HealthCare

[EagleKeeper]

This is a spin off from this thread

Background:
The State Senate of SC has a passed a bill related to the ObamaCare rules related to concerns about the government turning our health records over to the IRS

When called upon such a senator responded
"Is information about whether or not you have health insurance that covers certain things, is that a health record? And if so, isn't that requiring that a health record be turned over?"


So newly minted debators

Given that a person is now required to provide to the IRS proof of coverage; Is that in itself, a medical record being turned over to the government.
ie. Not having the proof, implies that you are not eligible for insurance for medical reasons; the government has stated that they are covering reasonable financial costs (personally, I think that this is bull, but a separate issue)

Does not providing proof; allow the government to intrude into areas of your lifestyle(medical areas) that it should not be?

 

[dank69]

I honestly don't see how proof of coverage could be construed as a medical record. Proof of auto coverage is not considered a part of your driving record.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I honestly don't see how proof of coverage could be construed as a medical record. Proof of auto coverage is not considered a part of your driving record.

This is pretty much what I was thinking. I can understand the objections to requiring health insurance, but I wouldn't consider proof of insurance to be a "medical record." A medical record is an actual description of some aspect of a person's physical or mental health; proof of insurance is simply an indication whether someone is in a contract with an insurance provider for healthcare related costs.

 

[waggy]

I honestly don't see how proof of coverage could be construed as a medical record. Proof of auto coverage is not considered a part of your driving record.

i guess it comes down to how they go about it. IF you just need to show a card, or whatever.

 

[EagleKeeper]

What does not having/showing proof imply though?

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

I think the critical detail is:

Does the proof of insurance document include details of *what* you are insured for, specifically, or does it simply state general coverage limits in dollars, what your deductible is, what your premium is, etc.

I'm not too sure how proof of auto insurance works - I believe the government sets a minimum, and in order to keep your car registered you or the insurance company simply has to give proof to the DMV that you have that minimum. They don't care how much over the minimum you are, just that you are over the minimum?

If health care insurance proof works this way, I see it as being pretty straightforward.

 

[dank69]

It's not like you can order insurance à la carte, picking and choosing what conditions you want covered.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

What does not having/showing proof imply though?

This is just me extrapolating from the logic of government mandated car insurance.

We are required to buy liability insurance so in the event that we get into an accident the other party involved will be paid via our liability. Whether or not we insure *ourselves* and our own property is the optional addition we can buy, but we must at a minimum have a way to repay the other party from our actions through insurance.

So on the same vein, health insurance:

We are required to show that we have a minimum of health insurance so that when we get sick we don't have to go to the ER and get extremely high medical bills which then go unpaid which then the community at large (ie. everybody) has to saddle. And unpaid medical bills are a leading driver of our high medical costs. Reduce the unpaid medical bills by mandating them be paid through a minimum of insurance, and you eventually get medical costs that are more in the realm of affordability, or so goes the theory.

I don't believe that simply providing proof of minimum coverage equates to turning over health records.

 

[waggy]

It's not like you can order insurance à la carte, picking and choosing what conditions you want covered.

well there will be diffrent levels. Though i don't think that is going to matter.

All i can see is a having a card that says "waggy has insurance with XXX company"

no issue on level onit. that will be in the computers.

in other words exactly like i have now.

 

[dank69]

well there will be diffrent levels. Though i don't think that is going to matter.

All i can see is a having a card that says "waggy has insurance with XXX company"

no issue on level onit. that will be in the computers.

in other words exactly like i have now.

Exactly. I don't think the different levels are going to offer any insight into what types of medical issues a person has.

 

[randomrogue]

Given that a person is now required to provide to the IRS proof of coverage; Is that in itself, a medical record being turned over to the government.
ie. Not having the proof, implies that you are not eligible for insurance for medical reasons; the government has stated that they are covering reasonable financial costs (personally, I think that this is bull, but a separate issue)

Does not providing proof; allow the government to intrude into areas of your lifestyle(medical areas) that it should not be?

I'm not sure if i understand the question. Everyone has to provide proof of health insurance to the IRS or else what? Or else the government will check to see whether you are being refused coverage due to health reasons or are simply being a cheapskate?

You have to have medical records/shots to start school. This isn't the first time we've had to provide medical information.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Add me to the chorus of people who see no real problem here.

 

[Bowfinger]

What does not having/showing proof imply though?

Maybe I'm also misunderstanding, but I think it can show any of several things. Yes, it might mean one has a significant medical condition that makes it difficult to obtain insurance. It could also simply mean one is uninformed, irresponsible, a procrastinator, or too poor to purchase coverage. In other words, I would expect those with severe medical issues would be an anonymous subset of those who've failed to provide proof of insurance.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Maybe I'm also misunderstanding, but I think it can show any of several things. Yes, it might mean one has a significant medical condition that makes it difficult to obtain insurance. It could also simply mean one is uninformed, irresponsible, a procrastinator, or too poor to purchase coverage. In other words, I would expect those with severe medical issues would be an anonymous subset of those who've failed to provide proof of insurance.

I'm not sure if i understand the question. Everyone has to provide proof of health insurance to the IRS or else what? Or else the government will check to see whether you are being refused coverage due to health reasons or are simply being a cheapskate?

You have to have medical records/shots to start school. This isn't the first time we've had to provide medical information.

which goes back to one of the original issues.

If such an inference can be drawn from not providing such records to the IRS; should the IRS have these records and/or records of the existence of such records.

It goes beyond the stated intent of the IRS.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Given that a person is now required to provide to the IRS proof of coverage; Is that in itself, a medical record being turned over to the government.

IDK, it may be. I believe the privacy rules are contained in HIPPA and I'm not familiar enough with it to know the answer. I see language in the law that says the simple fact of whether there is coverage or not is protected info. However, there are exceptions.

But I mostly wanted to point out the IRS already has a lot access to medical-type records. E.g., they can 'audit' an employer and examine their records on medical benefits paid to employees. They can demand individual taxpayers claiming a deduction for medical expense prove those by providing bills/checks etc.

If there is a conflict between Obamacare requirements and HIPPA type rules, both of which were passed by Congress, it could remedied by a technical bill, which are quite common. I am unaware of a Constitutional right to 'medical privacy' that would violated by the Obamacare rules.

Fern

 

[lotus503]

I haven't read the legislation but every time I go to the doctor I have to show them my insurance card, outlining my co pay coverage to a degree, if this is all the shared information contains I dont see an issue with it.

 

[Demo24]

I haven't been able to figure out what exactly they are giving the IRS from those links, my guess is proof for some kind of tax purposes.

Hipaa laws prevent anything terribly revealing from being displayed in most cases.

 

[fskimospy]

which goes back to one of the original issues.

If such an inference can be drawn from not providing such records to the IRS; should the IRS have these records and/or records of the existence of such records.

It goes beyond the stated intent of the IRS.

Also, remember that under the ACA you cannot be denied coverage for medical reasons, so there is no worry about inferences being made due to lack of coverage, at least medically.

 

[Exterous]

They can demand individual taxpayers claiming a deduction for medical expense prove those by providing bills/checks etc

That was my thought as well. Seeing proof of coverage seems less invasive than proving your medical bills exceeded the AGI limits thereby allowing you to claim medical deductions.

And, while I have no experience with filing taxes for the blind or disabled, I would assume there is the potential that they would have to submit medical records proving their medical condition as well

 

[GoPackGo]

Providing proof of coverage / benefit dollars used / out of pocket expenses in regards to tax credits / deductions seems to be OK with me. Does the IRS need to know if someone is suffering from a chronic health condition and know what that condition is? I don't think so.

 

[sactoking]

"Is information about whether or not you have health insurance that covers certain things, is that a health record? And if so, isn't that requiring that a health record be turned over?"

The quote is wrong on two counts:

1. The person giving the quote makes the common logical fallacy that health insurance = health care. It has been discussed time and time again, but presence of health insurance does not guarantee care nor does lack of insurance prevent care. As such, proving the presence of insurance is not the same as proving any sort of care or lack of care, which is the true definition of a health record.

2. Even if you accept that proof of insurance does somehow qualify as a health record, the quote is disingenous. The law requires that individuals obtain "adequate" health insurance (ACA §1501) and requires the IRS to levy a tax penalty if adequate coverage cannot be verified (ACA §1502). Additionally, the law provides for tax credits to defray the costs of such adequate insurance for lower-income individuals (ACA §§1401-1402). Finally, employers are required to report the cost of employees' health insurance coverage on the employees' form W-2 (ACA §9002). To argue that proof of emergency room coverage (one of the ten required Essential Health Benefits), regardless of emergency room usage, is a medical record subject to HIPAA confidentiality laws is just a thinly-veiled excuse. In reality, the person providing the quote knows that by preventing the IRS from validating the presence of minimum essential coverage you prevent practical implementation of the individual/shared responsibility provisions, tax credits, and whatnot; provisions that are essential to the operation of the law. In other words, it's just an attempt at a back-door nullification.

 

[waggy]

Providing proof of coverage / benefit dollars used / out of pocket expenses in regards to tax credits / deductions seems to be OK with me. Does the IRS need to know if someone is suffering from a chronic health condition and know what that condition is? I don't think so.

all the damn thing needs to say is that you have insurance. that is ALL The IRS needs. nothing more.