            Re: Now the government wants all our personal information

            Originally posted by Invisible-Bob View Post
            http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...est=latestnews

            Well this is one of those nasty little things Nancy Polosi thought we should ONLY find out after they pass Obamacare. Apparently there is a provision in the law that may allow the government to farm personal information from insurance companies. Now what does the government want with this information? What is the government going to do with this information? I can't imagine anything good can come from the government having access to this information.
            I take it you are against the massive surveillance state we live in, right?

            ?


            • #21
              Re: Now the government wants all our personal information

              Originally posted by fishjoel View Post
              What's your point? Obama appointed a tax dodger to head our nation's financing. Did that tidbit of information add to the discussion?
              His point is are you or are you not against an all too intrusive state?

              I, for one, am not.

              ?


              • #22
                Re: Now the government wants all our personal information

                And I thought if there is one thing where both, the Democratic and the Republican party, are perfectly agreeing it is that collecting as much data about everyone (not only US citizens) as possible is a great thing.

                I am surprised to see this becoming a partisan issue.

                But if anyone here is really serious about privacy and data protection, why not demand steps in that direction from the own party one supports first? It also affects us Europeans big time with all those nasty data exchange programs and all those data exchanges which might be going on totally illegally and in secrecy, what kind of data protection laws you have in the US.

                For a start it would be a great progress if you could at least get to a point where Europe is already in the meanwhile, which is at least de jure protection even if the de facto situation is yet a different one.

                PS: But states are just one side of the problem. The other side are private companies like Google or Facebook. Yeah, you are not forced to use them (their competitors are no better however) but they collect far more data than they would like to let you know and if you delete data because you don't want them to be online anymore, you can't. They just fake the deletion but keep the data, at Facebook does.
                Last edited by Slartibartfas; 10-01-2011, 04:06 AM.

                ?


                • #23
                  Re: Now the government wants all our personal information

                  Originally posted by Rude Boy View Post
                  His point is are you or are you not against an all too intrusive state?

                  I, for one, am not.
                  I prefer to reside within the gray area between the two, in my opinion histrionic, poles.

                  ?


                  • #24
                    Re: Now the government wants all our personal information

                    Originally posted by Greenbeard View Post
                    Why is everything a great mystery? The feds have been very good about explaining each piece of the law in layman's terms along the way, including this one.

                    It's called risk adjustment. It levels that playing field by compensating health insurance plans that happen to come up with higher-risk risk enrollees.

                    You'll find this in proposals on both sides of the aisle. Two years ago, back when GOP darling Paul Ryan supported state-based exchanges for individual market private insurance plans, his legislation (the Patients' Choice Act) contained risk adjustment between insurers. His Medicare proposal from this year contains risk adjustment between insurers in his proposed Medicare exchange ("In addition, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services would collect fees from plans with healthier enrollees, on average, and convey the proceeds to plans with less healthy enrollees, on average, with the goal of appropriately compensating plans for the health risks of their insured population. This risk-adjustment mechanism would be known as the risk review audit and would be budget-neutral.")

                    The point of this minor hubbub is that determining actuarial risks requires data. Namely claims data, i.e. for what are providers billing insurers? Right now there are proposed rules out for public comment on data collection. Interested parties are encouraged to weigh in, which is why you get articles like the one in the OP. In this case, HHS is suggesting going for a Goldlocks approaching to analyzing the data to figure out the actuarial risk of each plan so the adjustments can be made: they're not suggesting the data be given to the federal government to do it and they're not suggesting it be left to each individual health plan to figure it out. They're suggesting an "intermediate" approach in which the process be managed at the state level.



                    If you're a true policy nerd and want to dig deeper into this issue, HHS put out a draft white paper earlier this month exploring how things like this will actually be implemented.

                    It's not some shadowy conspiracy, it's a pretty standard idea whose details are being fleshed out right now.
                    Yeah it always starts with something simple and beneign like "risk adjustment" but then some government prick finds a way to expand it beyond what it was originally intended for which usually results in a government power grab. This is how the federal government has gotten so big and out of control. If the SCOTUS upholds the individual mandate in Obamacare that will result in the mother of all governement power grabs.

                    ?


                    • #25
                      Re: Now the government wants all our personal information

                      Originally posted by Invisible-Bob View Post
                      Yeah it always starts with something simple and beneign like "risk adjustment" but then some government prick finds a way to expand it beyond what it was originally intended for which usually results in a government power grab. This is how the federal government has gotten so big and out of control.
                      Again, this isn't a federal power grab, as HHS is explicitly suggesting that states be responsible for risk adjustment (and the data collection required to do it). And more than a dozen states already collect claims data from all the payers in the state and use it for public purposes.

                      ?


                      • #26
                        Re: Now the government wants all our personal information

                        This was bound to happen, cannot imagine why anyone is surprised that somewhere buried in the Obamacare legislation is an effort to claim personal healthcare information and property of the government. Remember, we have to "pass this legislation to... know what is in it."

                        ?


                        • #27
                          Re: Now the government wants all our personal information

                          Originally posted by Rude Boy View Post
                          His point is are you or are you not against an all too intrusive state?

                          I, for one, am not.
                          No, his point was, "But, but...Bush did bad stuff too so that means it's OK."

                          And no...I'm not keen on an intrusive government.

                          ?


                          • #28
                            Re: Now the government wants all our personal information

                            Steve Larsen (the guy in charge of the group responsible for these proposed regulations) took some time yesterday to explain the basics of this concept in a blog post, "Risk Adjustment and Health Insurance":

                            The Affordable Care Act calls for a risk adjustment program that aims to eliminate incentives for health insurance plans to avoid people with pre-existing conditions or those who are in poor health. Risk adjustment ensures that health insurance plans have additional money to provide services to the people who need them most by providing more funds to plans that provide care to people that are likely to have high health costs. Insurance plans then compete on the basis of quality and service, and not on the basis of whether they can attract healthy people.

                            More competition leads to better coverage so that consumerswhether they are healthy or sickcan pick the plan that best meets their needs. Health insurers that take good care of people with diagnoses such as cancer or heart disease will attract people with these diseases. Without risk adjustment, these insurers risk putting themselves out of business. Risk adjustment is needed to allow insurers to prosper if they do a good job of attracting people in need of care.

                            Health insurance programs that currently use risk adjustmentincluding Medicare and many state Medicaid programscollect certain information about enrollees medical conditions so that they can estimate the potential that any given health plan will incur high costs. This information is necessary for a successful risk adjustment program. In fact, the American Academy of Actuaries recommends making medical condition indicators, such as diagnosis data, a key component of risk adjustment.

                            In a recently released proposed rule, CMS laid out several general options for collecting information to support risk adjustment, including an intermediate model in which States would collect information such as claims that are currently used for payment purposes. Work has not begun on this project.

                            CMS does not propose that States collect personal data such as name, social security number or address for the risk adjustment program. Protecting an individuals personal health information continues to be among CMSs highest priorities. That is why CMS will not require States to collect your medical record or information that identifies your doctor; nor would the Federal government collect this information.

                            Comments on risk adjustment are welcome and should be submitted via regulations.gov.

                            ?


                            • #29
                              Re: Now the government wants all our personal information

                              Originally posted by Greenbeard View Post
                              Again, this isn't a federal power grab,
                              pinocchio.jpg

                              ?


                              • #30
                                Re: Now the government wants all our personal information

                                Originally posted by Invisible-Bob View Post
                                Fed Proposal Could Require Insurers To Hand Over Patient Records, GOP Rep Warns | Fox News

                                Well this is one of those nasty little things Nancy Polosi thought we should ONLY find out after they pass Obamacare. Apparently there is a provision in the law that may allow the government to farm personal information from insurance companies. Now what does the government want with this information? What is the government going to do with this information? I can't imagine anything good can come from the government having access to this information.
                                I thought that was all in that stimulus bill, with the provision for a national database of electronic medical records.

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X