Discussion in 'Serious' started by Prestidigitweeze, 11 Aug 2009.
The exact same thing could happen in a private company.
The only way a private company could get my tax return/financial information is if I or the government provided it (and I argue that's none of the Fed's business how much money I make in the first place so it's already a flimsy premise - but, admittedly, a reality). And even if they did, I would have recourse. First, they would lose my business, second I could sue their ass if they appropriated it illegally.
With the government, the only recourse is to reform the system and if you look at the federal government systems we have in place now, that's harder than turning the titanic with no evidence that it could effectively be done.
That is utterly moot reasoning. If you are dependent on private health insurance you'll pretty much give them any information they ask for. What choice do you have? They have you over a barrell.
It's not as if they don't already ask you for your family health history to several generations back, a medical report of your current physical state, your health behaviours and until legislated against recently, your genetic risk profile. Are your spouse and dependents included in the insurance? They'll want to know their health history, status and behaviours too. They can find out what the inside of your colon looks like if they decide that they want to know. And would you provide all that information? Sure you would --else they simply won't insure your family. And since all health insurance companies ask the same questions it is not as if you can take your business anywhere else.
Compared to that, knowing your income and number of dependents is hardly private information. Your casual colleagues probably know that much about you already.
Evidently I DO have a choice because they have NEVER had access to that information before in the entire history of insurance in America, why would that change now? And just because some other private citizens may, or may not know that information and that I should just let it go is like saying that now that one sheep is out of the pen, we should chase the rest of them out instead of fixing the pen.
Does the UK system need this information to process and care for patients? If so, what is the value?
The UK tax office charges national insurance contributions based on our income. They, of course, know everything about us. The NHS just wants to know whether we paid our NI contributions through asking for our National Insurance number (which is like your Social Security Number) and that is all it cares about.
that sounds like a "no" to me.
Actually, it's a "yes"; the only difference is what side of the fence the person who gets access to that information and makes the decision on eligibility to health care sits on: Tax office or NHS HQ. Like there's a meaningful difference.
You seem to be thinking that the Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs will put this information in your medical file for any health professional to read or something. While you worry about what some government official to who you are just a number is eligible to get to know about you, the NSA has possibly been tapping your phone and reading your e-mails without a warrant.
Meanwhile I would try and find out what your health insurance actually knows about you. The answer may surprise you.
I totally understand why your health professionals would need to verify a "yeah or nay" on if you have paid your NHS taxes, that just makes sense from a fraud standpoint. And I'm not actually worried about any actual health professionals being told my financial information (well I am but it's not my priority fear) I'm worried about the multitude of bureaucrats who would have access to the records based on their own personal curiosity. I've seen this happen on the State College levels and I've seen it on the State level with people who politically disagreed with people in elections. It could, and has been, be misused. I have no problem willfully sharing information with people I have mutual contracts with.
The NSA thing is scary, I agree, but that's a whole other conversation and just proves my point that the gov needs to butt the **** out. I don't understand how you make the argument that "NSA has possibly been tapping your phone and reading your e-mails without a warrant" to justify that I should now turn everything over because they probably already know. The solution is to stop the wrong behavior not to throw your hands up and say "oh well"
My point is that you need to focus your justified suspicions where it counts.
Here in the UK we have had (and continue to have) some spectacular debacles of government bodies losing sensitive data on people: NI numbers, bank details, personal identity details; anything to give an identity thief a field day. I share your unease with governments wanting to know our personal stuff because it just doesn't seem to be able to handle it responsibly, but it is not a valid argument against government-run health care. Private companies are unjustifiably nosy to the same degree and lose and abuse personal data with the same aplomb.
...as opposed to as good as the most nosy, most dishonest and most malcontented private health company employee?
Basically you are saying (I believe) that government-run social health care is a bad idea because the government can't run a piss-up in a brewery. No argument there in itself, but I argue (based not a little on health care statistics from the US) that private companies do not seem to do such a good job either --and because there are more middlemen, less financial accountability and that good ol' capitalist incentive to turn a fat profit they cost a lot more. At least government-run social health care is a more affordable inefficiency and bureaucracy.
no, no, no. This is just one MORE thing, not just the thing. Plus, I agree that what you say about nosy employees in private companies are no better. But my first point is that they currently don't have, and never have had access to that information (at least, legitimately). It is compartmentalized by intent. What my insurance company knows or doesn't know is by volunteer contract between me and them and if it was more than I could stand, I COULD withdraw, it may be painful but I could (I'm told that 47 million right now that are not in any system).
A good example is like when banks confess that they have lost private records to hackers. In some cases, it has ruined the bank because depositors will move their funds in fear of losing their money and rightfully so. The risk may be small that they fall prey but they move out of precaution.
With government, there is more concentration of power and consolidation of information. By design, this information flows back and forth and, if passed, I have no recourse.
I know it sounds paranoid but all of your fears about private corporations typically is conducted by government ten-fold.
The government is evil
Government can NEVER control me!
The free market will save us
It HAS to keep people happy or it'll go broke!
*is a big dumb babby who believes in the myth of the free market who has never had a health issue*
rum government doesn't do anything well.. look at all the waste that has happened in the bailout's alone.. if they knew what they were doing, instead of oops my bad, oh let's go print some more money
the white house projected a 9 trillion dollar deficit in 10 years.. I don't see how we aren't screwed already- that's close to 9 times more than bush put us in over 8 years.. you can't trust the government to do anything right- especially when they have an open purse like they do now
we finally on the road to get out of iraq.. have troops in afganistan- wtf was bush doing.. yeah he was a total idiot and dealt obama a bad hand to start but bush wasn't on this insano spending spree.. you know I can't even stand the thought of bush to tell you the truth- he was a supreme teabagger.. but obama needs to get some better advisors
maybe even clinton, I'm sure they have some suggestions on how to get the economy back on track without having this ridiculous debt over everyone's head for the next generation to come.. china I'm sure is loving all this money
It is MINDBLOWING how anyone can say "Government doesn't do well...look at the BAILOUT!". The bailout that was almost entirely to keep the FREEMARKET from collapsing and dragging the entire economy down with it? We're printing money because private industry TRADED on imagined profits. The economic collapse is in part due to these issues but at it's core is the fact that the government has been trading in deficit (except for the brief point when Clinton decided to pay it off) since Reagan invented the damn concept and in turn also decided that he was going to cut taxes too, now you're living in America's lower taxed period since preWW2 and co-incidentally enough you cant pay for ****!
You're under the illusion Obama has any say in the matter of whether he can bailout companies, if he doesn't the economy will collapse, straight up breadlines and ****, a big ass bailout arguably simply delays this process, but if the public can get into it's "Buy buy buy" attitude in that delayed period then hey presto, situation avoided.
China is actually not liking this situation at all, it produces the cheap consumer products and when the American consumer isn't buying that stuff China's economy takes a huge dent, they don't have the population to make use of these products. China and America are very much mutual partners in taking money from the public.
The one thing that still bothers me about this amazing bailout:
It didn't work when it was first introduced, in fact it failed miserably, the only reason America got out of the recession in the 30s was of WWII. If we were to play the blame games as to why everything went out to lunch all of a sudden, blame Clinton for being a genius and forcing banks to loan to almost everything that's not a squirrel.
One reason I'm not seriously debating the idea of UHC is because it is my belief that most people who cant even imagine a public option being a better option is being outright intellectually dishonest, I won't argue with someone who only has an agenda rather than wants an honest debate on issues.
I mention because the concept that WWII got America out of the recession is arguable but to claim Clinton is anywhere near a main villian in the economic crisis is partisan and intellectually dishonest
there is things that bother me alot about the bailout like aig- why not just give the money to the banks and let aig go under.. there's alot of stroking going on.. I watched his explanation one day and none of it made sense- he said they insure the banks.. so bailing them out would insure the banks got the money
well lemme think.. give the money to the banks, get rid of the middleman.. please it makes no sense at all.. the people who gave him sheetloads of campaign money needed a stroking- that's what happened
and china has recieved tons of money from us investors who won't invest here.. and guess what, they found alot of it is bailout money.. so were paying for it, china is using it.. yay
imo he has a bunch of mental midgets working on the bailout and alot of people to please from the campaign.. it's pretty sad- 9 trillion over 10 years is not going to do anyone here any good.. deficits that big will ruin us
Perhaps, but I'm only naming a minor factor, many many factors have not been included in this recession. And honestly, I'm sick of the recession talk, however I will not point one man as the main villian as screwing something up this big takes more than one man with a button.
Sorry, but Clinton didn't force the banks to loan money to unqualified people. He may have pushed for legislation that allowed the practice, and you could argue that it wasn't wise to allow that legislation to pass. However, it was the banks (read: the free market) that saw the potential in writing up bad loans, wrapping them up with other good loans, and selling everything for profit under the guise of inflated value ratings. You can also blame the greedy consumers who saw a golden opportunity to get their own McMansions so they could play the real-life version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire. The epitome of free-market capitalism is the face of people living on credit.
But that's only a drop of water in the cascade of events that ultimately caused the overall financial crisis. NPR produced a great show called "This American Life: Giant Pool of Money". It offered an interesting look at the housing crisis: how it came about and how it contributed to the global financial problems we see today.
And to show that government agencies aren't always running around with their heads up their asses, the FBI saw the mortgage crisis coming in 2004. It appears as though nobody listened to the warnings.
Ah well, i was being a bit too general.
Separate names with a comma.