RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure

RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

slvemike4u -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/24/2010 11:04:01 PM)
ouch...

Vendaval -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/24/2010 11:26:16 PM)
Fast Reply - What guarantees that our health records are secure now? Sloppy, lazy, greedy, dumb or negligent employees can easily pass along information for a bribe or three. Computerizing records could be used for good or for ill, just like any other form of information technology.

zephyroftheNorth -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/25/2010 2:54:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse It is very clear. The federal government via the IRS will now have access to everyones health care records. How the FUCK do you figure the IRS has your medical records? How the FUCK do you figure he figures anything at all...don't you pay attention at all? By the way with systems like this not only would one need a acess to the system a password and all....each and every time your records are acessed a "footprint" would be left....detailing just who and when your records were pulled. I guess some peoples paranoia would mean all of these failsafes weren't enough.....but lets be serious is there really any way ,in this modern world,to make these people comfortable....Short of putting the Republicans back in charge of course. Thank you, Mike.... Pay attention, yes, to him no. I try to limit the number of times I bang my head against a wall. People, this is a GOOD thing. It means that if you are seen in Emergency the docs there will know your history, making it easier to treat you. NO everyone and anyone will not have access to your history, NO it won't be on the internet. NO the IRS won't have it, NO your insurance company won't have anything they don't request from your doctor. How do I know? It's my job to correct all doctor notes and put them into the system for Oncology at one of my local hospitals. They go into the HOSPITAL system... Right now your medical history is on paper, easy to lose, and the chances are the notes are hard if not impossible to read, making mistakes easy. Not to mention that the doctor's horrible grammar is corrected beforehand making the notes easier to understand, reducing errors. Anyone who would give out your medical history with this new system is probably doing it now with the paper copy. Because access just isn't that easy, there are safeguards.

zephyroftheNorth -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/25/2010 3:04:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity If the governments paying the bills whats to keep government officials at various levels from seeing the records. Same with the insurance companies, which already have access. They make you sign a waiver these days, if you're not paying privately, allowing your records to be shared. I have a feeling that (judging by the way government always works) with the expanding powers of the Federal Government over our health care that those who feel they need to know will form into an ever growing circle. quote: ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth And you didn't read what I wrote. Yes searchable BY DOCTORS AND OTHER MEDICAL STAFF. It doesn't mean out on the net it means in hospitals accessable by those who have the program and a password. Medical records cannot be put on the internet, it violates doctor/patient confidentiality. Geez Sanity I thought you had more common sense than that! No, they make you sign a consent form, then they contact your doctor's office to get the info. It does not give them free access to the file. What, do you think they just walk into your doctor's office to look at the file any time they want? NO, the info is sent to them and nothing will change in that respect. It's just as illegal to access the electronic record as it is the paper one now.

Louve00 -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/25/2010 4:16:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval Fast Reply - What guarantees that our health records are secure now? Sloppy, lazy, greedy, dumb or negligent employees can easily pass along information for a bribe or three. Computerizing records could be used for good or for ill, just like any other form of information technology. Seeing as how a medical employee had leaked Farrah Fawcett's cancer information when her cancer came back to her, enabling the whole nation to find out before she told her family (all for financial gain) is proof the answer to your question is a big, fat "None", Vendaval.

Sanity -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/25/2010 7:02:51 AM)
You don't understand the legislation or what is being discussed, and I still don't think you've read the article. The medical records won't be in the doctors office, they're fixing it so that whenever you have a zit popped that information gets entered into a centralized computer database over the Internet which the government ultimately has control over. Not the citizen, and not the doctor - the insurance companies and the bureaucrats. I don't get how it is that you think you're the be-all and the know-all regarding medical records policies in the United States in the first place, much less pending legislation or future plans. Aren't you Canadian? Some kind of a Caribou Barbie or something? quote: ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth No, they make you sign a consent form, then they contact your doctor's office to get the info. It does not give them free access to the file. What, do you think they just walk into your doctor's office to look at the file any time they want? NO, the info is sent to them and nothing will change in that respect. It's just as illegal to access the electronic record as it is the paper one now.

Sanity -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/25/2010 7:07:48 AM)
Farrah Fawcett stood a better chance of keeping her records private with private health care system where she controls what doctors she sees, the hospitals she goes into (or not) and where her records are stored than in the public system where you're dictated to by bureaucrats that we seem headed towards. quote: ORIGINAL: Louve00 quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval Fast Reply - What guarantees that our health records are secure now? Sloppy, lazy, greedy, dumb or negligent employees can easily pass along information for a bribe or three. Computerizing records could be used for good or for ill, just like any other form of information technology. Seeing as how a medical employee had leaked Farrah Fawcett's cancer information when her cancer came back to her, enabling the whole nation to find out before she told her family (all for financial gain) is proof the answer to your question is a big, fat "None", Vendaval.

Louve00 -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/25/2010 7:20:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Farrah Fawcett stood a better chance of keeping her records private with private health care system where she controls what doctors she sees, the hospitals she goes into (or not) and where her records are stored than in the public system where you're dictated to by bureaucrats that we seem headed towards. And yet, the news of her cancer returning hit the media news before she could tell anyone in her family. Imagine her surprise and her family's surprise, hearing of it before hand. But ya know, Sanity....I watched that Farrah Fawcett special on her life with cancer. She was suspecting her medical records were being breached because of the confidential information that was being revealed. When her cancer returned, she purposely didn't tell her family and asked her Dr's not to say anything. And her Dr's were complying with her wish, yet the news got out anyway. Is that your idea of privacy? Knowing (or strongly suspecting) someone is reading your medical information and leaking it to the public, and having to set up a sting, in the midst of a cancer, just to catch them? I'm not sure we were safe to begin with on this issue. However...having the informtion available to Dr's at the click of a mouse within a medical intranet system (if you know what an intranet is) is a good thing. A Dr can see any recent tests and treatments and meds that have been ordered by other Dr's to avoid double test charges and over-medicating, etc. There are a bevy of helpful reasons that would assist the Dr in giving him the "Total picture" of your health as he's treating you, even if you go to a different hospital. Or would you rather all these doc's just go around blindly ordering the same tests over and over for their own specific visualization, despite its costs to an already overburdened and overly expensive medical system.

Sanity -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/25/2010 7:27:18 AM)
I think it would be better if each patient had a card with their information on it, and if centralized records were kept they be kept blindly from prying eyes. Bureaucrats and others don't need access to our private information for many reasons, one being that the Nazis used medical records to round up the weak and the infirm and they destroyed them to help streamline their society. The less government control the better. Call me paranoid, and I'm sure some of you will but I don't give a fuck because shit happens. How many did Stalin kill, how many did Mao kill. And it was all for the greater good of the people.

Sanity -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/25/2010 7:42:42 AM)
A lot of the static hiss you hear when you're dealing with physicians is likely due to the intrinsic hate and intense distrust that doctors have built up over the years towards lawyers because of the way the lawsuit industry has savaged the practice of medicine in this country. quote: ORIGINAL: barelynangel Okay i don't know how this works but if it means that for medical records all i have to do is request records from ONE place with a patient's authorization or a subpoena, it will make my job a whole lot easier. I just ent out bloody 28 medical records requests to medical providers for one of our clients, and 1) so far 7 doctor's office for all their intelligence can't read and follow the concept of CERTIFIED records, 2) they for some reason can't read the BOLDED and CAPPED portion of the lettr that says it includes bills. And i don't know if most people know this but some of the top hospitals are a bitch to get records from even when we have a compliant authorization, so instead of trying to get the releases signed we end up having to issue a subpoena lol. Lordy its a lot of work especially in multi-million dollar cases. Oh and what's more the Dr. Office's departments can't talk to each other so if they have a separate medical record and billing department, instead of simply copying the letter and authorization and giving it to the other department, they conveniently ignore the request for bills until i call and ask why they didn't send them and then they say -- ohh you need to send a request to that person. argh! SO YES PLEASE lol if this means i will only need to send one request or one subpoena to obtain records that people WANT us to have due to a lawsuit. Don't hate me because i am tired of fighting with medical providers to provide me records of patients who have authorized same lol. angel

mnottertail -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/25/2010 7:49:28 AM)
but Stalin and Mao did not sift medical records, and niether did hitlers guys they actually performed live experimentation and did alot of the pictures for medical books, and there was a big bruhaha about that some years ago. But yeah, any change is fraught with peril in some eyes. So you lose your card, I was a programmer wouldn't take much to figure out whats on it. Something happened recently in my life in which I wish all medical information was available on a person to help her, and communicate betwixt and between various doctors and other various and sundry health professionals. So, I never lie to my doctor, it is stupid, and only to my lawyer if I am guilty. So, big deal someone finds out random medical history on some famous star, it aint like not having it all in one place did a fucking thing FOR Farrah, now is it?

rulemylife -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/25/2010 7:51:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity I think it would be better if each patient had a card with their information on it, and if centralized records were kept they be kept blindly from prying eyes. Bureaucrats and others don't need access to our private information for many reasons, one being that the Nazis used medical records to round up the weak and the infirm and they destroyed them to help streamline their society. The less government control the better. Call me paranoid, and I'm sure some of you will but I don't give a fuck because shit happens. How many did Stalin kill, how many did Mao kill. And it was all for the greater good of the people. Then let me happily oblige. You are starting to sound more like a conspiracy theorist everyday.

Louve00 -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/25/2010 7:54:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity I think it would be better if each patient had a card with their information on it, and if centralized records were kept they be kept blindly from prying eyes. Bureaucrats and others don't need access to our private information for many reasons, one being that the Nazis used medical records to round up the weak and the infirm and they destroyed them to help streamline their society. The less government control the better. Call me paranoid, and I'm sure some of you will but I don't give a fuck because shit happens. How many did Stalin kill, how many did Mao kill. And it was all for the greater good of the people. I'm not sure a card is any better than the way it is now, or really, even with an EMR in place. If someone wants sensitive information bad enough they'll stop at nothing to get it. Not to mention as you pointed out, the ways to legally go about getting your hands on a private record. I do agree with you and I don't like the thought of a bureaucrat or any "crat" looking at my personal medical information. They already have access to my financial status through IRS. I doubt they are (or will) want to know whether I need more or less medical attention and the status of it. And again, if gov't wanted information about you, specifically you, I doubt it would matter what form it was being kept as.

Sanity -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/25/2010 7:59:56 AM)
How many did they kill, rml. Sometimes, they really are out to get you. How many did they kill? Answer the question first, then call me paranoid. quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity I think it would be better if each patient had a card with their information on it, and if centralized records were kept they be kept blindly from prying eyes. Bureaucrats and others don't need access to our private information for many reasons, one being that the Nazis used medical records to round up the weak and the infirm and they destroyed them to help streamline their society. The less government control the better. Call me paranoid, and I'm sure some of you will but I don't give a fuck because shit happens. How many did Stalin kill, how many did Mao kill. And it was all for the greater good of the people. Then let me happily oblige. You are starting to sound more like a conspiracy theorist everyday.

mnottertail -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/25/2010 8:02:15 AM)
millions, and not using any medical records whatsoever to do so.

domiguy -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/25/2010 8:02:38 AM)
Oh my God, change might be coming!!! Change might be coming!!! I knew all of this technology would bite us in the ass. I am going back in time to blow up Steve Job's garage.

Sanity -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/25/2010 8:13:06 AM)
Millions and millions and millions and millions, with no exaggeration. There was also Pol Pot and Fidel Castro, and several other major players. Look at North Korea today, you have total state control over the lives of the citizens and if the government there says you starve, guess what? You starve. You die watching your family die a slow painful death. And its always done with the best intentions, its done literally in the name of the greater good for all. And Adolf Hitler did use medical records, I'm sure others have as well. They don't need our medical records in any form that they can read, not for any reason. Keep them private, in our control, and strictly confidential. quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail millions, and not using any medical records whatsoever to do so.

rulemylife -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/25/2010 8:17:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity A lot of the static hiss you hear when you're dealing with physicians is likely due to the intrinsic hate and intense distrust that doctors have built up over the years towards lawyers because of the way the lawsuit industry has savaged the practice of medicine in this country. Ah yes, the Republican wonderland of tort reform, which will solve all problems and leave us skipping down the yellow brick road hand-in-hand with those dedicated physicians. Let's try an example. In Ohio tort reform was passed limiting punitive damages to $250k. If you had a surgeon that left you paralyzed for life because he was operating under the influence of drugs would you consider $250k adequate to compensate you for his behavior?

domiguy -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/25/2010 8:18:57 AM)
We have your medical records....Therefore, you shall not eat. Makes sense to me. We are reaching a time when the powers that be can no longer tolerate to have the free thinkers of the world like the Sanitys and the Muirrens running around unchecked...They must be starved out. Obama must gather and kill the teachers and the brightest minds this country has to offer. Run Sanity!....Run Muirren! You are freedoms only hope. Rent a copy of Red Dawn and head for the hills. God bless the freedom fighters.

Sanity -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/25/2010 8:22:31 AM)
No, tort reform is another subject. What I am referring to here is the hatred that a lot of Doctors have toward lawyers. quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Ah yes, the Republican wonderland of tort reform, which will solve all problems and leave us skipping down the yellow brick road hand-in-hand with those dedicated physicians. Let's try an example. In Ohio tort reform was passed limiting punitive damages to $250k. If you had a surgeon that left you paralyzed for life because he was operating under the influence of drugs would you consider $250k adequate to compensate you for his behavior?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125