Democratic confusion: no to emergency security measures, yes to thermostat control

[ballz2wallz]

How Democrats can justify fighting government attempts to provide better security, while completely accepting government intrustion and control in their lives is beyond me. I'll never get it.

California wants to control home thermostats - International Herald Tribune

Next year in California, state regulators are likely to have the emergency power to control individual thermostats, sending temperatures up or down through a radio-controlled device that will be required in new or substantially modified houses and buildings to manage electricity shortages.

[hsmith]

Universal Health Care isn't intrusion into your life either - nothing personal there.

[7960]

all for something they say happens "very rarely, once every few years"

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by hsmith

Universal Health Care isn't intrusion into your life either - nothing personal there.

Forcing us to pay for it is intrusion into my bank account.

[motivez]

They're probably using the same logic that Republicans use when it comes to the justification for removing our civil liberties for the illusion of more security

[motivez]

Originally Posted by hsmith

Universal Health Care isn't intrusion into your life either - nothing personal there.

My understanding is that most of the plans don't force you to actually get your health care from the government, it's just available if you want it instead of private insurance.. so your information wouldn't be shared unless you authorized it.

The Edwards plan may be different, but he's not going to win.

Can't say the same for your tax dollars though, but then again tax dollars go to fund many things that not everyone is going to agree with.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by motivez

My understanding is that most of the plans don't force you to actually get your health care from the government, it's just available if you want it instead of private insurance.. so your information wouldn't be shared unless you authorized it.

The Edwards plan may be different, but he's not going to win.

Can't say the same for your tax dollars though, but then again tax dollars go to fund many things that not everyone is going to agree with.

Under a universal plan there's actually no reason for the government to need individual health records; yet another benefit. Privacy is actually increased in the transition from private to public funding of healthcare.

[Thorgrim]

I don't see how the US Senate and the California State House are the same thing

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by hsmith

Universal Health Care isn't intrusion into your life either - nothing personal there.

And now for your government mandated Prostate exam Mr. Ben Dover!

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by bheld

Under a universal plan there's actually no reason for the government to need individual health records; yet another benefit. Privacy is actually increased in the transition from private to public funding of healthcare.

How do you think government will keep the rising tide of public health costs down? They will do it with an army of pencil pushers watching our health records and telling us how to live! There is every reason.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

And now for your government mandated Prostate exam Mr. Ben Dover!

They bend you over twice

[7960]

Originally Posted by bheld

Under a universal plan there's actually no reason for the government to need individual health records

Uhh, what?

If the govt is going to have their hand in health care then they're going to have access to ANY records associated with it.

Can you explain what you mean?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

My understanding is that most of the plans don't force you to actually get your health care from the government, it's just available if you want it instead of private insurance.. so your information wouldn't be shared unless you authorized it.

The Edwards plan may be different, but he's not going to win.

Can't say the same for your tax dollars though, but then again tax dollars go to fund many things that not everyone is going to agree with.

MA madated healthcare for all residents. They are FORCING residents to have insurance, from government or from private. You know what? It's not their job to MAKE people have it.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

How do you think government will keep the rising tide of public health costs down? They will do it with an army of pencil pushers watching our health records and telling us how to live! There is every reason.

Taxing risk factors and subsidizing things that promote good health would be as invasive as it gets.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by 7960

Uhh, what?

If the govt is going to have their hand in health care then they're going to have access to ANY records associated with it.

Can you explain what you mean?

Well there's no need for medical history to be taken at enrollment, there also isn't a need to have records in order to deny care. The only need for the government to get private medical information would be for accounting purposes which would be important but there could be a system in place that protects individual identities if we decide that it's necessary.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

MA madated healthcare for all residents. They are FORCING residents to have insurance, from government or from private. You know what? It's not their job to MAKE people have it.

I agree, the government should simply provide coverage for everybody.

[7960]

Originally Posted by bheld

Well there's no need for medical history to be taken at enrollment,

Right, because they'd already have it. Because every time you go it'd get put in a huge database with EVERYONE else's records.

:edit: ... wait, at ENROLLMENT? I thought you meant intake, like if you go to an ER. You're saying your own doctor wouldn't need to know if your parents had high blood pressure? If your mom and all of her siblings all have sky-high cholesterol? Your doc is supposed to help you, but he's not going to know anything about you?? Honestly, this is just ignorant.

there also isn't a need to have records in order to deny care.

They also need records to know what medication you're allergic to, what procedures you've had before, what meds you're currently on, what meds you were on that didn't work, if you have other risk factors, etc, etc, etc.

The only need for the government to get private medical information would be for accounting purposes .......

Wrong. See above.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by 7960

Right, because they'd already have it. Because every time you go it'd get put in a huge database with EVERYONE else's records.

:edit: ... wait, at ENROLLMENT? I thought you meant intake, like if you go to an ER. You're saying your own doctor wouldn't need to know if your parents had high blood pressure? If your mom and all of her siblings all have sky-high cholesterol? Your doc is supposed to help you, but he's not going to know anything about you?? Honestly, this is just ignorant.

They also need records to know what medication you're allergic to, what procedures you've had before, what meds you're currently on, what meds you were on that didn't work, if you have other risk factors, etc, etc, etc.

Wrong. See above.

I mean, are people living in a fairy tale?

THEY WILL HAVE ACCESS TO EVERY PIECE OF INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR HEALTH!!!

[bheld]

As it stands right now there's absolutely no talk of nationalizing health care providers, so I don't know why people keep pretending like a move toward government funding of health care would include the government controlling what doctor you go to and so on.

Like I said earlier, if the government were funding health care in this country the only time medical information would be necessary would be for accounting and compliance work. There's no other reason why the government would need medical records because unlike HMOs they don't have the need to use your medical history against you.