Fred Clark of Slacktivist writes one of those blogs that I just love. He's smart, compassionate and very, very perceptive. This piece on the credit report industry is timely -- go read the rest:

Kevin Drum makes a helpful comparison between your credit history and your medical history:

In the same way that medical records are available only to people with a legitimate medical need, I think that credit records should be available only to those who actually extend credit. Beyond that, they're private. Employers don't get them, the FBI doesn't get them, journalists don't get them and my neighborhood association doesn't get them. I don't care how much each of these people really, reallythinks it would be handy to have a peek at them. Short of a subpoena or a court order, my financial records are my business. You can't have them.... The credit reporting agencies [have] been placed in a privileged position where they're allowed to collect sensitive private information — just as doctors and banks and census takers are. That privileged position means they have a heightened responsibility for maintaining privacy, not a license to use their databases for anything that can make them an extra buck or two.

I think that's exactly right.It also seems to be exactly the opposite of the current relationship between citizens and credit reporting agencies.

Right now, the credit reporting agencies are permitted to collect and evaluate sensitive private information about anyone and everyone. (Although, again, "evaluate" may be too elevated a term for the crude reductionist number-crunching of their secret "scoring" formulas.) Almost no information about you and your money and how it is spent is off-limits to them. They are further permitted to sell this information to anyone to whom they wish to sell it, repackaging and marketing your private financial information for sale to insurance companies, your boss or your prospective employer.

Fred goes on to describe the carelessness with which those agencies treat your information, and why protecting consumers from the consequences is a political winner:

There are at the moment Democratic attorneys general in 31 states. Of those, I'm guessing, about 31 are hoping some day to be governors or senators. Advocating for their constituents against the costly and predatory negligence of credit-reporting agencies seems like a promising step toward fulfilling such ambitions. (I forget who it was who first observed that some seek power in order to enact policies while others seek policies in order to attain power, but I think this should appeal to those in either category.)

The Federal Trade Commission estimates that about 9 million Americans are victims of identity theft every year, so it's a safe bet that each of these AGs (or A's G) has thousands of constituents whose credit histories are scarred by such theft and who are therefore being forced to pay premium rates for everything from mortgages to consumer loans to insurance and utilities. Some of these constituents may have been denied employment or promotion on the basis of these lucratively inaccurate and uncorrected credit scores.

These costs are real and therefore they can be measured and quantified and added up into a single Very Large Dollar Amount -- the amount that constituents have been inaccurately and unfairly overcharged due to the negligence and irresponsibility of others. That VLDA is the basis for the class-action lawsuits that these attorneys general ought to be filing on behalf of their constituents.

Whether or not such lawsuits can succeed in achieving restitution for the millions of citizens who have paid dearly for the carelessness of the credit-reporting agencies, the lawsuits ought to be able to achieve at least a bit more of what is desperately needed and sorely lacking in the current system: accountability and transparency.

Without transparency and accountability, the power that credit agencies have will be abused and expanded and extended until its abusive presence is felt, as Matt Lauer put it, in "all portions of your life."

State lawsuits will allow AGs to subpoena information on the calculations and variables that go into the credit-reporting agencies secret-formula scores. Such information would empower consumers to improve those scores beyond what is currently knowable from the best-guesses of hack finance writers and "credit-monitoring" scams.

More importantly, the state lawsuits would allow the AGs to subpoena information on the marketing of citizens private financial information -- to gauge the full scope of the credit-reporting agencies' plans for the use of this private information beyond the realm of actual credit. Informed attention to the misuse of this information for employment decisions or by insurers or utilities would likely lead to the sort of outcry that would make limits on such misuse a legislative priority.

And that could lead to a situation in which the misuse or sale of private financial records is as obviously illegal -- and unthinkable -- as the misuse or sale of private medical records.

From Coalition of the Obvious, via Avedon, this useful "compare and contrast" on national health care systems. It especially means something to me because a few years back, after my unemployment ran out and I was working an hourly job, I developed pneumonia and couldn't afford to pay for a chest x-ray. I'm glad I'm still alive to tell the tale:

During my time in Venezuela, I developed a cough that went on for three weeks and progressively worsened. Finally, after I had become incredibly congested and developed a fever, I decided to attend a Barrio Adentro clinic. The closest one available was a Barrio Adentro II Centro de Diagonostico Integral (CDI) and I headed in without my medical records or calling to make an appointment. Immediately, I was ushered into a small room where Carmen, a friendly Cuban doctor, began questioning me about my symptoms. She listened to my lungs and walked me over to another examination room where, again without waiting, I had x-rays taken.

Afterwards, the technician walked me to a chair and apologized profusely that I had to wait for the x-rays to be developed, promising that it would take no more than five minutes. Sure enough, five minutes later he returned with both x-rays developed. Carmen studied the x-rays and informed me that I had pneumonia, showing me the telltale shadows. She sent me away with my x-rays, three medications to treat my pneumonia, congestion, and fever, and made me promise to come back if my conditioned failed to improve or worsened within three days.

I walked out of the clinic with a diagnosis and treatment within twenty-five minutes of entering, without paying a dime. There was no wait, no paperwork, and no questions about my ability to pay, my nationality, or whether, as a foreigner, I was entitled to free comprehensive health care. There was no monetary value connected with my physical well-being; the care I received was not contingent upon my ability to pay. I was treated with dignity, respect, and compassion, my illness was cured and I was able to continue with my journey in Venezuela.

This past year, a family friend was not so lucky. At the age of 56, she was going back to school and was uninsured. She came down with what she thought was a severe case of the flu, and as her condition worsened she decided not to see a doctor because of the cost. She died at home in bed, losing her life to a system that did not respect her basic human right to survive.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOAD (139)

PLAY (143)

During an interview with Brian Williams last night, Sarah Palin danced around the issue of her medical records and whether or not they will be released.

Palin: "The medical records. So be it. If that will allow some curiosity seekers, perhaps, to have one more thing that they can either check the box off that they can find something to criticize, perhaps, or find something to rest them assured over. Fine. I'm healthy, I'm happy, had five kids. That is going to be in the medical records. Never been seriously ill or hurt. You will see that in the medical records if they're released."

Why all the secrecy? We saw the same thing with John McCain when he made his records public for only three hours to a small group of select reporters. It understand McCain's reluctance, but what does a seemingly healthy 44 year old have to hide?

According to the McCain camp, it doesn't look like we'll find out the answer anytime soon.

Spokeswoman Maria Comella told ABC News on Thursday: “When medical information related to Governor Palin’s health is ready to be released we will make that information available.”

Andrew is all over it.

Unbelievable: (h/t JeanD)

A hospital under investigation for leaving a paraplegic man in the downtown area known as Skid Row last week has released his medical records, the city attorney said Thursday, a day after accusing the medical center of "stonewalling" the probe.---Investigators are looking into whether Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center violated federal laws against releasing or transferring medically unstable patients.

Witnesses reported a man, described by police as a 41-year-old who lost use of his legs in a 1990 car crash, crawling in the street Feb. 8 after being dropped off by a van contracted by Hollywood Presbyterian. The man is now being treated at another hospital.

They leave the guy crawling in the gutter and then tried to block the release of his medical records when he had already given authorization to do so.

The availability of Rush's medical records is expected to re-ignite the investigations of his drug abuse.

Download | play -WMP

exiled from the underworld

To some, section 215 has become known as "the library provision". This moniker, however, is a gross distortion of the provision and makes about as much sense as calling all grand jury subpoenas "library subpoenas." Section 215 does not single out or mention libraries, and the Attorney General has recently declassified that as of March 30,2005, the provision had never be used to obtain library records.

[snip]

The Department has not requested a section 215 order to obtain library or bookstore records, medical records, or gun sale records.

Should I feel comforted by this fact? Does the DOJ takes seriously its charge to preserve my liberty-- my right to free speech, to have access to a free press, and my right to privacy.

WAIT a minute-- Eric Lichtblau reports in Monday's New York Times that law enforcement has made at least 200 formal or informal inquiries to libraries for information on reading material and other internal matters since October 2001. The American Library Association conducted a study to determine how frequently federal, state and local agents are demanding records from libraries.  Read on... Mr. Wainstein's testimony:

To some, section 215 has become known as "the library provision". This moniker, however, is a gross distortion of the provision and makes about as much sense as calling all grand jury subpoenas "library subpoenas." Section 215 does not single out or mention libraries, and the Attorney General has recently declassified that as of March 30,2005, the provision had never be used to obtain library records.

[snip]

The Department has not requested a section 215 order to obtain library or bookstore records, medical records, or gun sale records.

Should I feel comforted by this fact? Does the DOJ takes seriously its charge to preserve my liberty-- my right to free speech, to have access to a free press, and my right to privacy.

WAIT a minute-- Eric Lichtblau reports in Monday's New York Times that law enforcement has made at least 200 formal or informal inquiries to libraries for information on reading material and other internal matters since October 2001. The American Library Association conducted a study to determine how frequently federal, state and local agents are demanding records from libraries. Read on...

Fla. Court Refuses to Hear Limbaugh Appeal

The Florida Supreme Court on Thursday declined to consider an appeal from commentator Rush Limbaugh claiming his privacy was violated when his medical records were seized for an investigation of whether he illegally purchased painkillers....

writes: ...Like most evil liberals, I object to harsh sentencing for drug offenders and certainly think treatment is preferable to jail. But, Limbaugh has a very prominent platform which he could be using to advocate changes to the laws along these lines, which he doesn't do. Go here and scroll around the page for some of Rush's deep thoughts on drug users.

I agree with Mr. Atrios. The real crime is Rush's hypocrisy on this issue. I had to laugh at Dick Morris the other day defending Rush on The Factor, saying that Limbaugh had "conquered" his addiction. No one conquers addiction. (Definition -conquer- To defeat or subdue by force, especially by force of arms.) Anyone in recovery will tell you that a person surrenders to his or her addiction so that they may have a chance to become free of it.

via Mark Kleinman

I see Nat Hentoff and Jesse Jackson have joined the feed-Terri forces, which already included Ralph Nader, Randall Terry, Rush Limbaugh, Bo Gritz, Sean Hannity, and James Dobson. Now if we can just get Alexander Cockburn and Al Sharpton to join in, we'll have a left-right coalition embodying the very cream of the nation's loudmouth dimwitted self-promoting busybodies.

Note to Hentoff: "brain dead" means "dead." No one thinks that Terri Schiavo is "brain dead." The fact that William Frist can tell if someone is brain dead gives him no qualification to judge whether Terri Schiavo has permanently lost all cognitive function, even if he had in fact either examined her or viewed her medical records.

Mark, you have to hand it to him though. Hentoff made it on the homepage of Michael Savage

Via The All Spin Zone

Found this comment on the blog for Ron Reagan Jr. and Monica Crowley's new MS-GOP show, Connected Coast-to-Coast, regarding the Kansas AG's order to turn over abortion records:

Isn't it interesting that when the prosecutor came and seized Rush Limbaugh's records (for taking massive amounts of narcotics), the far right was outraged. Now, it seems to be okay to seize medical records? —BMC

Indeed.