neoplacebo wrote: ↑
Sun Sep 15, 2019 5:50 pm
Yes, like I've been saying all along, some medical procedures are not now, and probably never will be, covered by Medicare even if only one person is on Medicare or if everyone is.
I didn't deny that.
As for your (in my opinion) unreasonable and illogical assertion regarding privacy rights, since Medicare started in (1965?) I figure procedures are reviewed by Medicare administrators for purposes of preventing fraud and for facilitating payment to providers.
Again, we are not talking about Medicare as it exists right now. The only similarity between Medicare today and medicare for all is the name. After that it is 100% different. Right now, Medicare is funded (partially) by the federal government, managed by each state and administered by private insurance companies. Medicare for all will be funded, managed and administered by the federal government. That brings up a lot of different issues that don't exist today.
These days all medical procedures are given a CPT code and I don't find it out of the realm of reason that those codes do not necessarily have to have a name attached to them to determine if a procedure is covered or not.
If that is carried forward, how do you know if a patient's procedure is funded if you don't attach the patient's name and account number to the codes? You don't. The federal government will have to know who is getting what and why. That is a clear violation of your right to privacy.
As for whether or not looking for fraud is some sort of legal threat to general rights to privacy, I find that kind of a lame argument. How do you feel about how any mom and pop business in the country can force an applicant to pee in a bottle in violation of their 4th Amendment rights? There's no warrant involved with that as well as no judicial oversight. I consider it a violation of my rights to have to pee to get a job. What's wrong with relying on the supervisor to determine if a worker is drunk or high? Are they not capable of that? Not to mention the violation of privacy and 4th Amendment rights, especially in cases of false positive drug testing. I would be willing to bet that 2nd Amendment cheerleaders would not want to give up their gun to get a job. What do you think?
I don't know why people can't separate the government from a private entity. If a mom and pop shop asks you to pee in a cop to verify you aren't drunk or high, it is a condition of employment. Employment is not a right, it is a mutual agreement...a contract. They can include anything they want (within the law) in a contract. You can refuse anything they want by negotiating new terms or not accepting the position. As for those that are required by regulation, that is a completely different topic that would be a complete side track. I just don't want to get into that here.
Now, if the government comes to your door and says we want to look around without probable cause or a warrant, that is a right to privacy issue. We all accept that. The government coming to your doctor and demanding your medical records to see if you are committing fraud is no different than showing up at your door.