Dem Health Care bill divulges your IRS data

[Little-Acorn]

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you've got."

And the Dems seem intent on making sure of it.

One of the things Nixon would have been impeached for, was obtaining data from the IRS on various opponents, something that was against the law.

But apparently that's OK for Democrats to do. We know they'd never use it for nefarious purposes, or to harm anyone (*COUGH*joetheplumber*COUGH*), would they? Naw, we can trust the government not to do anything bad, we don't need to make laws preventing them.

Once all this "change" is put in place, all we'll have left is "hope".

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

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/26/taking_liberties/entry5268079.shtml

Democratic Health Care Bill Divulges IRS Tax Data

August 26, 2009 8:26 PM

(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."


(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

 

[pocketfullofshells]

so we should use the honor system for income?

I am sure it can be adjusted to make sure your income is verified and not have any watergate issues. also as for nixon, pretty sure there was alot of reasons he was impeached...glad he was a republican

 

[TheFranklinParty]

Personally, I think the privacy of what we earn is over rated. As long as your not cheat cheating, lying, or stealing; what's you issue? The challenge is when private organizations have access to this data for target marketing purposes.

I keep hearing how there are so many people who qualify for help but they don't apply. Maybe the social services groups should spend more time working to get them signed up for current programs instead of lobbying politicians for new programs for an undefined audience.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Personally, I think the privacy of what we earn is over rated. As long as your not cheat cheating, lying, or stealing; what's you issue?

Good point. Why should we object to government examining everything we do, everything we earn, etc., as long as we're not doing anything wrong?

(*COUGH*oh, never mind.....

 

[Pidgey]

The only reason they want to know is so that they can figure out how to get more of it.

 

[TheFranklinParty]

The only reason they want to know is so that they can figure out how to get more of it.

I think you give them too much credit...I think this part of the bill was:

• Poorly written;
• Written with a lot of loopholes and vagueness, so they can figure it out later;
• And they want control so they can tell people what plan they should be on instead of allowing people to choose for themselves.

 

[Pidgey]

Any time lawyers put language in ANYTHING... there's a reason. In many cases, it's not clear just what that reason was to a non-lawyer, but, trust me, there IS a reason.

 

[TheFranklinParty]

Any time lawyers put language in ANYTHING... there's a reason. In many cases, it's not clear just what that reason was to a non-lawyer, but, trust me, there IS a reason.

I think I said the same thing on another post...

My point was that they are leaving loopholes because they don't know how they are going to use it. They aren't smart enough to know how it will be manipulated yet. They just want to leave it so it can be. That is why I believe that we need to start forcing more plain English legislation.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

From LittleAcorns article:
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."

Interesting this 'IDEA' that you have of our current public records & IRS files being so 'UNAVAILABLE' to access from many thousands of preying eyes. Have you been in a 'hibernation stage' where you missed out on the past 10 years of the media informing us of the 'hackers' & employees carrying home data files with: our financial records, bank accounts, tax records, personnel files, health records, MVR, credit card records and the list goes on & on & on!

And as far as that statement about 233 years...HELLS BELLS there wasn't much privacy from the local yokels when things were all done by hand printed ledger books and hand written documents, {where there was a will there was a way into any documents that others with an hidden agenda could obtain access to the information, enough money purchased a lot of non-public records back in the beginning} I'm going to acknowledge that you are not that 'NAIVE' that you over looked that little thing!

So they'll have a data base with the information cross-referenced between the IRS and the Health Care Dept.... OMG, what treason, what anarchy, what impertinence...WHAT UTTER HYSTERIA BULL SH!T

You don't think that the Data base could/would be set up to be redacted and the information that they would not need to be privy to would only be shown on the data base for the Health Care Personnel? That once verified by the secure matching of personal identity that the data base would only have access to the only location on the tax form that allowed the formula field to acknowledge the verified name/Social-Security #/and the amount of bottom line taxable income field...

This is not the dark ages of computer/data entry/media information...snap on into the 21 century and wake the hell up!

You are going to get your undies all in a 'BUNCH' about the hypotheticals and what ifs from that. Then you must indeed live in a paranoid bubble because most of this information is probably out there in some data base already and you/I/we have no clue!

 

[Dr.Who]

Good point. Why should we object to government examining everything we do, everything we earn, etc., as long as we're not doing anything wrong?

(*COUGH*oh, never mind.....

when the income tax was first proposed the argument against it was that it would be too intrusive for government to contact every employer to ask how much you made.

Now we have forgotten just how intrusive that is and accept it as a matter of course. Have we forgotten that the revolutionary war was fought in large part over a stamp tax?