Patranus
Diamond Member
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...d-seizure-millions-americans-medical-records/
Just the tip of the iceberg as to whats coming with Obamacare.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Report: IRS Seizes 60 Million Medical Records
- Thread starter Patranus
- Start date
Just the tip of the iceberg as to whats coming with Obamacare.
Patranus
Diamond Member
Huh? There was a 'report' that it happened. There is also a lawsuit. Being reported doesn't make it true or false but the 'report' in itself is disturbing.
There was a 'report' that the NSA is data mining US citizens. Must also be allegations/accusations and every thread on this in P&N must also have thread titles which are "lies".
Last edited:
werepossum
Elite Member
It's the proggie timeline - everything must be considered unproven allegations right up to the point when they become irrelevant old news.
ivwshane
Lifer
I'm glad to see the right continuing to hold onto claims that have been disproven time and time again. I also like how the OP left out a key word from his post and title:
http://factcheck.org/2013/05/republican-overreach-on-irs/
While there has been plenty to find fault with in the revelation that the IRS targeted some tea party groups seeking tax exempt status, some of the Republican rhetoric has been an overreach.
Rep. Michele Bachmann falsely claimed that Americans “most personal, sensitive, intimate, private healthcare information is in the hands of the IRS,” while raising the specter that the IRS will misuse that information against “political opponents of this administration.” The IRS will not have access to personal health records.
Sen. Rand Paul passed along baseless speculation that “the person running Obamacare” was the one “who wrote the policy” at the center of the IRS controversy. That’s a reference to a former IRS commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations who now heads the IRS’ Affordable Care Act office. But a Treasury Inspector General’s report found that employees in the Cincinnati office, not any administrators in Washington, “developed and implemented” the policy in question.
Rep. Paul Ryan said that the IG investigators “didn’t look at emails, they didn’t look at intent, they didn’t look who was in the chain of information.” That’s not true. The IG office did look at emails and conducted interviews, and the report made findings about who knew what and when.
Bachmann’s Overreach
Bachmann, who led a House effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, told ABC News the IRS revelations raise broader concerns about how the IRS may handle people’s medical information under the Affordable Care Act.
Bachmann, May 20: When people realize that their most personal, sensitive, intimate, private healthcare information is in the hands of the IRS that’s been willing to use people’s tax information against political opponents of this administration, then people have pause and they pull back in horror.
But Health and Human Services and IRS officials have repeatedly explained that the IRS will not have access to anyone’s personal medical records.
“The Affordable Care Act maintains strict privacy controls to safeguard personal information,” Health and Human Services spokeswoman Joanne Peters wrote to us in an email. “The IRS will not have access to personal health information. Application for financial assistance will be part of applying for coverage on the Marketplace and will take place in near real time.”
This isn’t the first time we’ve dealt with such a claim at factcheck.org. Back in November we looked into a claim from the conservative group Americans for Tax Reform that under the health care law, taxpayers will have to disclose “personal identifying health information” to the IRS to prove they have insurance.
Starting in 2014, the health care law requires most Americans to have insurance or pay a tax, although exemptions will apply based on income and other factors. The IRS will require most taxpayers to prove they’re covered or they must pay a tax on their 2014 tax returns.
In congressional testimony in September, then-IRS deputy commissioner Steven Miller made it clear that the IRS will not collect any personal health information.
Miller, Sept. 11, 2012: Taxpayers will get a form at the end of every year from their insurer to use when they prepare their tax returns. It is important to note that the information that insurers provide to the IRS will show the fact of insurance coverage, and will not include any personal health information.
Last year, the IRS proposed the types of information insurers must submit to the IRS in 2015 — and they don’t include personal health details.
The agency proposed asking insurers for the following:
The name, address and Social Security Number or Tax Identification Number of the taxpayer and any dependents.
Dates the insurer provided coverage.
Whether the insurance is considered “qualified” under the law, which means it covers a number of broadly defined health benefits, among other requirements.
Whether the individual bought insurance through an affordable insurance marketplace, known as a health insurance exchange.
Whether the individual is eligible for tax credits and other assistance to help pay for coverage.
In case there was still any question, Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott asked Miller in a House committee hearing on May 17 whether the IRS would be asking for personal medical records. (accessed via CQ Transcripts)
McDermott, May 17: The IRS can’t access your medical files. Is that true, Mr. Miller?
Miller: Correct, sir.
McDermott: They cannot find out your private medical information.
Miller: That’s correct, sir.
McDermott: Their job in Obamacare is simply to collect … financial information on which a determination is made as to whether somebody can get a subsidy for their premiums. Is that correct?
Miller: Were you covered and over what period is what we would be getting.
Miller is currently the acting IRS commissioner. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew requested his resignation, but Miller remains acting commissioner until his appointment expires June 8, ABC News reported.
Paul’s Unfounded Speculation
In an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union” on May 19, Sen. Rand Paul also tied the IRS controversy to the health care law, which he referred to as Obamacare.
Paul, May 19: There’s rumors that who wrote the [IRS] policy [to scrutinize tea party and other conservative groups] is the person running Obamacare, which doesn’t give us a lot of confidence about Obamacare.
He’s referring to Sarah Hall Ingram, who served as the IRS’ commissioner for the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division for a portion of the period under the IG’s review. Ingram is now the director of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act office (so not “running” Obamacare, just overseeing the IRS end).
More importantly, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration’s report makes no suggestion that Ingram “wrote the policy” that resulted in the IRS targeting conservative groups seeking tax exempt status.
The IG’s report concluded the policy, or directive, wasn’t written by administrators in Washington, D.C., but rather, “The Determinations Unit [in Cincinnati] developed and implemented inappropriate criteria in part due to insufficient oversight provided by management. Specifically, only first-line management approved references to the Tea Party in the BOLO [be on the lookout] listing criteria before it was implemented.”
According to the report, Lois Lerner, the IRS’s director of the exempt organizations division — a position under Ingram — “immediately directed that the criteria be changed” once she learned about it in June 2011.
At worst, the report suggests that perhaps Ingram can be criticized for failing to provide management guidance, but not for writing the policy, as Paul suggested.
Further scrutiny of the IRS is coming, but on “Fox News Sunday,” Obama senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer warned that people ought not to jump the gun on Ingram until all the facts are in. The report does not name anyone; only titles were used and her title rarely appears in the 48-page report.
Pfeiffer, May 19: Well, I think first it’s important to note this individual [Ingram] was not named in the inspector-general’s report. No one has suggested she’s done anything wrong yet … The acting commissioner is going to do a 30-day review. And everyone who did anything wrong is going be held accountable.
But I think before everyone in this town convicts this person in a court of public opinion with no evidence, let’s actually get the facts and make decisions after that.
Unless or until further investigation proves otherwise, Paul’s speculation runs contrary to the findings of the IG report.
Ryan’s Misplaced Criticism
Rep. Paul Ryan distorted the facts while making the claim that a real investigation needs to be done to find out how high up the IRS scandal went.
On “Fox News Sunday,” Ryan said the IG investigators “didn’t look at emails, they didn’t look at intent, they didn’t look who was in the chain of information. So, none of that information has been acquired yet.”
It’s a matter of opinion whether the IG investigators were thorough enough, but Ryan underplayed the extent of the IG’s report. In fact, the IG’s investigators did conduct interviews and scrutinize emails, and they attempted to find out how high up the chain the directive regarding the targeting of some conservative groups went.
The report specifically notes that some findings were based on “interviews of EO function employees and our review of EO function e-mails.” Also, most of the sources listed in the “Comprehensive Timeline of Events,” (in Appendix VII beginning on page 31) are listed as emails.
The report also includes a “High-Level Organizational Chart of Offices Referenced in This Report,” (Appendix V, page 29) as well as a detailed timeline whose express purpose was to try to describe who knew what and when.
Again, we take no position about whether further investigation is warranted. But Ryan’s assertion that the IG’s investigators didn’t look at emails or attempt to “look who was in the chain of information” is not accurate.
– Robert Farley and Eugene Kiely
http://factcheck.org/2013/05/republican-overreach-on-irs/
While there has been plenty to find fault with in the revelation that the IRS targeted some tea party groups seeking tax exempt status, some of the Republican rhetoric has been an overreach.
Rep. Michele Bachmann falsely claimed that Americans “most personal, sensitive, intimate, private healthcare information is in the hands of the IRS,” while raising the specter that the IRS will misuse that information against “political opponents of this administration.” The IRS will not have access to personal health records.
Sen. Rand Paul passed along baseless speculation that “the person running Obamacare” was the one “who wrote the policy” at the center of the IRS controversy. That’s a reference to a former IRS commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations who now heads the IRS’ Affordable Care Act office. But a Treasury Inspector General’s report found that employees in the Cincinnati office, not any administrators in Washington, “developed and implemented” the policy in question.
Rep. Paul Ryan said that the IG investigators “didn’t look at emails, they didn’t look at intent, they didn’t look who was in the chain of information.” That’s not true. The IG office did look at emails and conducted interviews, and the report made findings about who knew what and when.
Bachmann’s Overreach
Bachmann, who led a House effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, told ABC News the IRS revelations raise broader concerns about how the IRS may handle people’s medical information under the Affordable Care Act.
Bachmann, May 20: When people realize that their most personal, sensitive, intimate, private healthcare information is in the hands of the IRS that’s been willing to use people’s tax information against political opponents of this administration, then people have pause and they pull back in horror.
But Health and Human Services and IRS officials have repeatedly explained that the IRS will not have access to anyone’s personal medical records.
“The Affordable Care Act maintains strict privacy controls to safeguard personal information,” Health and Human Services spokeswoman Joanne Peters wrote to us in an email. “The IRS will not have access to personal health information. Application for financial assistance will be part of applying for coverage on the Marketplace and will take place in near real time.”
This isn’t the first time we’ve dealt with such a claim at factcheck.org. Back in November we looked into a claim from the conservative group Americans for Tax Reform that under the health care law, taxpayers will have to disclose “personal identifying health information” to the IRS to prove they have insurance.
Starting in 2014, the health care law requires most Americans to have insurance or pay a tax, although exemptions will apply based on income and other factors. The IRS will require most taxpayers to prove they’re covered or they must pay a tax on their 2014 tax returns.
In congressional testimony in September, then-IRS deputy commissioner Steven Miller made it clear that the IRS will not collect any personal health information.
Miller, Sept. 11, 2012: Taxpayers will get a form at the end of every year from their insurer to use when they prepare their tax returns. It is important to note that the information that insurers provide to the IRS will show the fact of insurance coverage, and will not include any personal health information.
Last year, the IRS proposed the types of information insurers must submit to the IRS in 2015 — and they don’t include personal health details.
The agency proposed asking insurers for the following:
The name, address and Social Security Number or Tax Identification Number of the taxpayer and any dependents.
Dates the insurer provided coverage.
Whether the insurance is considered “qualified” under the law, which means it covers a number of broadly defined health benefits, among other requirements.
Whether the individual bought insurance through an affordable insurance marketplace, known as a health insurance exchange.
Whether the individual is eligible for tax credits and other assistance to help pay for coverage.
In case there was still any question, Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott asked Miller in a House committee hearing on May 17 whether the IRS would be asking for personal medical records. (accessed via CQ Transcripts)
McDermott, May 17: The IRS can’t access your medical files. Is that true, Mr. Miller?
Miller: Correct, sir.
McDermott: They cannot find out your private medical information.
Miller: That’s correct, sir.
McDermott: Their job in Obamacare is simply to collect … financial information on which a determination is made as to whether somebody can get a subsidy for their premiums. Is that correct?
Miller: Were you covered and over what period is what we would be getting.
Miller is currently the acting IRS commissioner. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew requested his resignation, but Miller remains acting commissioner until his appointment expires June 8, ABC News reported.
Paul’s Unfounded Speculation
In an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union” on May 19, Sen. Rand Paul also tied the IRS controversy to the health care law, which he referred to as Obamacare.
Paul, May 19: There’s rumors that who wrote the [IRS] policy [to scrutinize tea party and other conservative groups] is the person running Obamacare, which doesn’t give us a lot of confidence about Obamacare.
He’s referring to Sarah Hall Ingram, who served as the IRS’ commissioner for the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division for a portion of the period under the IG’s review. Ingram is now the director of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act office (so not “running” Obamacare, just overseeing the IRS end).
More importantly, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration’s report makes no suggestion that Ingram “wrote the policy” that resulted in the IRS targeting conservative groups seeking tax exempt status.
The IG’s report concluded the policy, or directive, wasn’t written by administrators in Washington, D.C., but rather, “The Determinations Unit [in Cincinnati] developed and implemented inappropriate criteria in part due to insufficient oversight provided by management. Specifically, only first-line management approved references to the Tea Party in the BOLO [be on the lookout] listing criteria before it was implemented.”
According to the report, Lois Lerner, the IRS’s director of the exempt organizations division — a position under Ingram — “immediately directed that the criteria be changed” once she learned about it in June 2011.
At worst, the report suggests that perhaps Ingram can be criticized for failing to provide management guidance, but not for writing the policy, as Paul suggested.
Further scrutiny of the IRS is coming, but on “Fox News Sunday,” Obama senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer warned that people ought not to jump the gun on Ingram until all the facts are in. The report does not name anyone; only titles were used and her title rarely appears in the 48-page report.
Pfeiffer, May 19: Well, I think first it’s important to note this individual [Ingram] was not named in the inspector-general’s report. No one has suggested she’s done anything wrong yet … The acting commissioner is going to do a 30-day review. And everyone who did anything wrong is going be held accountable.
But I think before everyone in this town convicts this person in a court of public opinion with no evidence, let’s actually get the facts and make decisions after that.
Unless or until further investigation proves otherwise, Paul’s speculation runs contrary to the findings of the IG report.
Ryan’s Misplaced Criticism
Rep. Paul Ryan distorted the facts while making the claim that a real investigation needs to be done to find out how high up the IRS scandal went.
On “Fox News Sunday,” Ryan said the IG investigators “didn’t look at emails, they didn’t look at intent, they didn’t look who was in the chain of information. So, none of that information has been acquired yet.”
It’s a matter of opinion whether the IG investigators were thorough enough, but Ryan underplayed the extent of the IG’s report. In fact, the IG’s investigators did conduct interviews and scrutinize emails, and they attempted to find out how high up the chain the directive regarding the targeting of some conservative groups went.
The report specifically notes that some findings were based on “interviews of EO function employees and our review of EO function e-mails.” Also, most of the sources listed in the “Comprehensive Timeline of Events,” (in Appendix VII beginning on page 31) are listed as emails.
The report also includes a “High-Level Organizational Chart of Offices Referenced in This Report,” (Appendix V, page 29) as well as a detailed timeline whose express purpose was to try to describe who knew what and when.
Again, we take no position about whether further investigation is warranted. But Ryan’s assertion that the IG’s investigators didn’t look at emails or attempt to “look who was in the chain of information” is not accurate.
– Robert Farley and Eugene Kiely
werepossum
Elite Member
😀
Hard to see on what grounds you claim this has been disproved. There is an ongoing lawsuit where a health care provider is suing the IRS claiming that it has seized over 10 million patients' actual medical records under a warrant fro their financial records. Based on that and similar claims, the letter is requesting information on up to 60 million such seizures. The "Factcheck" story is based on what the IRS says it WILL get, which is a special form not yet in existence. I believe we can safely rule the possibility that the IRS seized 60 million forms not yet in existence; that leaves two possibilities. Either these health care providers are wrong and the IRS seized only the information to which they are entitled - although it's difficult to understand why the IRS needs to get a warrant to seize something which is supposedly to be provided freely, when needed in 2014. Or the IRS is lying again and has seized medical records. Either way, whatever the IRS has seized under warrant, it clearly was not the forms that the IRS says it WILL request. Factcheck.org is being dishonest.
ivwshane
Lifer
werepossum
Elite Member
Perhaps you could address my point.
No wait, don't. I don't want the FBI blaming me when your head explodes.
woolfe9998
Lifer
I think your point is valid, except the part about factcheck being dishonest. Factcheck is addressing the narrower topic of IRS powers under the ACA. We don't know what these records allegedly seized from this California provider were for. The very fact the IRS got a warrant suggests it had nothing to do with ACA because as you correctly point out, they wouldn't need one. Also, the IRS is seeking insurance info for ACA purposes. This information ought to come from carriers rather than from providers. The lawsuit is very likely about something entirely unrelated to the ACA. Some GOP lawmakers are linking the two but no link is really in evidence as yet.
As for the lawsuit, I think we have to wait and see what the evidence is.
So, uhh, you have proof? Or is this just another example of Truthiness?
The burden of proof lies with the accuser, always, other than among Righties when they hear what they want to hear, when it feeds their outrage addiction. Then It Must Be True! Because A Lawsuit Has Been Filed! Because It's All Obama's Fault! Everything!
In case you haven't realized it, you've long ago crossed over into self parody.
ivwshane
Lifer
Wait a minute!! Are you implying that if someone files a lawsuit that the charge filed may not be truthful or have any merit to it? Because you and I both know that nobody, NOBODY! files bogus lawsuits!
/s
Yes werepossum has become a parody of himself.
werepossum
Elite Member
My point about Factcheck being dishonest was because they addressed not the point she made - which may or may not be true - but a related though different point. On the basis of the related though different point, Factcheck declared that her statement was false, but anyone can see that one point does not necessarily control the other.
Patranus
Diamond Member
factcheck.org has been proven to be disingenuous in their claims.
woolfe9998
Lifer
If by "she" you mean Bachmann, according to factcheck, her comment was specifically made in the context of a discussion of the ACA. Factcheck's analysis appears to be correct as it relates to the ACA. Are you saying Bachmann was making a more general comment and not specifically referring to the ACA?
Incorruptible
Lifer
Another reason to abolish the IRS.
werepossum
Elite Member
No, I'm saying Bachmann claimed that the IRS has people's personal health care records because the IRS allegedly seized up to 60 million person's confidential health care records using as justification a warrant authorizing them to seize financial records pursuant to their rights under the ACA. This is backed up by several health care providers' claims, at least one of which has taken the matter to court. Factcheck claims her statement is in error, but does so on the basis of statements by Health and Human Services and IRS officials. To wit:
It should be rather obvious that a statement that the IRS will not have health care records when it begins its operations in 2014 is hardly proof that the IRS does not already have such health care records now, as alleged by several health care providers whose health care records were seized by the IRS, even though both are nominally in the context of a discussion of the ACA. That would be tantamount to claiming that it's false to say the IRS discriminated in awarding not-for-profit status based on political ideology because IRS officials have repeatedly explained that the IRS will not discriminate based on political ideology. That someone claims something MAY mean it is the truth, but they claim it is not evidence of the truth. It is merely a claim. I'm willing to accept the self-serving statements of Health and Human Services and IRS officials up to a point, but when health care providers are raided and they say such records were taken, my blind trust evaporates.
In other words, Bachmann may be right or she may be wrong, but the fact that government officials claim they won't do something is not necessarily proof either way, and it is dishonest of Factcheck.org to present it that way.
dainthomas
Lifer
So what if the government has your records? The VA has all my medical records, and they haven't killed me to harvest my organs (yet).
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Can we have them?
dainthomas
Lifer
They're pretty boring. I'm diabetic, slightly overweight, but have great blood pressure and good cholesterol. Not much more than that in there.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
I have metabolic syndrome, so that kind of sucks, but here's the thing. We have (or used to have) a reasonable expectation of privacy. The principle means that taking private information about you requires a compelling and legal reason. You don't have to justify it at all. The standard seems to be lowering though to "if you don't have anything to hide you needn't worry. No one would abuse what they found".
That's on my top ten list of dumb things to say. Everything has something to hide. Everyone has something which may be used for purposes other than they intended even if it's proper.
In short unless there is in fact, not the governments opinion, "none of your damned business" should be sufficient denial when you are requested for information.
The whole story Is vague & sensational in a way obviously designed to inflame sentiment & fan speculation. Great timing, too, for a suit over events that occurred in 2011.
Here's the original story, subsequently reinterpreted all over the right wing o sphere by anybody & everybody with an ax to grind-
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/03/14/55707.htm
Nice and vague.
Here's the filing attorney's web page-
http://www.barneslawllp.com/
Lots of intentionally unanswered questions. What kind of "health care provider" are we talking about? The term is exceedingly broad, and covers innumerable possibilities, from a company who just does billing to any number of things. What kind of records are we talking about, anyway? Billing, or more detailed? How does one actual health care provider end up with 60 million of the latter?
There are more, of course, like who is this former employee & why did the IRS want records about him or her?
Which is not to defend or condemn the IRS, but I doubt that this is what the usual ravers believe it to be. It never is.
Here's the original story, subsequently reinterpreted all over the right wing o sphere by anybody & everybody with an ax to grind-
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/03/14/55707.htm
Nice and vague.
Here's the filing attorney's web page-
http://www.barneslawllp.com/
Lots of intentionally unanswered questions. What kind of "health care provider" are we talking about? The term is exceedingly broad, and covers innumerable possibilities, from a company who just does billing to any number of things. What kind of records are we talking about, anyway? Billing, or more detailed? How does one actual health care provider end up with 60 million of the latter?
There are more, of course, like who is this former employee & why did the IRS want records about him or her?
Which is not to defend or condemn the IRS, but I doubt that this is what the usual ravers believe it to be. It never is.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
