Taking Liberties
August 26, 2009 8:26 PM

Democratic Health Care Bill Divulges IRS Tax Data

(AP)
One of the problems with any proposed law that's over 1,000 pages long and constantly changing is that much deviltry can lie in the details. Take the Democrats' proposal to rewrite health care policy, better known as H.R. 3200 or by opponents as "Obamacare." (Here's our CBS News television coverage.)

Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for "affordability credits."

Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details -- there's no specified limit on what's available or unavailable -- to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose, again, is to verify "affordability credits."

Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a "low-income prescription drug subsidy" but has not applied for it.

Over at the Institute for Policy Innovation (a free-market think tank and presumably no fan of Obamacare), Tom Giovanetti argues that: "How many thousands of federal employees will have access to your records? The privacy of your health records will be only as good as the most nosy, most dishonest and most malcontented federal employee.... So say good-bye to privacy from the federal government. It was fun while it lasted for 233 years."

I'm not as certain as Giovanetti that this represents privacy's Armageddon. (Though I do wonder where the usual suspects like the Electronic Privacy Information Center are. Presumably inserting limits on information that can be disclosed -- and adding strict penalties on misuse of the information kept on file about hundreds of millions of Americans -- is at least as important as fretting about Facebook's privacy policy in Canada.)

A better candidate for a future privacy crisis is the so-called stimulus bill enacted with limited debate early this year. It mandated the "utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014," but included only limited privacy protections.

It's true that if the legislative branch chooses to create "affordability credits," it probably makes sense to ensure they're not abused. The goal of curbing fraud runs up against the goal of preserving individual privacy.

If we're going to have such significant additional government intrusion into our health care system, we will have to draw the privacy line somewhere. Maybe the House Democrats' current bill gets it right. Maybe it doesn't. But this vignette should be reason to be skeptical of claims that a massive and complex bill must be enacted as rapidly as its backers would have you believe.

Update August 27 11 a.m: Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center says in e-mail: "We would oppose section 431(a) of the bill because it violates the intent of the Privacy Act which generally requires agencies to obtain information directly from individuals and not from other agencies." EPIC still hasn't updated their Web site to reflect this sentiment, but it's good to know that other folks have concerns too.

Declan McCullagh is a correspondent for CBSNews.com. He can be reached at declan@cbsnews.com. You can bookmark the Taking Liberties site here, or subscribe to the RSS feed.
Tags:
privacy
Topics:
Health Care
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx
Add a Comment See all 282 Comments
by rafirebird November 14, 2009 5:13 PM EST
Sure, Bush didn't do all the right things. But to say they are all the same is not very intelligent.Reagan and Carter lead this country from very opposite ends of the spectrum. No president can successfully reform health care without first shoring up the economy.
Reply to this comment
by doneourpart September 21, 2009 3:05 PM EDT
One other thing,the hospitals in our area have you and your family fill out the Health Care Directive and the D.N.R. when you are admitted,I am not aware of any charge for this. This is S.O.P.,unless you have already had this drawn up by your lawyer. We did all of this when we had our wills drawn up. We were in our late 40's and wanted to make sure everyone who should make life and death decisions for us could. We DID NOT need a politican to tell us to do this.
Reply to this comment
by doneourpart September 21, 2009 2:40 PM EDT
Not one of our Doctors are for this plan, I've asked all of them.
Al so I believe the will be no money in banks around the country once people wake up and see that nothing is private anymore.
Reply to this comment
by Real Freedom September 10, 2009 3:36 AM EDT
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have".
Thomas Jefferson

I love these Wingnuts who come on public sites claiming that they know all about American history and the founding fathers, and then follow their messages with quotes they attribute to founders like Jefferson. And get it wrong. This is a Gerald Ford quote, not a Thomas Jefferson quote.

If you find a few of these you actually figure out what web sites the person is reading.
Reply to this comment
by rexrox2 September 4, 2009 11:00 PM EDT
If you,(CBS)start right now, and begin to do the public's work and investigate all these czars, you may be able to save your "NEWS" organization and not go down with OBAMA,NBC,ABC,CNN,MSNBC et.al. To have Van Jones be working,correct that, leading the GREENS in the WHITE HOUSE,and only FOX and Lou Dobbs are willing to even bring it up?? A blind man can see that bias. All of you blocked any attempt to tie OBAMA to Ayres, Wright, and that whole group. Now the CHICKENS ARE COMING HOME TO ROOST. All of you are going to pay a very dear price. You left journalism for FULL-TIME ADVOCACY. This is SO HISTORIC,YOU ALL SAID,and you were right, but for a whole set of reasons you didn't think would ever come out. The people of this country would have loved for OBAMA to be the kind of president you convinced us he was, but alas, he's the radical he has always been.
Reply to this comment
by proudscot September 8, 2009 4:53 PM EDT
and what's wrong with being radical dipwad? Radical gave you independence. Radical is not some filthy commie word and if radical is Obama's ideas for health reform and less people die because of it, well radical is good.
Here's a radical little plan. How about spending less blowing people to bits and more saving lives Retard!
by trinket59 September 3, 2009 5:29 PM EDT
HR 3200 Section 1173A (pg. 58) gives the government real-time access to our financial accounts.

In addition, it exempts the government's current legal requirement, under Chapter 35, Title 44, to protect our records with regard to privacy, security and access as follows: Section 1152 (pg. 304), Section 1221 (pg. 404), Section 1301 (pg. 455), and Section 1866E (pg. 476).

If you want to confirm this for yourself, search "energy and commerce hr3200". The house energy and commerce committee should be your first choice. Here you will find the full text of the bill in addition to all amendments considered.
Reply to this comment
by Kewlbreeze12 September 3, 2009 9:24 AM EDT
Just a few simple questions for this august crowd of experts:
1> Why is there no tort reform in the house bill?
2> Who do we sue for malpractice under the house bill - since there is no tort reform (did you know you have to have the government?s approval to sue them)?
3>Does it bother you the IRS will be giving personal financial info to the Czar or Czarina of Health or to a healthcare panel? Wonder what they will do with that info? Never use it for political purposes - right???
4> Is this debate about healthcare reform, healthcare insurance reform or is it about political power?
5> why should community organizations be funded in a healthcare bill?
6> Why is there a special group set up just to watch out for minorities in the House bill?
7> if our system is soooo bad, why do so many people from other countries where they have some form of government paid healthcare come here for healthcare?
8> Let's say it all passes just the way the majority on this thread wants - and say, one of you gets the bad news your life is not worth the expense it will take to make you well (rationing ? duh!!!!) - please tell me what will you do? Go home, take an aspirin and die (this is what Joe says is a "good American") or would you hop a plane and go to WDC and see your local congressmen and see if he would go to bat for you with the Czar or Czarina or the healthcare panel? Now, of course he would want a fat contribution to his re-election fund ? of course, you will have to pay it ? and, of course, the level of his effort might just be tied to the amount you give - but he truly appreciates anything you can do for him ? he is, after all, just a struggling politician who can barely makes ends meet. Now, there are no guarantees he will be successful with the panel - but he will do his best or so he says..... Having lobbied in WDC for 8 years - I can tell you this is the way WDC works. I pity you if you think it does not. Government healthcare (no matter the form) will come down to this in America ? it is how our system works at its core.
I know these are pesky questions that seem to stoop beneath the meaningful name calling and the lofty derisive discussion in this thread - but inquiring minds want to know.
Instead, why not:
>Have real tort reform like they did in Texas with great results
>Have portability for insurance coverage
>Allow small businesses to pool together to lower their costs of insurance coverage
>Come up with a catastrophic insurance plan
>Get consumers closer to the market interface allowing the free market to work
These are just a start ? simple and straight forward but they will work. These beat the Fascism proposed by our President.
And oh by the way, concerning #8 above ? if your Congressmen is not a Democrat, I just wonder if the members of the healthcare panel (who will be SEIU members) will really listen to his request on your behalf??? So I guess question # 4 really is the heart and soul of this conversation!!!! Oh silly me ? this could never happen in America ? right???!!!??? And surely you don?t think your local Congressmen would try to get your IRS info so he knows how much you can give him - do you??? No way - that is just too much?.. Thuggism ? the Chicago way ? now on a national level. Sure glad our President cares so much about us!!! Don?t you?
Reply to this comment
by Real Freedom September 10, 2009 3:50 AM EDT
1. Tort reform can be viewed as a removal of a person's right to sue. If it was in this bill you can bet the Republicans would be complaining that the bill was taking away the right to sue.
2. You sue doctors for malpractice, like always.
3. The IRS already gives income information to other agencies under the Patriot Act. Why no protest about that?
4. Good question. Which party is proposing reform, and which is trying to block it? There is the answer.
5. Community organizations - I thought that having them rather than government involved would be something that conservatives would like.
6. I like that. I'm a white man over 50 - bingo a minority in today's America.
7. The people who come here for care are the super rich. They don't have problems with insurance.
8. You don't think we have rationing now? Try to get hip replacement if you are over 80.
by milt5658 September 1, 2009 4:58 PM EDT
I already covered this drivel on my blog at PleaseCutthecrap.com.

This doesn't just give access to everyone's tax forms, as this article implies.

The only people whose tax forms would even be looked at would be those who are applying for a government subsidy to pay for their health insurance. In order for the Commissioner to access tax returns, they would need an application, and permission from the taxpayer.

Apparently, Declan has never had to apply for student addistance to go to college, because they've done the same thing there for years.

And for him to quote so many biased right wing sources, and not even attempt to read the bill itself and clarify what it actually says is the height of journalistic irresponsibility.
Reply to this comment
by mcyclonegt August 31, 2009 5:35 PM EDT
Think about the obesity level in this country, and the number of people that smoke, drink, and do drugs. Then throw in the people that just flat out don't take care of themselves or ever exercise. If Americans don't care about there health, then why do they care so much about health care.
Reply to this comment
by aknideas August 29, 2009 7:53 PM EDT
Every new fact that's been brought out adds to the overwhelming "common sense" list of reasons NOT to support health care reform as it's proposed. Obama should be complimented on wanting to do something, but shoving something down the throats of America that's full of such flawed concepts is bullying.
Reply to this comment
by rougeg227 August 29, 2009 6:03 PM EDT
I'm a bit confused. Why would the government want the IRS to divulge financial information? Isn't this Obamacare crap supposed to cover everyone? Why would they need to know financial info about anyone? Ah, yes ... It's not about healthcare. It's about CONTROL... and if you pro-obamacare idiots don't see that, then you're really idiots!!
Reply to this comment
by robham777 August 29, 2009 6:34 PM EDT
The information is needed in order make sure that only the working class and rich actually pay for their own health care. The tree of entitlement must be watered from time to time with the money of tyrants.
by robham777 August 29, 2009 2:46 PM EDT
by trapbreaking August 29, 2009 2:42 PM EDT
62% Like Tax Cuts Over More Government Spending

What % of that 62% actually pay taxes?
Reply to this comment
by robham777 August 29, 2009 2:44 PM EDT
http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=1108&org_name=NTUF

This is a site that obviously has a conservative bias, however before you disregard its contents you can easily download the searchable PDF of the proposed legislation and find out for your self.
Reply to this comment
by trapbreaking August 29, 2009 2:42 PM EDT
62% Like Tax Cuts Over More Government Spending

Friday, August 28, 2009

Sixty-two percent (62%) of Americans say it?s always better to cut taxes than increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their own money.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 20% of adults disagree, and 18% are not sure.

The new findings mark a nine-point increase in support for taxpayers as the best judges of spending since January.

But then Americans by a two-to-one margin ? 50% to 25% - believe that a dollar of tax cuts is always better than a dollar of public spending. One-in-four-Americans (25%), however, aren?t sure.

Similarly, just 25% say public spending provides much more bang for the buck than tax cuts when it comes to economic policy and creating jobs. Fifty percent (50%) disagree that public spending is better for the economy than tax cuts. But again 26% are undecided.
Reply to this comment
by Hosheen August 29, 2009 1:50 PM EDT
What is really sad is that, to provide a workable health care plan that coves all legal Americans, none of this is necessary. Other countries have achieved that goal without these totalitarian aspects.

In fact, among countries with freely-elected governments and developed economies only one has failed to provide a health care plan that provides coverage for all of its citizens. That is the USA.

If places like Australia, Greece, all of Europe, Brazil, Argentina, and Sri Lanka can do it without becoming socialist states and bankrupting their citizens for generations to come, why can't the USA?

Could it be the politicians are too dishonest, greedy, and interested in suppressing freedom and choice?
Reply to this comment
by robham777 August 29, 2009 12:23 PM EDT
* The legislation envisions a very busy bureaucracy. The term "Secretary" -- as in the Secretaries of Health & Human Services, Labor, Defense, and Veterans Affairs -- appears 1,124 times in the bill. The Secretaries -- along with Commissioners (199 references), Committees (76 references), and Boards (17 references) -- would be "reporting" or making a "report" or "reports" (427 references), developing methodologies, and receiving recommendations as well as administering the plan's provisions.
* Language suggesting a new patient-centric approach is relatively scarce. The terms "consumer-driven," and "patient-driven" as in consumer-driven and patient-driven choices in health care, do not appear in the bill. And while the words "benefit" and "benefits" appear 375 times, "choice" and "options" appear just 85 times combined. Even "marketplace" -- a term that the President has used to describe the so-called public option -- appears just 3 times, as does the term "competition." The word "freedom" is nowhere to be found.
* Variants of the words "require," "limit," and "must" appeared a total of 708 times. Terms describing the consequences of failing to abide by the bill -- "penalty," "enforce," and "sanction" -- showed up in 225 places.

The devil is in the details.
Reply to this comment
by ajincali August 29, 2009 2:35 AM EDT
This is a brilliant storyline. It's Monty Python Goes to Washington. First you gather everyone financial data, then when any individual gets sick or requires medical services, someone at Bureau of Fiscal Responsibility in Healthcare says;

"Right, last year your W-2 states you earned $50,000, you had $5,423 in your checkings and saving, a 401k worth $25,600, and the operation you need to live is only $45,000, so coverage denied, you have more then enough money, and as a patriot, you may pay for it out of pocket....Next!"

Mr Obama has effectively avoided rationing healthcare, because those who failed to utilize the services did so because they had the means to pay for it themselves and choose not to.
Reply to this comment
by anotherview2-2009 August 28, 2009 11:54 PM EDT
IMPEACH OBAMA and Save America.
Reply to this comment
by Republicae August 28, 2009 10:59 PM EDT
To get a very clear picture of the plans of the Obama Administration one need look no further than one of Obama's health care advisors and his writings: Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel. Read Dr. Emanuel's writings on the subject of health care and then decide if we really want to go down the road that Obama promotes. By the way, Dr. Emanuel is the brother of another close advisor of Obama: White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

After reading the writings of Dr. Emanuel it should be very clear that Obama and many of his political minions are lying through their deceptive teeth about the entire subject of healthcare reform and if they are lying about that then what else are they lying about?

The fact is that both the Republican and Democratic Parties are entrenched, embedded into the flesh of this country like parasitic ticks, sucking the life blood from its people and intent on creating a feudal state of productive workers, the vast majority of which are willing to be productive workers of THE STATE MACHINE!

LIBERTY OR DEATH!
Reply to this comment
by mcliquid1985 August 28, 2009 10:55 PM EDT
Folks -- For anyone that has not listened to the interviews with Uri Bezmenov from 1985, I suggest you listen to them without bias. Then think about the last 25 years. Then read the article in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette about Former President Clinton speaking at the Netroots conference. I want to thank Declan for at least writing about these possible in-digressions. He is one of the few journalist digging and asking questions.

Part#1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlkPkJInUmU&feature=related
Part#2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIFcnctnHsE&feature=related

Pittsbrugh Post Gazette article (fifth and eighth paragraph):
http://www.postgazette.com/pg/09226/990773-96.stm
Reply to this comment
See all 282 Comments

About Taking Liberties

Declan McCullagh's iconoclastic take on politics, the economy, and individual rights. (Iconoclast: From Medieval Latin "iconoclastes," and from Middle Greek "eikonoklast's," meaning image destroyer.) Sample topics: economy, politics, interviews, free speech, property rights, gun rights, lessons in economics, individual rights, interviews, technology, features.

Add to your favorite news reader
google
yahoo
msn