CBS News

delldude

Veteran
Oct 29, 2002
28,885
6,040
Downrange
www.youtube.com
CBS News seems to have a sudden axe to grind with Obama and his administration.....Wonder whats up?

In an almost daily series of anti-Obamacare articles, CBS has become a news corp, at least for the time being.

(CBS News) WASHINGTON -- CBS News has been digging into the cause of the delays in preparing the website for the government's health insurance market and has learned was a major interruption in the months before President Obama's re-election. At the height of the 2012 presidential election campaign, it was crunch time for the Obama administration to release key instructions so contractors could work toward the October 2013 deadline.

But a Health and Human Services official who was closely involved tells CBS News that in late summer, the administration stopped issuing proposed rules for the Affordable Health Care Act until after the election.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57609210/did-white-house-obamacare-guidance-stop-ahead-of-2012-election/
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Did you see the story about the anti privacy content of the ACA website? Very interesting. Basically it has hidden not easy to get to statement of (paraphrasing) "No user of this website should have any reasonable expectation of privacy concerning information provided to this website, and that the Govt. can do whatever they wish with the info" Not good when you are talking about citizens SS#'s, names, addresses, and medical background including current healthcare plan account numbers. Interested to see how this one plays out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Who gives you a SS#?
Ah, so you are good with your personal information being spread around to unknown parties as long as the govt. is the one spreading it around....got it. You do realize that the constitution mostly deals with protecting you from the govt. right? No you probably don't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Did you see the story about the anti privacy content of the ACA website? Very interesting. Basically it has hidden not easy to get to statement of (paraphrasing) "No user of this website should have any reasonable expectation of privacy concerning information provided to this website, and that the Govt. can do whatever they wish with the info" Not good when you are talking about citizens SS#'s, names, addresses, and medical background including current healthcare plan account numbers. Interested to see how this one plays out.

The article I read on the privacy issue is that the line you are referring to is not visible to anyone on the site. The statement is actually ion the code of the of the site. The legal question would be if the statement is in the code but not visible to anyone visiting the site is doe sit apply and are there any legal issues.

Given all the code on a site like this (I heard about 500,000 lines of code) I wonder if no one figured it was needed to rewrite it just leave it in and disable it.
 
Ah, so you are good with your personal information being spread around to unknown parties as long as the govt. is the one spreading it around....got it. You do realize that the constitution mostly deals with protecting you from the govt. right? No you probably don't.
I'm good with not being a nutjob who believes every conspiracy theory his fellow nutjobs come up with.
 
I'm good with not being a nutjob who believes every conspiracy theory his fellow nutjobs come up with.
Ponzi pushers, used car salesmen, and crooked real estate moguls love people like you, gullible and does not bother to read the fine print. I bet you bought into Obama's ramblings about being a supporter of the second amendment in the debates last year also in spite of his long and consistent voting record of the exact opposite. This dude told so many lie's during his campaigns that I doubt he can remember them all and you want to trust what he is telling you? Something like 400,000 people have already lost their health care due to the ACA and it is just getting started, but Obama said "you can keep your current plan" so it's all good right? Not to mention the well published accounts of news reporters being investigated, IRS targeting of conservative groups, the fast and furious mess, and the list goes on. Any one item by it's self can be dismissed but what we have right now is a laundry list of crap. Bill Clinton and his Monica BJ fiasco was a side note and I suspect once all the dust settles and history looks back on this president even Nixon will look good in comparison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
The article I read on the privacy issue is that the line you are referring to is not visible to anyone on the site. The statement is actually ion the code of the of the site. The legal question would be if the statement is in the code but not visible to anyone visiting the site is doe sit apply and are there any legal issues.

Given all the code on a site like this (I heard about 500,000 lines of code) I wonder if no one figured it was needed to rewrite it just leave it in and disable it.
That is my question as well. It appears in the code as you say. Does it also appear anywhere else in the 20,000 pages of the law? or in any of the reported executive order revisions? Given the mess that the website enrollment is and how screwed up this has become with congressional reviews etc. I don't think anybody even knows who sees the information people submit or where it gets transmitted to much less any security barriers. Hackers have gained access to secure pentagon servers over the last several years as widely reported and they are tightly controlled and monitored. At this point I think any run of the mill company website such as facebook or amazon is more secure than this 300+ million disaster.
 
That is my question as well. It appears in the code as you say. Does it also appear anywhere else in the 20,000 pages of the law? or in any of the reported executive order revisions? Given the mess that the website enrollment is and how screwed up this has become with congressional reviews etc. I don't think anybody even knows who sees the information people submit or where it gets transmitted to much less any security barriers. Hackers have gained access to secure pentagon servers over the last several years as widely reported and they are tightly controlled and monitored. At this point I think any run of the mill company website such as facebook or amazon is more secure than this 300+ million disaster.

I seriously doubt any HIPPA rules are in the law. The ACA is just the rules for the insurance. Had there been anything in the ACA it's self I am sure someone would have already been pointing that out already.

I do not think there is any basis to assume the site is compromised or that no one knows where the info goes. Given that any database that is on line can be compromised I do not see this being a valid argument against ACA. Insurance companies, CC companies, hospitals can all be hacked given time and ability. That is a reality of the electronic age.
 
I seriously doubt any HIPPA rules are in the law. The ACA is just the rules for the insurance. Had there been anything in the ACA it's self I am sure someone would have already been pointing that out already.

I do not think there is any basis to assume the site is compromised or that no one knows where the info goes. Given that any database that is on line can be compromised I do not see this being a valid argument against ACA. Insurance companies, CC companies, hospitals can all be hacked given time and ability. That is a reality of the electronic age.
I guess that is my question. As widely reported to even log on to this site you must answer personal and medical questions, i.e. current healthcare plan, do you smoke, SS#, age etc. Since the whole object of the website is to signup and monitor medical information and coverage I consider anything to do with it to fall under HIPPA rules just like I would with each and every transaction that I have with my doctor, insurance company or other medical service. It is painfully clear that this current system being implemented lacks the structure to even operate on the basic level of this web board without crashing. What I am hearing coming from the congressional review and the answers the parties are giving it appears that even the players involved have no idea what is going on. I cannot even get a copy of my wifes medical records from a doctor without her first adding me to the approved list, but in this thing those same records will be going to the IRS, and who knows where else. Saw the other day on MSN that IRS employees account for something like 54 million in unpaid back taxes....not exactly the bunch that I want knowing if my hemorrhoids are acting up!
 
I guess that is my question. As widely reported to even log on to this site you must answer personal and medical questions, i.e. current healthcare plan, do you smoke, SS#, age etc. Since the whole object of the website is to signup and monitor medical information and coverage I consider anything to do with it to fall under HIPPA rules just like I would with each and every transaction that I have with my doctor, insurance company or other medical service. It is painfully clear that this current system being implemented lacks the structure to even operate on the basic level of this web board without crashing. What I am hearing coming from the congressional review and the answers the parties are giving it appears that even the players involved have no idea what is going on. I cannot even get a copy of my wifes medical records from a doctor without her first adding me to the approved list, but in this thing those same records will be going to the IRS, and who knows where else. Saw the other day on MSN that IRS employees account for something like 54 million in unpaid back taxes....not exactly the bunch that I want knowing if my hemorrhoids are acting up!

I have not finished the enrollment process (somewhat lengthy) but SS# is optional. I put wage info in. No other personal info so far.

My understanding is that no personal medical info is provided or needed as pre-existing conditikns are covered. The ACA site just matches the user with individual plans offered by various providers. The provideres will be the ones with your medical info not the Fed.
 
But the right-wing media's fearmongering about privacy concerns is unfounded. The Atlantic Wire pointed out that the phrase is part of standard legal language for similar "Terms and Conditions" pages and is only "hidden" because it was removed by developers, making the phrase not legally enforceable. The article adds that "[t]here are several ways in which" the analysis "is incorrect" (emphasis added):

The first is that Barton says the language is "hidden" -- because it's in the source code. "Source code," for those who don't know, is the tagged language that tells a browser how to display a website. It's "hidden" only because it's information about the web page, not the content of the page itself. Meaning it doesn't show up on the page, meaning that there's no way it could even be legally enforceable.

Not only that, but the language, as detailed by the conservative Weekly Standard, is itself commented out. Developers will occasionally put marks around lines of code telling the computer, in essence, "ignore this." (Why? Often developers will leave notes like "// Section two begins here" to make code easier to scan.) In this case, the language was likely commented out because the document, a fairly standard "Terms and Conditions" page, was repurposed form another project. Take standard legal language, comment out the parts you won't use, and done.

[...]

Barton is also confusing two types of privacy: the privacy afforded under HIPAA (discussed below) and the privacy that is necessary for online communication. Earlier this year, Google came under fire when it was reported that its attorneys argued that GMail users didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy. As The Verge pointed out, this is a fairly common legal stipulation that allows online companies to process information submitted online. When you send your emails to Google, you acknowledge that Google has a right to see who sent the message and where it's going, and so on. It would be hard to maintain that information privately and have your email get to its destination!

As William & Lee Law Professor Timothy S. Jost explained to ThinkProgress in an email, "HIPAA only applies to health care providers, clearinghouses (and this is a narrowly defined term) health plans, and their business associates." "Even so, access is available to data without consent for health care operations, which this would be." Deven McGraw, of the Health Privacy Project at the Center for Democracy & Technology, agreed, adding, "It does not violate HIPAA - it's not even covered by HIPAA."

[...]

Jost adds that "even if the rule applies to the information and to the exchange, sharing information with a contractor would be a routine operation, and HIPAA allows disclosure of information without consent for operations. Surely a health plan that contracted with a company to build its software would not be violating HIPAA as long as the computer company also observed HIPAA protections. The exchange is subject to the privacy rule, but the HHS privacy rule permits disclosure to contractors."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/24/right-wing-media-pushes-misleading-attack-on-ac/196579
 
I have not finished the enrollment process (somewhat lengthy) but SS# is optional. I put wage info in. No other personal info so far.

My understanding is that no personal medical info is provided or needed as pre-existing conditikns are covered. The ACA site just matches the user with individual plans offered by various providers. The provideres will be the ones with your medical info not the Fed.
No Tree, your social security number is required! How do you expect the IRS to tax you without having your SSN? (of course you could argue that you don't need an ID to exercise your right to vote so you shouldn't be required to provide a SSN to exercise your right to healthcare)

"While providing the requested information (including social security numbers) is voluntary, failing to provide it may delay or prevent your ability to obtain health coverage through the Marketplace, advanced payment of the premium tax credits, cost sharing reductions, or an exemption from the shared responsibility payment. If you don’t have an exemption from the shared responsibility payment and you don’t maintain qualifying health coverage for three months or longer during the year, you may be subject to a penalty. If you don’t provide correct information on this form or knowingly and willfully provide false or fraudulent information, you may be subject to a penalty and other law enforcement action."

https://www.healthca...-act-statement/

"In order to verify and process applications, determine eligibility, and operate the Marketplace, we will need to share selected information that we receive outside of CMS, including to:

1.Other federal agencies, (such as the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security), state agencies (such as Medicaid or CHIP) or local government agencies. We may use the information you provide in computer matching programs with any of these groups to make eligibility determinations, to verify continued eligibility for enrollment in a qualified health plan or Federal benefit programs, or to process appeals of eligibility determinations;"


https://www.healthcare.gov/individual-privacy-act-statement/
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person