Privacy? What Privacy?
By Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy on August 28, 2009 at 5:01 PM in Bill of Rights, Civil Liberties, Congress (House & Senate), Current Affairs, Health Care, U.S. Constitution
Not us, apparently, if Congress has its way. Believe it or not, some people are actually going through these proposed health care bills. Not many of our elected officials, mind you, but SOME people are. Thank heavens, since you won’t believe some of the more egregious proposals contained in it (specifically, H.R. 3200).
The title of this CBS News article gives a good indication of just ONE of the issues about which we should be concerned, Democratic Health Care Bill Divulges IRS Tax Data. Yep. Sets the stage for what we can expect from this Congress, doesn’t it?
Let’s just see what our elected officials are trying to pull over on us, the ones who swore to uphold the Constitution, and to act as our representatives. There are some real doozies :
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.” (Here’s our CBS News television coverage.)
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.
Wow. I trust you see what the glaring issue is right off the bat with this, right? Consider this:
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.)
I, for one, have no problems seeing the wide scope of concerns, of privacy violations, that Giovanetti does, but then again, this past election has made me a bit cynical. I am willing to admit that, but a concern it very much is regardless of the scope.
Another way to look at the level of government intrusion is this:
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.)
Why, yes - it is good that other people are concerned that our privacy is ripe for violation by government employees! Most definitely, there should be a BIG, THICK line to protect our privacy from government intrusion.
And it begs the question: why, WHY, would our elected officials want to violate our privacy, going between agencies, looking at our health records and our financial records without our knowledge or PERMISSION? Who dreamed this one up? I’m not an attorney, but I do think a case could be made that this attempt by Congress to gain access to our private records is a violation of our Constitutional rights under the Bill of Rights. Yep, “the devil is in the details,” and this bill is chock full of the little fellas.
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
Also the employees and others(think)ACORN would have access to our bank accounts. Not just tax returns but bank accounts.
People, myself included, complained about things done under Bush 43 that, however slightly, overstepped the Constitution. As posted on CNET ( http://tinyurl.com/mfbeve ) with Drudge Report and others having a link to it, Jay Rockefeller have, behind closed doors, drafted a 55 page bill that, if passed, would “allow the President to take control of internet content” for “reasons of national emergency.” The reasons are vague and would allow them to restrict content and context based entirely on what they (the government) want. Bush was Mother Teresa compared to Øbama and the Progressives, (true Democrats, moderates and Republicans had better get their (our) heads out of our asses and do it quick. It’s fast becoming time to start recall petitions for these people and to take the word impeachment back out of the closet. If Bill Clinton can be impeached for trying to redefine the word “is”, Øbama has a laundry list of impeachable offenses and has to go.
Remember, the first amendment gave us the right to free speech but the second amendment allows us to protect it. IMHO, the time is coming that we will be extremely happy that we have the 2nd amendment.
That should read “Jay Rockefeller has not “have”… Sorry!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIKPKjl0-pg&feature=player_embedded
Cop tells a man he can not have an anti_Obama sign at a town hall meeting…..unbelievable!!!!!
They want access to our records because it serves their purposes. That way if the 65 year old wants a knee transplant, check his medical history and financial history. Then compare the two and come up with a treatment plan. Too sickly, denied. Too much $ in savings? Oh, denied again. I mean he has enough money to pay for it himself and the government money would be better spent providing a knee to someone with no money in savings.
Also, the federal government will “own” your financial and medical records or you don’t get government paid health insurance. As such, they can do whatever they want with it. They can give the information to states to use in regards to collecting child support, tax liens, lawsuit settlements, fitness for adoption, etc. Then there’s personal greed and profit with employees having this kind of information at their fingertips. The rich and famous won’t ever have to worry, they’ll have the cash to buy medical care as needed so will be exempted. I mean come on, you think Brad Pitt will be forced to go on the government plan and give up his full medical and financial records? No, he’ll pay a fine and keep his information secret. But the regular folks, they’ll be at the mercy of government or Joe Blow federal employee. Better not piss either one off or you’ll risk getting audited by the IRS, be at the bottom of the priority list for a costly medical procedure or your wives divorce attorney could somehow learn something very embarrassing about your medical history that you’d pay big bucks in a settlement to her to keep out of the public record.
Then there’s this where a Senate Bill would give Obama emergency control of the internet and private sector networks.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html
Ohh I get it, this must have been one of those conditions for the money loaned for the bail outs from China…Wink..Wink, Nod Nod, Say no More, Say no More.
Oh, dear - see, now that kind of thing just seems too possible to me…
Tango, you hit the nail on the head.
I hear Paul Revere speaking the “British are coming”
Damn, they already in the White House with Obama’s dual allegiance.
What we need to say is the Communists are coming.
Revolution, period. Get all these bumbs out from the white house down.
I have a copy of the letter sent from the CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE to Senator Kennedy regarding many of the issues that are being brought up now; Privacy, cost, loss of personal freedom, etc. Will re-post if you would like. Being cautious, I am so very tired of being eaten by the spam monster.
Katmoon -
If it is overly long, it will probably get snagged. Do you have a link you can post? I’d love to see it. Give it a try and I will keep an eye out for it.
Yes, I agree, I should have said post the link not the document…
here you go:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10431/07-02-HELPltr.pdf
from page 2
Very interesting. I’m going to study this a bit. Much thanks Katmoon!
You are very welcome, I will be interested to hear your take on it.
Thanks so much for this, katmoon. Like Linda, I’m going to have to take a look at it…
tzada - thanks for the poll. I’m going to go check that out, too!
You are very welcome too, Rev. Amy and I want to hear what you think of it; personally it was scary to see the date, and note the fact this has not been a newsworthy item. I must admit however, I am not surprised, I am getting that same “brain dead” feeling of an overload of bad actions by a poorly managed government, that same sort of depression-like numbness, accompanied by nausea, similar to the previous 8 years.
The only person in the world that is allowed privacy is the current person in the White House.
Writer James Lewis asks: “How do we fight Obama and his psychopathic lust for power?”…and answers: “You fight evil by exposing it.””
Poll link and current results on Fox Hope you take it.
Are you concerned by the backgrounds of President Obama’s advisers?
a. Yes
(97%)
16,024
b. No
(3%)
442
16,466 total votes
http://www.foxnews.com/glennbeck/index.html
Thanks for the very timely commentary, RRRA. This sort of chicanery boggles the mind.
In the past 7 years my records have been compromised three times-once by the Department of the Army and twice by the DOE. I don’t trust this government to do anything but make the current mess worse. Most bureaucrats behave as though there are no rules for them, treating our private information as though it were the latest Enquirer. This occurs irrespective of who occupies the WH or controls Congress. The bureaucracy is out of control and needs to be cut to the bone.
An individual’s tax records should not be available to anyone but IRS employees or to law enforcement personnel via a court-issued subpoena. Any other release of such records is unacceptable–period.
I think they also want information on all bank accounts too.
Sounds like group of malcontents who, unsatisfied with their utter inability to control their own miserable and useless existences, wish to now control ours and force us to share in their all-consuming, self-inflicted misery.
You are absolutely right, Ferd. There should be very restricted access to our financial data, health, etc. No cross-sharing, no using it to determine what kind of health care we should have, none of that.
Thanks yet again already, dear RRR Amy. The hits keep coming. I’m not exactly a sweet young thang, and I cannot believe what is happening in this country.
hi amy could this possibly also mean that CBS is off the kool aid?
I heard that some of the anchors are getting uncomfortable, and being threatened with their JOBS.
One of them is going to crack one of these days.
This bill is flat out unconstitutional. Start over, and this time do it right!
You mean that the anchors are being threatened that they’ll lose their jobs? Good. Now they now how the rest of us feel.
Here’s a box. Pack your stuff while the security guard watches you. Hey, do you want this plant? It’s kind of big. Maybe I could keep it.
Are they being threatened because they are off the kool-aid?
Don, one can hope. Of course, ABC and NBC refuse to air ads that contradict Obama’s healthcare plan. Funny, I thought WE owned those airwaves, and have the right to see all points of view. If they want to only show one side, then they can go on cable, and allow a real non-partisan station to take over.
Thanks, Gabi - I appreciate that. But honestly, wouldn’t it be nice in the grand scheme of things if we DIDN’T have this kind of crapola abt which to write? I’m no spring chicken, either, and I swear, it’s just getting worse and worse…
LEt them crack, they never should have never cashed in with Obama. Besides i’ve been doubting most of their sanity for a while now.
They want access to our records because they are tried of arranging the theft of lap tops full of our info at underlings homes….notice how the rash of such robberies has stopped? It was too piecemeal and time consuming. They now just want the info without the fuss and the pretense.
I mentioned this on Amy’s last thread but I watched Glenn Becks’s show this evening. I’m not a regular viewer because frankly the histrionics make me a little queasy. But, tonight he listed five principles that seem to me include us all– Democrats, Republicans and Independents–that outline basic questions, baseline demands we should/would require of our representatives, principles that consisely say: you agree to this or you’re flat out. We still have the vote and we’re coming.
I don’t always agree with Beck. But on these five? I’m in complete and utter agreement. If you didn’t catch the show, I’m sure the vids will be on the net. If they do not go viral, I’ll be very, very surprised.
Dang, I can’t believe you’re leaving us hanging on the five things!
And speaking of laptops - Obama is continuing yet ANOTHER of Bush’s programs - being able to review what is on someone’s electronics who is traveling without suspicion of wrong-doing. That means, being able to see what’s on your lapto, cell phone, iPod, whatever, without cause. Can you believe that crap?
Someone please tell me why anyone believed this guy was going to be different from Bush? Sheesh.
Hell, the only difference between the two is that That One, being single-minded in his pursuit of adoration, is going to promise everyone everything always and finish the job of ruining our Republic.
I hate to say this but it makes Micheal Steele’s possible scenario of denying health care benefits based upon political affiliation not so much of a fantasy.
I recently spent 3 yrs trying to protect and defend my “private” information. Never mind deliberate or malicious abuse of your info, the accidental, “clerical error” type can be just as devastating. I was denied a job I applied for, I was turned down for a refinance, I had unpaid court fines that resulted in a criminal warrant. None of these things belonged to me, they were all the result of my credit report and somebody inputting my soc sec number with the wrong name and BD. When I first began trying to correct these errors I naively assumed it would be simple matter. It wasn’t.
I’m not sure the average person understands how much power we hand the three credit reporting agencies and how little recourse consumers have. But the info that is in your credit report can be used to raise your insurance rates, to deny you a job, to raise the interest rate you pay on loans, to keep you out of college, and if it involves court costs, you can even find yourself in jail.
Credit reports are also used to deny you housing - they are routinely used to screen renters. It doesn’t matter what your actual RENT history is - bad credit? No rental.
I don’t know why these credit reports got to be such a big deal. I was only a kid in the 80s but no-one seemed to talk about credit ratings so much back then.
The IRS reporting requirement is entirely consistent with the fascist nature of HR 3200– and I do mean fascist in its classic meaning of “corporate state.”
What happened to that pesky Constitution thing that gives us the right, not privilege, but the right to privacy in our persons and papers? Guess GWB was right. It’s just a G-D piece of paper.
I’m with you, candymarl.
Bush said it was just a piece of paper and That One said it is a flawed document. As far as I’m concerned, Bush was just a hack of a President and That One is a truly flawed human being. I’ll keep my Constitution and those two can dry up.
This is but another reason for me to oppose the proposed extension of government healthcare, since it’s the ostensible excuse for the invasion of privacy.
On the other hand what if, to establish eligibility for government healthcare, people had to produce documentation themselves? It could be a chore many wouldn’t want to be burdened with.
Methinks this proposal may be one way to help gather support for single-payer healthcare which wouldn’t require a need to establish eligibility. Most of you know I’m not a proponent so take my suspicion for what it is — just an opinion.
If you try to get low-cost health care at the local clinic, they want a copy of your latest tax return. Your pay stubs are not enough, they must copy (& hold the copy of) your tax return. I couldn’t believe that this was the requirement, but it is. Happening already…
People who hold elected office have to provide financial disclosure and you expect them to protect your financial privacy. Bear in mind also, the Progressives are in power now so everything must be means tested to facilitate their utopia: “From each according to his ability to each according to his need”. Obama won’t use the phrase “death tax”, however he’s working to get rid of most “estate planning techniques.” Remember he’s “rewarding work not wealth”, AKA Screw retirees.
“You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it.”
Scott McNealy, CEO Sun Microsystems Jan 1999.