Obamacare pushing doctors, hospitals to check spending habits, credit cards of patients

a reply to: xuenchen

OK. I can see the totalitarian mindset. That's thoroughly terrifying. Needing to constantly be aware of what others know of your day to day habits. It would be like having cameras on you constantly. A continual state of being alert and even partially paranoid.

I need to look up studies on privacy. Right off the bat it provides a sense of calm and safety. When we retreat to our private homes as an example, is when we can let our hair down. I truly am afraid for my children's future. I do not even know how to prepare them to cope with it.

a reply to: Dianec

They are already being prepared to cope with it. Not only cope with it... But love it, yearn for it, and appreciate it.

Being a mother, I can sympathize with you. It is terrible. But the education system has been helping prepare the last 2 generations at least. It's working, so they will definitely not be stopping anytime soon IMO.

About the only way you can avoid the indoctrination is to home school. Even then - friends, tv, etc. is all working against our best efforts to make a better way for our children.

Sad times indeed.

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe



You beat me 2 it .

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

You're right. They are embracing it. A large percentage of young people seem to have unwittingly lost an appreciation for privacy (the value of this) as well as modesty. These are the two examples that come to mind. I was just on a thread about a Facebook experiment done to see how easily peoples emotions can be controlled (like we need to prove this can be done). They share all of the things we would have kept to ourselves or would have shared with maybe 1 - 2 close friends when things were normal. I see this with the older generation too so it isn't limited to younger people but it's all they know.

a reply to: xuenchen

Okay so you probably know my posting history on here, it seems liberal (although I am a moderate).

My gut feeling is that this is a hoax, however, I entirely believe after my experience living in the New Liberal culture that this is something they would expect people to follow through with, and if you didn't agree, you would be insane (which is basically their way of dehumanizing their opponents with valid opinions).

They really do want to deny free will to people and are pressing hard on the "most empirically sensible" pedal - well what is empirical is not necessarily always fulfilling and much of humanity's greatest accomplishments were not efficient.

Do we want efficiency (and ironically the inefficiency that comes with all the bureaucracy involved) to replace fulfilling lives? The liberals are going to pull a lot of tricks to get you to think that giving away your freedom is in your best interest.

This plays on the idea of the "death panels" which had their existence denied by liberals a few years back, but seem to still be around.

There is this idea that people should be policed because they are being provided the service of health care - it is an age old trick of denying other options in order to "provide" some kind of service in exchange for freedoms - a service that was provided prior without this required exchange.

a reply to: xuenchen

"Health care" is just another way for him to excuse being nosy, and wanting to know everything everyone does. Ironic, since his life is off limits.

originally posted by: xDeadcowx
How does the hospital have the authority to check credit card transactions? Bank statements and credit card history requires a warrant before police can get access, how is the hospital able to bypass this?

That's what happens when they pass things without reading them. All sorts of things get passed, and freedom is now something one can only remember, if old enough, or hear about (maybe), if younger.

originally posted by: liejunkie01
Easy fix to this one.

Don't have any credit cards.

Don't use a debit card for every single transaction. Use cash people.

Won't matter much if you're a member of one of those club stores like Costco. They probably keep records of everything you buy for years. I'm sure it would be a simple matter for the government to get it's hands on that info.

Besides, it might be seen as "suspicious" if you buy $500 worth of stuff and pay for it with cash. Can't win, really. It's just a matter of time before pretty much everyone is boxed in from all sides. That's been the game plan all along. Baby steps. This is how they do anything/everything that would be blatantly unacceptable even to the world's biggest idiot if they tried to do it all at once. We also call this "boiling the frog".

I find it amazing that people were not the slightest bit suspicious of the medical bureaucracy that's slowly built up over the decades. They certainly have been slowly absorbing the medical field slowly for a long time. Everything just spins into the massive bureaucratic vortex and eventually, you see what once appeared to be dead end streets built for no reason connecting to other ones and you finally see where they were meant to go all along.

a reply to: xDeadcowx

I agree with you.....unless you have a lot of transactions form McDonalds, ABC cigarette store, and XYZ liquor emporium.

They'd get more data from my Kroger rewards card, as it knows how much cheese and eggs I buy.

Can someone pinpoint where in the ACA this little gem is in writing?

This is just crazy and certainly goes against our rights to privacy and to live our life the way we see fit.

I'm sorry to say this, but anyone who actually believes this garbage is gullible as all get out. And, it doesn't surprise me that this report comes from a local Texas news report. deadcow seems to be the only one with any common sense in this thread.

Do I agree that our government has become increasing authoritative over the last few decades? . . . Yes.

However, as stated previously, bank statements do not show an itemized list of purchases. And despite what many, on this site, believe about the healthcare system or insurance companies they are in the business of making money. A person in poor health is a cash cow for healthcare providers and insurance companies, under the ACA, are now subsidized by the government as they cannot deny coverage. So, they get their money back anyway.

The example given in the report about cigarettes makes absolutely no sense either . . . If a hospital or doctor wanted to know about tobacco use, all they have to do is order a Cotinine test with your blood work. If they wanted to do it "on the down low" they could simply tell you that the blood work is for something else. This would give a definitive answer, actual evidence, and much easier than wasting their time going through bank records or credit reports.

Nicotine and cotinine can both be measured qualitatively or quantitatively. Qualitative testing detects the presence or absence of the substances, while quantitative testing measures the concentration of the substance. Quantitative testing can help distinguish between active smokers, tobacco users who have recently quit, non-tobacco users who have been exposed to significant environmental tobacco smoke, and non-users who have not been exposed.

Blood tests could also help them determine about illicit drug use, prescription drug abuse, high sugar intake, excessively fatty or processed food consumption . . . you name it. For most of these issues, you don't even blood work, including Cotinine. A simple urine or hair test would suffice.

A little critical thinking goes a long way . . . And people wonder why our country (U.S.) is circling the drain.

Gotta wonder what the point is ?

People that have high credit card balances will be deemed 'rich'

Thus be paying MORE.

Those who don't will pay LESS.

originally posted by: neo96

Gotta wonder what the point is ?

People that have high credit card balances will be deemed 'rich'

Thus be paying MORE.

Those who don't will pay LESS.

That makes no sense . . .

Actual "rich" people don't use credit cards . . .

Poor people cannot get a high enough limit to get "high credit card balances" . . .

Anyone who understands "credit" doesn't use it . . .

People with "high credit card balances", which actually means they OWE a very large amount to the bank/cc company, have poor credit ratings and is direct evidence that they are irresponsible with their money. They would be viewed as "poorer" than those with NO credit card balance. As far as insurance companies that run credit checks, poor credit scores indicate irresponsible personal behavior. So, they may see an increase in premium, as they are viewed as a greater "risk". Which is all that insurance companies assess and deal in.

People with "high credit card LIMITS", got that way to entice them to spend based on a good credit score. Maybe this is what you meant when you said "deemed rich"?

Hospitals do not turn away someone that is in need of immediate help, regardless of insurance or "credit". They simply add that charge to the "customer" and if they don't pay immediately . . . the charges are passed to a credit collection firm and the hospital files a subsidy claim, as well as being paid a "premium" by the collection company that purchases the debt.

a reply to: solomons path

Sure it does.

The ACA subsidized the 'poor'.

What better way to see whose 'rich', and whose 'poor'?

Than using credit cards against us.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: solomons path

Sure it does.

The ACA subsidized the 'poor'.

What better way to see whose 'rich', and whose 'poor'?

Than using credit cards against us.

I still fail to see any logic in your response. For starters . . . it doesn't give any indication of "rich" or "poor", as I pointed out above. A credit report can show behavior and when coupled with income and industry, will point to lifestyle choices. But, credit cards are a "consumer" product that are pushed on those who have no self control. SO, maybe you could make a point that a person with a lot of credit cards is more impulsive and irresponsible. I do not like the ACA or even what the goal is of those who promote it. However, the ACA didn't "subsidize the poor". The ACA subsidized the Health Insurance industry and lobby. The "poor" are actually getting screwed, as they are now forced to purchase something they cannot afford, under penalty of the thieves at the IRS, in order to line the pockets of the Health Insurance industry.

We all hate the ACA . . . but, it does "our" side no good to fall for scare tactics based on misinformation.

I have a health and life license, as it was required for work I do with a non-profit. And truth be told, insurance companies have been pulling credit reports on applicants for decades to assess the "risk" of the applicants level of responsibility . . . unless, they are "automatically" insurable through an employer. Even auto insurance companies run credit checks.

This garbage about credit cards makes no sense whatsoever to the industry . . . or even the ACA.

Totally agree here for many reasons. After my debit card account was compromised last year (I made a couple of threads on this) I have only used it to pay utilities and get cash from the atm for any other purchases. I'll probably use my paypal account for online purchases.

Of course, I've been letting the ole lady use another account's debit card. I wonder if the doctors will find a problem with women's under garments and makeup in the records of that account? They probably would think it's a healthy thing considering how sensitive professionals have to be with the lgbt community. How about that? Pretend to be homosexual so you can play the gay card.

a reply to: solomons path

I still fail to see any logic in your response

The logic comes from the ACA datahub.

And the track record of who wrote it.

With just six weeks until scheduled implementation of the ObamaCare health insurance exchanges, delays by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in verifying its system's security measures threaten to put the personal records of millions of Americans at risk. At the heart of this problem is the Federal Data Services Hub, a massive information sharing network set to launch on October 1st.

www.usatoday.com...

The data hub will contain volumes of Americans' personal information and will be shared among numerous federal agencies, including the IRS, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security, as well as state governments. It will be used and accessed by thousands of bureaucrats as they seek to enroll people in the ObamaCare exchanges.

The Federal Data Services Hub, a key part of Obamacare’s exchanges set to go live on October 1, will connect seven different government agencies and create a new access point to the personal health information of millions of Americans. Proponents of the health care law say the hub is necessary to verify eligibility for the law’s myriad of subsidies and tax credits. Read more: thehill.com... Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

The funny part here is ?

The Patriot Act already gives them access to our financial records.

As anyone who opens up a credit card, or prepaid card automatically gets reported to DHS.

Cause someone might be a 'terrorist' !

Now we have better eat right, and don't charge nothing bad or a person will still be a 'terrorist'.

They have to prove that you actually used the stuff you bought. I buy cigs all the time for friends when I go to town and they pay me back. I don't smoke. Same thing with liquor and wine. If you have a big family who's to say the cheese isn't for a pregnant wife? Bloody Mary mix and vodka - brunch at a friends house. 3 Pizzas at local Pizza Parlor every Saturday night - weekly poker party with friends. Copenhagen snuff - Grandpa down the street. 20 bottles of soda pop - little league picnic. And on and on and on it goes. The whole thing is ridiculous.

a reply to: solomons path

Imagine being able to scan you into the hospital, where they see that you just went through McDonalds an hour previous. You came in with severe stomach cramps and are now on life support. A second person has the same thing happen in the hospital across town. They also ate at McDonalds. They would be able to issue an instant alert for potential terrorism or accidental food poisoning. Right now - we have lots of room for human error in communicating this stuff so many could die before the problem is caught.

Terrorism provided a justification to find as many ways to track people as possible, and if the general public are asked to join in on watching each other (specifically those who randomly meet a lot of people through their work), they effectively have made the public a vehicle for spying on itself.

Pick a criteria for tracking something about a person. Terrorism, health history, health habits, financial records, pets they have, whereabouts... We already can do so much of it so why does anyone think we will stop here?

Here is what they can do now in a limited capacity (yet expanding all the time):

A person goes into the hospital a couple of times for pain that doctors cannot find a cause for. They tap in a name and find that this person has taken medication for depression in the past. The person is unable to report that it could be caused by depression due to a lack of insight, but doctors can see there is a history of this and tailors an intervention around it. That versus possible years of the patient suffering and no answers. When the computer system knows more about the person than they do themselves it is justified as necessary "in the name of better medical treatment", more efficient and effective.

The DEA probably keeps an eye on medications people buy as I type this, as a way to see who is using dangerous drugs.


You're right, bank statements don't show any branch of government an itemized list but rather can only track income/expenses, and provide a generalized idea of spending habits. If a computer system was set up just right however, they could easily get an itemized list. As it stands now I have to pay a higher price at some grocery stores for items on sale if I don't give my identifying information. We know that is for marketing purposes but who else can exploit this? If to spreads to other places where we buy goods it wouldn't be that difficult to have a system that cross references everything.

a reply to: neo96

Yes. . . The gov can access your "financial records". All that they show are debits, credits, transfers. So, while they can tell I have a $8.00 debit at a convience store, it doesn't show what that debit was for. Sure, I could have bought a pack of cigarettes . . . but, I could have just as easily bought 8 44 oz. fountain drinks or 2 porno mags or 4 pieces of beef jerky. I'm sure you've looked at your bank statements before . . . they are not itemized.

As far as the hub . . . again . . . credit reports and other personal information are not itemized receipts. The only way to tell what is actually bought would be to go through each individual's list of debits and cross-reference purchases at every store listed and find the time stamped credit with that unique card number. Then, further cross-reference the stores electronic inventory records for "taboo" items. That's assuming that the inventory records are time stamped . . . outside of online sales, I'm not sure that is even possible or information that is stored. Why do any of that if all a doctor or insurance company has to do to find out what you put in your body is require a blood test? The OP and your line of reasoning makes no sense, when there are much quicker and concrete methods to get that same info.

The reason the Patriot Act has access to financial records is to tie payments back to organizations that are known to associate with terrorists. The main concern here is wire transfers . . . not day to day spending habits. That is why any wire transfer over $10,000 dollars is "red-flagged" and the information sent to DHS.

I'll stick to my original conclusion . . . scare tactics that prey on the gullible in order to push an ideological agenda or further solidify that ideology in those that are a willing audience. And, the reason I'm not surprised it comes from Texas is the "willing audience" angle. The majority in that state already know/believe the ACA is intrusive and an infringement on their rights . . . so, they eat up the bull and add it to the echo chamber.