.

[Hawker]

...snip...

lol really?  your doctor would be sued for malpractice if he did not keep records.  And you regard it as "total data collection on all citizens" that doctors have records and that the security services have access to the records with a warrant?

...snip...

...snip...

No moving the goalposts please.

Two of us have asserted you were completely wrong on the bolded section above.  Please respond directly to this issue instead of reframing, misinforming, and using other debating tactics.

1. All doctors have records of their patients.  
2. All doctor records can be accessed if there is a warrant.  

You say I am completely wrong on these facts.  What is wrong with you? Seriously, you have left sanity miles behind here.  

You've been told several times why and how you were wrong.  This has nothing to do with doctors having records.  You've been told it has nothing to do with a need for warrants, that they are not required.

.... gathering and maintaining a universal medical database on a population?  

So stop the snide and condescending remarks, the problems are all yours as is evident from the forum pages...

So - your problem is not that the data exists since the data has existed all along.  Your problem is not that the data is in a database as its been in databases all along.  Your problem is not that its accessible by the security services with a warrant since its been accessible to them all along.  Your problem is ... well what is your problem?  I'm not being snide.  You clearly have some kind of weird issue with either your doctor keeping records or it being available to the security services.  Say what the issue is.

I have now, four times.

What is your problem with not understanding the meaning of a 'national health information database'?  It has nothing to do with warrants or informations in doctors hands or insurance companies hands.  It is a creation of the federal government intended to collect and maintain all health records.

What is my problem?  I don't have a problem.  What is your problem?  You can't or won't understand things clearly written and right in front of you?

So the data exists, its accessible to security services with a warrant and you don't have a problem with that.  Your problem is that the government is running the database.

Incredible.  I thought it odd when you said that the pre-Obamacare system worked just fine because people could illegally import drugs from well run countries.  This is along the same lines.  

[1714769287]

1714769287

[1714769287]

1714769287

[1714769287]

1714769287

[1714769287]

1714769287

[1714769287]

1714769287

[1714769287]

1714769287

[Spendulus]

....

So the data exists, its accessible to security services with a warrant and you don't have a problem with that.  Your problem is that the government is running the database.

Incredible.  I thought it odd when you said that the pre-Obamacare system worked just fine because people could illegally import drugs from well run countries.  This is along the same lines.  

Well, you don't know our laws on that, either.  So you've got that wrong, also.

[Hawker]

....

So the data exists, its accessible to security services with a warrant and you don't have a problem with that.  Your problem is that the government is running the database.

Incredible.  I thought it odd when you said that the pre-Obamacare system worked just fine because people could illegally import drugs from well run countries.  This is along the same lines.  

Well, you don't know our laws on that, either.  So you've got that wrong, also.

Apparently neither does the FDA: http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Basics/ucm194904.htm

Your idea of a working health system is one where drugs are overcharged to people who are not prepared to break the law. 

Surely you can think of something better to defend?

[Spendulus]

....

So the data exists, its accessible to security services with a warrant and you don't have a problem with that.  Your problem is that the government is running the database.

Incredible.  I thought it odd when you said that the pre-Obamacare system worked just fine because people could illegally import drugs from well run countries.  This is along the same lines.  

Well, you don't know our laws on that, either.  So you've got that wrong, also.

Apparently neither does the FDA: http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Basics/ucm194904.htm

Your idea of a working health system is one where drugs are overcharged to people who are not prepared to break the law. 

Surely you can think of something better to defend?

Man, no offence intended, but your very link disproves your assertion.  Look, I'm not some guy looking up linkies to prove a point, I actually do this.  I've stood next to border guards and handed them my drugs and got waved through, etc.

Here is from your own link:


FDA, however, has a policy explaining that it typically does not object to personal imports of drugs that FDA has not approved under certain circumstances.


Anyway, you have not addressed the important of drugs that the FDA has approved.

[Hawker]

....

So the data exists, its accessible to security services with a warrant and you don't have a problem with that.  Your problem is that the government is running the database.

Incredible.  I thought it odd when you said that the pre-Obamacare system worked just fine because people could illegally import drugs from well run countries.  This is along the same lines.  

Well, you don't know our laws on that, either.  So you've got that wrong, also.

Apparently neither does the FDA: http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Basics/ucm194904.htm

Your idea of a working health system is one where drugs are overcharged to people who are not prepared to break the law. 

Surely you can think of something better to defend?

Man, no offence intended, but your very link disproves your assertion.  Look, I'm not some guy looking up linkies to prove a point, I actually do this.  I've stood next to border guards and handed them my drugs and got waved through, etc.

Here is from your own link:


FDA, however, has a policy explaining that it typically does not object to personal imports of drugs that FDA has not approved under certain circumstances.


Anyway, you have not addressed the important of drugs that the FDA has approved.

Its a policy.  Like the police policy that they don't arrest for small quantities of drugs.  Its still illegal.

Your anecdote about border guards tells us how the system actually used to work.  You live in a rich country and had to go abroad to get drugs at a reasonable price and knowingly or not you broke the law. 

Would it not be better to be able to get them at a sensible price locally?  Forget the law breaking - just look at how stupid it is that you had to get the drugs from Canada.

[Spendulus]

.....
Its a policy.  Like the police policy that they don't arrest for small quantities of drugs.  Its still illegal.

Your anecdote about border guards tells us how the system actually used to work.  You live in a rich country and had to go abroad to get drugs at a reasonable price and knowingly or not you broke the law. 

Would it not be better to be able to get them at a sensible price locally?  Forget the law breaking - just look at how stupid it is that you had to get the drugs from Canada.

First of all, you don't know me, and thus you are clueless about what laws I care about breaking or not.  Neither will any solemn pronouncements about "the law" change my behavior one bit.

Second, the essence of free markets is competition, and I routinely buy from all over the globe, different types of things. 

Third, administrative law operates under it's own regulatory umbrella.  If you want to claim that a US regulatory agency is doing illegal things, go at it.  Hint:  Start with the EPA, then go to the DEA, the FBI, and let me know when you get around to Customs and Border Patrol and we'll talk.

Fourth, do you think you've skirted the subject of the National Health Database that I thought we were discussing?

[Hawker]

.....
Its a policy.  Like the police policy that they don't arrest for small quantities of drugs.  Its still illegal.

Your anecdote about border guards tells us how the system actually used to work.  You live in a rich country and had to go abroad to get drugs at a reasonable price and knowingly or not you broke the law.  

Would it not be better to be able to get them at a sensible price locally?  Forget the law breaking - just look at how stupid it is that you had to get the drugs from Canada.

First of all, you don't know me, and thus you are clueless about what laws I care about breaking or not.  Neither will any solemn pronouncements about "the law" change my behavior one bit.

Second, the essence of free markets is competition, and I routinely buy from all over the globe, different types of things.  

Third, administrative law operates under it's own regulatory umbrella.  If you want to claim that a US regulatory agency is doing illegal things, go at it.  Hint:  Start with the EPA, then go to the DEA, the FBI, and let me know when you get around to Customs and Border Patrol and we'll talk.

Fourth, do you think you've skirted the subject of the National Health Database that I thought we were discussing?

The topic is Obamacare.  I had no idea why you want to talk about databases.  I pointed out that doctors have to keep records and that the security services have access to these records.  So this all pre-exists Obamacare.  But, if you really care about databases, make a thread for it.  

You argued that its OK that drugs cost more in the US under the old system because you can import them from Canada.  You said that you did it yourself. That's illegal.  The fact that you were not prosecuted doesn't change the fact that its against the law.  

Regardless of whether or not you personally broke the law, its a bad system.  Do you really think its a great idea that drugs cost more in the US than Canada and that the reason for the price difference is based on regulations rather than on markets?

[Spendulus]

....

The topic is Obamacare.  I had no idea why you want to talk about databases.  I pointed out that doctors have to keep records and that the security services have access to these records.  So this all pre-exists Obamacare.  But, if you really care about databases, make a thread for it.  

You argued that its OK that drugs cost more in the US under the old system because you can import them from Canada.  You said that you did it yourself. That's illegal.  The fact that you were not prosecuted doesn't change the fact that its against the law.  

Regardless of whether or not you personally broke the law, its a bad system.  Do you really think its a great idea that drugs cost more in the US than Canada and that the reason for the price difference is based on regulations rather than on markets?

I know your first two paragraphs do not show correct understanding of facts.

The third one, well, what about the injustice of a can of Coca Cola costing US equivalent $5 in many parts of Europe?  Should I be concerned about that?  How many things should I worry about?

[Hawker]

....

The topic is Obamacare.  I had no idea why you want to talk about databases.  I pointed out that doctors have to keep records and that the security services have access to these records.  So this all pre-exists Obamacare.  But, if you really care about databases, make a thread for it.  

You argued that its OK that drugs cost more in the US under the old system because you can import them from Canada.  You said that you did it yourself. That's illegal.  The fact that you were not prosecuted doesn't change the fact that its against the law.  

Regardless of whether or not you personally broke the law, its a bad system.  Do you really think its a great idea that drugs cost more in the US than Canada and that the reason for the price difference is based on regulations rather than on markets?

I know your first two paragraphs do not show correct understanding of facts.

The third one, well, what about the injustice of a can of Coca Cola costing US equivalent $5 in many parts of Europe?  Should I be concerned about that?  How many things should I worry about?

The FDA says its illegal - they say they have a policy of non-enforcement under certain circumstances.  Nothing else to say - if you think they are wrong, feel free to take it up with your local elected representative.

Who cares about the price of Coke?  We are talking about medicine.  Its not a frivolous extra - its something your doctor told you to get.

And seriously, you are posting to defend the pre-Obamacare system.  Saying "How many things am I meant to worry about?" when you are made aware of flaws in the pre-Obamacare system seems a pretty poor defence.  Why not accept that it sucked and then see if you can come up with something better?

[cryptasm]

This is why you have to support Obama care, opiates for the masses 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/20/massachusetts-cops-intercept-more-than-1000-bags-of-obama-care-heroin/

[Spendulus]

The topic is Obamacare.  I had no idea why you want to talk about databases.  ....

Right, you don't want to talk about the Obamacare national database.

Thanks.

[Wilikon]

The Chapmans acknowledge that they are better off than many people, but they represent a little-understood reality of the Affordable Care Act. While the act clearly benefits those at the low end of the income scale — and rich people can continue to afford even the most generous plans — people like the Chapmans are caught in the uncomfortable middle: not poor enough for help, but not rich enough to be indifferent to cost. …

A 60-year-old living in Polk County, in northwestern Wisconsin, and earning $50,000 a year, for example, would have to spend more than 19 percent of his income, or $9,801 annually, to buy one of the cheapest plans available there. A person earning $45,000 would qualify for subsidies and would pay about 5 percent of his income, or $2,228, for an inexpensive plan. …

David Oscar, an insurance broker in New Jersey, another high-cost state, said many of his clients had been disappointed to learn that the premiums were much more expensive than they had expected.

“They’re frustrated,” he said. “Everybody was thinking that Obamacare was going to come in with more affordable rates. Well, they’re not more affordable.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/business/new-health-law-frustrates-many-in-middle-class.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&

-------------------------------------------------------------------

[Spendulus]

....

So wilikon, what's your problem?

If you like your plan you CAN keep it.  Just not your house, or car, or college education for your kids.

[Wilikon]

You are right.

Just need a small correction and...

[Wilikon]

Nearly 16,000 Iowans who tried to apply for coverage via the trouble-plagued federal health-insurance website are being told to apply separately through the state Department of Human Services.

The Friday afternoon announcement is the latest bout of bad news about the website, which is a key part of the Affordable Care Act.

The announcement affects people who entered their information into healthcare.gov and received a notice that they might qualify for Medicaid. The federal computer system was supposed to transfer their applications to a state computer system, but that transfer has been complicated by technical problems. The timing is critical, because the new insurance coverage is supposed to take effect on New Year’s Day, which is Wednesday.

http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2013/12/27/healthcare-gov-delays-lead-iowa-to-ask-16000-people-to-reapply-for-public-insurance-via-state-human-services-department/article?gcheck=1

[AnonyMint]

Big government has an outcome in photos:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=365141.msg4245914#msg4245914

[U1TRA_L0RD]

I signed up on Christmas because theyre administration extended the dealine

[Wilikon]

I signed up on Christmas because theyre administration extended the dealine

Under what US authority does Sith Lord Obama can simply decide to apply part of a law, move a dead line around, etc? If you are a king, tyrant, emperor, pope, grand mufti, etc then Yes He Could!

The strangest thing is... He is a constitutional something something. This is perfect if the democrats are in power for the rest of the end of the USA. But all of those power grabbing moves are Jurisprudence example for the people you wish will never come back into power. Are you going to feel sad when the republicans will apply the same exact moves the Sith Lord did or happy?

Obamacare is the law of the land now... just like slavery used to be.

[Hawker]

I signed up on Christmas because theyre administration extended the dealine

Under what US authority does Sith Lord Obama can simply decide to apply part of a law, move a dead line around, etc? If you are a king, tyrant, emperor, pope, grand mufti, etc then Yes He Could!

The strangest thing is... He is a constitutional something something. This is perfect if the democrats are in power for the rest of the end of the USA. But all of those power grabbing moves are Jurisprudence example for the people you wish will never come back into power. Are you going to feel sad when the republicans will apply the same exact moves the Sith Lord did or happy?

Obamacare is the law of the land now... just like slavery used to be.

Do you not think you risk people calling you an alarmist?  Sith Lord? Slavery?  Take a moment to breathe and consider the alternative.  You disagree with Obamacare.  So do I.  But neither of us really believes that Barack Obama is a Sith Lord.  Do we?

[Spendulus]

.....if the democrats are in power for the rest of the end of the USA. But all of those power grabbing moves are Jurisprudence example for the people you wish will never come back into power. Are you going to feel sad when the republicans will apply the same exact moves the Sith Lord did or happy?

It's a textbook example of the strange higher standard that Republicans are held to compared to Democrats.  Which is increasing, not decreasing.

Democratic politicians can be crackheads.

But Republican politicians can't be crackheads.