4 ms·

But I thought NSA data was only used for counter-terrorism efforts? Turns out, that's bullshit. It's used by DEA, it's used by IRS -- soon it will be used by O

But I thought NSA data was only used for counter-terrorism efforts? Turns out, that's bullshit. It's used by DEA, it's used by IRS -- soon it will be used by Obamacare.

perlpimp 13y ago
"Yes, we can"
- wwweston 13y ago
  "Yes, we scan!"
  - cmapes 13y ago
    "Yes, we scam!"
deerpig 13y ago
Obamacare? Really? Why not the War on Christmas, taking away your second amendment rights, protect pedophiles or the secret cause of autism in our children? Don't we have enough real problems without dragging in partisan straw men? Who needs tin foil hats when we have the Tea Party?
- CamperBob2 13y ago
  Obamacare, like it or not, requires a large increase in the nation's ability to collect taxes and enforce same. Who's doing the knee-jerking, again?
  - manicbovine 13y ago
    What in the hell does this have do to with the NSA spying?
    - CamperBob2 13y ago
      The topic is alleged data sharing between the NSA and other agencies such as the IRS. Do you have anything to add besides incredulity?
- FellowTraveler 13y ago
  It would be the ultimate in naiveté to believe that NSA data, already used by IRS and DEA, will not end up being used by Obamacare, in addition to any other government agency where they deem it useful. Don't be a fool. In fact the IRS is what administrates Obamacare and it's already in the news that IRS was using NSA data.
  - techsupporter 13y ago
    The IRS does what, again? Here I thought the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) was administering "Obamacare" by setting up federal insurance exchanges for states that don't do one of their own, continuing to administer Medicare and Medicaid, and certifying certain health plans. The IRS does what it always does: collects taxes due under the law, namely the increased Medicare tax and the tax-that-you-can't-go-to-jail-for-not-paying "surcharge" for not acquiring insurance under the individual mandate. In the case of the latter, the tax is automatically imposed by law and you avoid paying it by either you or your health plan sending an insurance certificate (paper or digital) to the IRS. The IRS is in no sense "running" Obamacare. That would be DHHS. If you're going to reply with the claim about the IRS needing to hire 9,000-16,000 new agents to "enforce Obamacare," there is nothing I can do to stop you and will only point out that the claim was based on partisan estimates and thoroughly debunked (http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion/ http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion/).
Zigurd 13y ago
The private industry nature of ISPs and Web sites did nothing to protect us. So, yes, I expect our health care data is under surveillance. But we could pay cash, or have single payer, and it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference regarding privacy.
- FellowTraveler 13y ago
  > or have single payer How could we "have single payer" without the threat of violence? A doctor would normally be free to treat whoever he wants, and patients would be free to choose any doctor they want, and any insurance company they want. The only way to change that reality is through threats of violence. For example, today a doctor cannot compete with his local hospital's monopoly without obtaining a "certificate of need" from the State, certifying that the local region "needs" an operating room. (Such certificates aren't actually granted of course, since they are used to protect monopolies.) If he opens one anyway, he faces fines, imprisonment, loss of license to practice, etc. (Threats and violence.) So in fact there is already not any free market in medicine today--just a bunch of fascism and crony capitalism... Single payer just seems like even more centralization, more threats, more violence, when the problem today is already a complete lack of any free market.
  - simonw 13y ago
    Are you saying our NHS here in the UK operates on threats of violence? I'm not sure I follow.
    - FellowTraveler 13y ago
      If competition is not forcibly prevented by law, that is commendable (unfortunately there are all kinds of such preventions in the USA.) However I'm willing to bet that the people who are actually paying for the system would face threats of violence if they stopped paying.
      - flumbaps 13y ago
        In the UK, if you don't pay your taxes, you get into trouble, just like every other country. In that way the NHS is as much a tyranny as any of the other things we pay taxes for, like roads, schools and emergency services. People here in the UK like having the NHS. The US system, where unlucky people get a choice between bankruptcy or death, sounds pretty horrible to us. When I see people get upset because their taxes are going to subsidise the healthcare of others, I don't understand it at all. It seems short sighted and selfish to me. Personally, I gladly pay to keep my country healthy. This is Britain, not some backwater third world country where poor people are left to fester and rot on the streets. We do have private health insurance here in the UK, but I'm sure there are restrictions on who can do business and where and when. I think that is unavoidable. There are obvious difficult trade-offs when legislating this kind of thing. Not everyone can be made happy. However, the freedom to operate a medical business without government interference is not as important as ensuring that everyone has access to adequate healthcare. If your rights as a business owner get trampled on at the cost of saving human lives, well, frankly that's just too bad. There are plenty of other lines of work you can get into where there aren't quite so many dangerous and perverse monetary incentives.
linuxhansl 13y ago
Please spare us the "Obamacare" paranoia. I agree that once data is available it will be abused. But Obamacare one of the main problem? Dude, take off the tinfoil hat.
- joshfraser 13y ago
  While the dragnet collection continues, everything can and will be called into question.
- FellowTraveler 13y ago
  Just a reminder that the IRS will be enforcing Obamacare, and it's already in the news that the IRS was secretly using NSA data. It would be the height of naiveté to believe the information wouldn't end up being abused. It's already being abused. Also, maybe you aren't in the USA so FYI, the IRS is currently in a scandal for abuse of authority, especially related to "tinfoil hat" organizations. (Those crazies apparently being, people who do not trust the IRS to handle their health care.)
  - manicbovine 13y ago
    Enforcing Obamacare with NSA data? What are you on about?
  - linuxhansl 13y ago
    Almost all civilized countries have public healthcare and they managed just fine without (ab)using data from intelligence services. Even in the US we already have Medicare and Medicate for large parts of the population and have seen no indication of any involvement of NSA/CIA/FBI. The idea is absurd.
- logn 13y ago
  While I think Obamacare is an improvement and offers no additional risk to our privacy (it's long gone), healthcare is tightly coupled to all of this surveillance for terrorism/drugs/crime/health/thinking that isn't talked about enough. It's the next frontier of intel probably, especially as we put more and more electronics/drugs inside our bodies in the future. Also, if you had to choose one place to tap communications, doctors' offices would be a likely step. Lawyers too. Internet and political office are already completed, so doctors, lawyers, schools, businesses are next, if not already covered entirely by our current surveillance. I'd assume this is textbook tyranny.

But I thought NSA data was only used for counter-terrorism efforts? Turns out, that's bullshit. It's used by DEA, it's used by IRS -- soon it will be used by Obamacare.

perlpimp 13y ago

"Yes, we can"

wwweston 13y ago
"Yes, we scan!"
- cmapes 13y ago
  "Yes, we scam!"

deerpig 13y ago

Obamacare? Really? Why not the War on Christmas, taking away your second amendment rights, protect pedophiles or the secret cause of autism in our children? Don't we have enough real problems without dragging in partisan straw men? Who needs tin foil hats when we have the Tea Party?

CamperBob2 13y ago
Obamacare, like it or not, requires a large increase in the nation's ability to collect taxes and enforce same. Who's doing the knee-jerking, again?
- manicbovine 13y ago
  What in the hell does this have do to with the NSA spying?
  - CamperBob2 13y ago
    The topic is alleged data sharing between the NSA and other agencies such as the IRS. Do you have anything to add besides incredulity?
FellowTraveler 13y ago
It would be the ultimate in naiveté to believe that NSA data, already used by IRS and DEA, will not end up being used by Obamacare, in addition to any other government agency where they deem it useful. Don't be a fool. In fact the IRS is what administrates Obamacare and it's already in the news that IRS was using NSA data.
- techsupporter 13y ago
  The IRS does what, again? Here I thought the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) was administering "Obamacare" by setting up federal insurance exchanges for states that don't do one of their own, continuing to administer Medicare and Medicaid, and certifying certain health plans. The IRS does what it always does: collects taxes due under the law, namely the increased Medicare tax and the tax-that-you-can't-go-to-jail-for-not-paying "surcharge" for not acquiring insurance under the individual mandate. In the case of the latter, the tax is automatically imposed by law and you avoid paying it by either you or your health plan sending an insurance certificate (paper or digital) to the IRS. The IRS is in no sense "running" Obamacare. That would be DHHS. If you're going to reply with the claim about the IRS needing to hire 9,000-16,000 new agents to "enforce Obamacare," there is nothing I can do to stop you and will only point out that the claim was based on partisan estimates and thoroughly debunked (http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion/ http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion/).

Zigurd 13y ago

The private industry nature of ISPs and Web sites did nothing to protect us. So, yes, I expect our health care data is under surveillance. But we could pay cash, or have single payer, and it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference regarding privacy.

FellowTraveler 13y ago
> or have single payer How could we "have single payer" without the threat of violence? A doctor would normally be free to treat whoever he wants, and patients would be free to choose any doctor they want, and any insurance company they want. The only way to change that reality is through threats of violence. For example, today a doctor cannot compete with his local hospital's monopoly without obtaining a "certificate of need" from the State, certifying that the local region "needs" an operating room. (Such certificates aren't actually granted of course, since they are used to protect monopolies.) If he opens one anyway, he faces fines, imprisonment, loss of license to practice, etc. (Threats and violence.) So in fact there is already not any free market in medicine today--just a bunch of fascism and crony capitalism... Single payer just seems like even more centralization, more threats, more violence, when the problem today is already a complete lack of any free market.
- simonw 13y ago
  Are you saying our NHS here in the UK operates on threats of violence? I'm not sure I follow.
  - FellowTraveler 13y ago
    If competition is not forcibly prevented by law, that is commendable (unfortunately there are all kinds of such preventions in the USA.) However I'm willing to bet that the people who are actually paying for the system would face threats of violence if they stopped paying.
    - flumbaps 13y ago
      In the UK, if you don't pay your taxes, you get into trouble, just like every other country. In that way the NHS is as much a tyranny as any of the other things we pay taxes for, like roads, schools and emergency services. People here in the UK like having the NHS. The US system, where unlucky people get a choice between bankruptcy or death, sounds pretty horrible to us. When I see people get upset because their taxes are going to subsidise the healthcare of others, I don't understand it at all. It seems short sighted and selfish to me. Personally, I gladly pay to keep my country healthy. This is Britain, not some backwater third world country where poor people are left to fester and rot on the streets. We do have private health insurance here in the UK, but I'm sure there are restrictions on who can do business and where and when. I think that is unavoidable. There are obvious difficult trade-offs when legislating this kind of thing. Not everyone can be made happy. However, the freedom to operate a medical business without government interference is not as important as ensuring that everyone has access to adequate healthcare. If your rights as a business owner get trampled on at the cost of saving human lives, well, frankly that's just too bad. There are plenty of other lines of work you can get into where there aren't quite so many dangerous and perverse monetary incentives.

linuxhansl 13y ago

Please spare us the "Obamacare" paranoia. I agree that once data is available it will be abused. But Obamacare one of the main problem? Dude, take off the tinfoil hat.

joshfraser 13y ago
While the dragnet collection continues, everything can and will be called into question.
FellowTraveler 13y ago
Just a reminder that the IRS will be enforcing Obamacare, and it's already in the news that the IRS was secretly using NSA data. It would be the height of naiveté to believe the information wouldn't end up being abused. It's already being abused. Also, maybe you aren't in the USA so FYI, the IRS is currently in a scandal for abuse of authority, especially related to "tinfoil hat" organizations. (Those crazies apparently being, people who do not trust the IRS to handle their health care.)
- manicbovine 13y ago
  Enforcing Obamacare with NSA data? What are you on about?
- linuxhansl 13y ago
  Almost all civilized countries have public healthcare and they managed just fine without (ab)using data from intelligence services. Even in the US we already have Medicare and Medicate for large parts of the population and have seen no indication of any involvement of NSA/CIA/FBI. The idea is absurd.
logn 13y ago
While I think Obamacare is an improvement and offers no additional risk to our privacy (it's long gone), healthcare is tightly coupled to all of this surveillance for terrorism/drugs/crime/health/thinking that isn't talked about enough. It's the next frontier of intel probably, especially as we put more and more electronics/drugs inside our bodies in the future. Also, if you had to choose one place to tap communications, doctors' offices would be a likely step. Lawyers too. Internet and political office are already completed, so doctors, lawyers, schools, businesses are next, if not already covered entirely by our current surveillance. I'd assume this is textbook tyranny.