Yahoo! Answers

Previous Question Next Question

Question

Do you want 0bama and everyone in his administration to have all access to your IRS information?

August 26, 2009 8:26 PM Declan McCullagh - Democratic Health Care Bill Divulges IRS Tax Data Posted by Declan McCullagh (AP) One of the problems with any proposed law that's over 1,000 pages long and constantly changing is that much deviltry can lie in the details. Take the Democrats' proposal to rewrite health care policy, better known as H.R. 3200 or by opponents as "Obamacare." Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for "affordability credits." Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details -- there's no specified limit on what's available or unavailable -- to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose, again, is to verify "affordability credits." Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a "low-income prescription drug subsidy" but has not applied for it. Over at the Institute for Policy Innovation (a free-market think tank and presumably no fan of Obamacare), Tom Giovanetti argues that: "How many thousands of federal employees will have access to your records? The privacy of your health records will be only as good as the most nosy, most dishonest and most malcontented federal employee.... So say good-bye to privacy from the federal government. It was fun while it lasted for 233 years." I'm not as certain as Giovanetti that this represents privacy's Armageddon. (Though I do wonder where the usual suspects like the Electronic Privacy Information Center are. Presumably inserting limits on information that can be disclosed -- and adding strict penalties on misuse of the information kept on file about hundreds of millions of Americans -- is at least as important as fretting about Facebook's privacy policy in Canada.) A better candidate for a future privacy crisis is the so-called stimulus bill enacted with limited debate early this year. It mandated the "utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014," but included only limited privacy protections. It's true that if the legislative branch chooses to create "affordability credits," it probably makes sense to ensure they're not abused. The goal of curbing fraud runs up against the goal of preserving individual privacy. If we're going to have such significant additional government intrusion into our health care system, we will have to draw the privacy line somewhere. Maybe the House Democrats' current bill gets it right. Maybe it doesn't. But this vignette should be reason to be skeptical of claims that a massive and complex bill must be enacted as rapidly as its backers would have you believe. Update August 27 11 a.m: Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center says in e-mail: "We would oppose section 431(a) of the bill because it violates the intent of the Privacy Act which generally requires agencies to obtain information directly from individuals and not from other agencies." EPIC still hasn't updated their Web site to reflect this sentiment, but it's good to know that other folks have concerns too. ________________________________________ Declan McCullagh is a correspondent for CBSNews.com. He can be reached at declan@cbsnews.com. www ...

3 months ago - 7 answers

Best Answer

Chosen by Asker

You gotta be kidding, I don't want this guy into any of my records, medical or otherwise.

by John

3 months ago

Asker's Rating: 

Other Answers

The section you are referring to only pertains to people WITHOUT any healthcare plan at all (private or public) who go to hospitals and try to abuse the system. This means those people, including for instance illegal aliens (which is why illegal alien groups are AGAINST this bill) will be billed for the free care they try to get.

by future- 3 months ago

Read it again. Its exactly what future said.

by ▐♥♥♥♥♥♥▌ ►Rae N.Y.◄ ▐♥♥♥♥♥♥▌- 3 months ago

I worked at the IRS and there aren't a whole lot of illegal immigrants filing tax returns. :o) I don't think this is a terriable clause to have int he bill. I know alcoholics and drug dependants that are in the ER every other week because of their addiction and instead of getting help they keep racking up the bills for tax payers like me to pay off. since most of these people are US citizens and functioning addicts they do have a source of income and come tax time they get rebates, and tax refunds, I say lets garnish them as we would for student loans, maybe this way they'll get the help they need. So to answer your question, "no" i don't have a problem with the government seeing my tax info. George and Dick already saw everything else. :o)

by Viv'- 3 months ago

My county hospital has a problem right now. People drive in from other counties, claim to be indigent and demand healthcare. By law, they have to treat them. Low and behold the people live in another county, own $300,000 homes and simply couldn't be bothered to pay for health insurance if they could scam it for free.

by v b- 3 months ago

I don't think we should pay for illegal immigrants healthcare! So yeah, I'm for that part of the bill.

by Ivy G- 3 months ago

No biggie as it blocks abuse of the system. There's already a lot of cross sharing of information on income among numerous agencies. The SSA is the lead agency on all wage reporting -- bet you didn't know that that's where your employer sends the government copies of your W-2s to did you -- so that's nothing new either. With my day job in IT I do have concerns about electronic medical record security and privacy but those are hurdles that can be overcome. Of FAR greater concern is an emergency room doctor not knowing that I take a medication that can cause a sudden and fatal drop in blood pressure when combined with a couple of drugs commonly found in emergency rooms that might be used if I arrived in an unconscious state and without my Medic Alert tag and was suspected of having had either a heart attack or stroke. An electronic medical record would ensure that he knew that AND it would also alarm the staff if he ordered an incompatible drug be used without taking any necessary precautions up front. What amuses (and bothers) me more are the chuckleheads who insist on spelling the President's name with a zero instead of a capital 'O'. Maybe we should call you "Saik-ka-ka" here instead? Please confine your racist cracks and political drivel to the Politics forum where it belongs.

by Bostonian In MO- 3 months ago