Feds Plan For 35 Agencies To Collect, Share, Use Health Records of Americans 209
cold fjord writes: The Weekly Standard reports, "This week, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced the release of the Federal Health IT Strategic Plan 2015-2020, which details the efforts of some 35 departments and agencies of the federal government and their roles in the plan to 'advance the collection, sharing, and use of electronic health information to improve health care, individual and community health, and research.' ... Now that HHS has publicly released the Federal Health IT Strategic Plan, the agency is seeking the input from the public before implementation. The plan is subject to two-month period of public comment before finalization. The comment period runs through February 6, 2015." Among the many agencies that will be sharing records besides Health and Human Services are: Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, Department of Education, Department of Justice and Bureau of Prison, Department of Labor, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of Personnel Management, National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Not to mention (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Not to mention (Score:2, Insightful)
Dice needs to share why Timothy is still employed and why Bennett Haselton uses the site as his blog. Transparency!
Re:Not to mention (Score:4, Funny)
They screwed up by not arbitrarily inserting the word freedom in the title, e.g. "Federal Heath IT FREEDOM Strategic Plan". Or replacing 'strategic', sounds to much like a battle plan.
Re:Not to mention (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if there is any way to opt OUT of this. I don't see that the Federal govt needs to know or store or handle my personal medical information.
I'm happy to take my chances without them handling this, I've done quite well without it all these many years of my life so far.
Opt-Out Strategy (Score:3)
Move to another country where privacy means more than a door on a commode stall. That's about the extent of available options.
Re:Opt-Out Strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, there's no guarantee the US hasn't hacked that country's computers, telecommunications, or enacted a data sharing agreement with that government.
Seriously, name me a single country which provably hasn't been hacked by the US, or directly share data with the US, and which would be your bastion of privacy.
I have my doubts such a place exists.
Re:Opt-Out Strategy (Score:4, Insightful)
On the plus side, you'll probably live longer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
You know..I'd just rather take my chances and have an Opt In for it if I wanted it.
Looking at that link it says "The figures reflect the quality of healthcare in the countries listed as well as other factors including ongoing wars, obesity, and HIV infections".
Frankly, I dunno what having the Feds have such extreme access to my medical records would to to help prevent my life expectancy with regard to wars, obesity and HIV,
Re: (Score:2)
If you're one of the ones they want to?
Re: (Score:2)
Move to another country where privacy means more than a door on a commode stall.
Tonight in a dream I received a mysterious message from the future "treasure the door on your commode stall while it's still legal". Now it makes sense!
Re:Opt-Out Strategy (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm curious how data sharing works in those countries with nationalized health systems. I'd wager there's at least as much information sharing there as anywhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
'Opting-out'
That only works if they don't have the information in the first place; does anyone really believe at this point that anyone actually deletes anything when you tell them to? That only works when they don't have anything of yours in the first place.
FUD and kneejerk reactions (Score:5, Insightful)
Before we cower in fear because ZOMG EVERYONE KNOWS EVERYTHING ABOUT ME....lets consider some things:
-there has been a push for a long time to move medical records to electronic format. we've been promised cost reductions as a result, as well has better/quicker care
-most health records still paper instead of electronic. the move to electronic records has largely been a failure; one reason is the resulting cost reductions that have been promised have been slow to materialize, if theyve materialized at all.
-those that are, are not in some large nationwide or accessible database
-under federal law personal health information is private and cannot be released to outside parties without consent
-under federal law any information that is released must be anonymized; ie, no SSN or names or other personally identifiable information
-google facebook and other data miners probably already know more about your current health needs than these records would tell someone, and they already associate it with you (ie, their data isnt anonymous)
So we're not talking about the FBI or NSA using this to find out you have irritable bowel syndrome.
(chances are they already know from other sources like Facebook anyway...*tin foil hat*).
and they likely wouldnt care anyway (life is not a hollywood movie).
No, its not readily apparent why the Dept of Ag might need health data.
But health researchers absolutely. And they get anonymized health data already.
But if we considered something like antibiotic resistance and hte theory that overapplication to livestock is a factor, I could see a scenario where health researchers partner with Dept of Ag to study the effects of antibiotic usage on livestock.
In fact the anonymous nature of this data is a big factor in the outrage over the House bills just a week or two ago that purported to "ban secret science" by requiring full disclouse over everything, and banning agencies from making decisions based on "secret science or data". This would have the efect of banning hte CDC or other health agencies from making decisions based on research using this anonymous data....data that is anonymous because of privacy laws. Effectively hamstringing the agencies compeltely.
All in all, teh cowering in fear and conspiracy reactions to this are just FUD.
Re: (Score:2)
left out a sentence:
"to study the effects of antibiotic usage on livestock."
should read:
"to study the effects of antibiotic usage on livestock, and use health data to correlate with the rise of the resistant germs".
Re:FUD and kneejerk reactions (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, the National Institutes of Health already has an anonymized database of the health records from patients in their clinical trials and a company called Explorys (no, I don't work for them, either), is doing something similar on a larger scale across multiple hospital systems. Having CMS and HHS involved to add more data is definitely a good thing, if done correctly. Links below.
http://btris.nih.gov/ [nih.gov]
https://www.explorys.com/ [explorys.com]
https://www.explorys.com/about... [explorys.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing really is more private than my medical records. I'm still trying to find in the Constitution, amongst the narrowly defined, limited, enumerated powers the Federal Govt is supposed to have where they are to gather all the information they can on me, a law abiding citizen, for any type of usage.
I'm trying to find even the stretch for "interstat
Re: (Score:2)
as i stated, they already do require your consent.
your health records are a private matter between you and your provider.
they are private and confidential and federal law already recognized this.
thats not to say they cant get it. there are legal means that already exist, like supeona or warrant.
i cant think of a situation offhand for either that would require it, but those mechanisms do exist.
point is, this plan from HHS obviously would have to comply with existing law.
which means anonymized records obtaine
Re:FUD and kneejerk reactions (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet IRS has been used for political gain and private citizens tax information have been turned over political operatives. This was illegal under federal law, but still happened with no consequences.
What makes you think that this will not happen with private citizens medical info?
Re: (Score:3)
So we're not talking about the FBI or NSA using this to find out you have irritable bowel syndrome.
(chances are they already know from other sources like Facebook anyway...*tin foil hat*).
and they likely wouldnt care anyway (life is not a hollywood movie).
You're right. They don't care about that.
But they do care about things like prescription habits (Your receiving & your doctor's prescribing), GSWs, abortions (Did you forget Republicans are still trying to ban those?), stem cell treatments, assisted suicide, plastic surgery, and any other medical procedure they're trying to restrict or ban, or they feel indicates criminal activity (too many chemical burns? Maybe you have a meth lab).
Just because you or I can't think of a way to abuse the data now, d
Re:FUD and kneejerk reactions (Score:5, Insightful)
So we're not talking about the FBI or NSA using this to find out you have irritable bowel syndrome.
(chances are they already know from other sources like Facebook anyway...*tin foil hat*).
and they likely wouldnt care anyway (life is not a hollywood movie).
No, here's what will happen.
There will be a murder somewhere. There will be blood left at the scene. They'll type out the blood and find it contains an uncommon antigen. They'll search out the health database looking for people who knew the victim with that antigen. If that fails, they'll look for people who just lived near the victim. They'll cross reference cell records and find out you were in the area when the murder occurred (which doesn't prove you were there, just that your cell phone was within a few miles of a cell tower, which of course it was as you live in the area.)
Boom - you're a suspect in a murder case.
This is, granted, a limited example, but the possibilities for abuse are nearly limitless.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't quite understand. This is guilt through probability - there's no actual evidence you're guilty of a crime. This is a real problem in criminal justice right now. They grab the most convenient suspect - whomever is easiest to prosecute. They may or may not have any real evidence a given person committed a crime. There's a bunch of circumstantial evidence, usually very technical or scientifically advanced evidence that takes an expensive expert to refute. You can cough up the dough to hire your own e
Re:FUD and kneejerk reactions (Score:4)
Before we cower in fear because ZOMG EVERYONE KNOWS EVERYTHING ABOUT ME
The worst part is probably NOT going to be that they know the CORRECT things about your health; the worst part will be when they know INCORRECT things about you. People have absolutely horrible times getting off the secret no-fly list of terrorists and that's just run by one government agency. Can you imagine if you have to convince 30+ different government agencies that they have you down incorrectly as being a modern Typhoid Mary? And just after you convince one or two of them to correct your record, their system gets an update back from one of the others resetting you back to where you started?
Re: (Score:3)
Trying to get your health care records changed to only reflect accurate information now is pretty much impossible. Even the doctors cannot retract information -- only make an amendment to it. I had an associate with spinal stenosis. He was on some pretty heavy pain medicines. He ended up having a slip and fall, and went to the ER. The ER doctor was someone he had known in high school, and didn't even remember having slighted him. The doctor put him down as opioid addicted, treatment resistant, and marked h
Penalties for unauthorized release? None. (Score:3)
Great, my data is protected by federal laws.
So what happens when there's an "unauthorized release" of your data by a federal agency?
Nothing!
That's why the laws on "unauthorized release" are bogus when you're talking about the government. No penalty = no enforcement = no care.
The TLA agencies care about your data when they need to ensure your cooperation with an ongoing investigation.
Re: (Score:2)
No penalty, unless the release happens to be info they didn't want made public.
Otherwise, the person releasing the info has to seek asylum in Russia, apparently...
Re: (Score:3)
Some FUD for sure, but there are legitimate concerns. I personally don't want any of my health info online anywhere for any reason. This is both for potential abuse and also because I believe the health care industry and some government agencies are completely unprepared to secure this data. I also will say that the more people have to question the privacy of their health data the more it will lend itself to people editing their treatment. If a person cannot feel 100% confident that a mental health issue or
Re: (Score:2)
No doubt the data could also be used for good, as a sort of side effect.
Re: (Score:2)
yes and they should be held accountable for that.
just because i explained what existing law is doesnt mean i necessarily side with them or condone breaches in that law.
the fact that muder happens even though its against the law is not a reason to get rid of the law or stop enforcing it or to even acknoeldge that it is in fact a violation of law.
so you can keep your unfounded personal attacks and illogical leaps of logic.
Re: (Score:2)
>we also already have laws against that
Much like the safeguards of the 4th amendment and the international crime of torture. Thank dog we have laws to protect us.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why have HIPAA, when tens of thousands of federal employees will have access to our personal information?
This is what you wanted, Democrats.*
* based on Congressional Record of ACA voting
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I am quite sure you have no clue what you are talking about.
The myths about HIPAA and teh ACA refuse to die because of ignorance like yours.
-For starters they do not and will not haev access to your private health information.
-HIPAA largely doesnt aplpy to the ACA itself or mechanisms.
-specifically HIPAA does not apply to the exchange website, which is the only part of the ACA that even uses your personal information, but notably does NOT use your private health information.
-All ACA does is provide some inc
At that rate ... (Score:3)
" Among the many agencies that will be sharing records besides Health and Human Services are: Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, Department of Education, Department of Justice and Bureau of Prison, Department of Labor, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of Personnel Management, National Institute of Standards and Technology."
In other words, almost everyone except YOU!
Re: (Score:2)
Someone want to tell me how this doesn't run foul of HIPAA?
I don't remember signing a release form...
Re: (Score:3)
Hmmm ... how's that go again ... oh, yeah ... I have altered our deal, pray I do not alter it further.
You really think you get a choice in this?
Re: (Score:2)
Working from personal experience: The DoD is a surprisingly huge healthcare provider. I think their need for access to the records should be fairly obvious.
"Department of Justice and Bureau of Prison" - same deal.
DoA, DoE, DoL, NASA, probably research.
OPM, NIST, FTC - management, figuring out costs and such.
Most of the organizations should have no need for non-anonymized data.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The NSA already has a problem with collecting way more data than it could ever analyze. What do you think it could data-mine from medical records that wouldn't be duplicated elsewhere that would actually be useful?
The NSA currently deletes something like 99.999% of the data it collects without ever looking at it.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not true. You can request a copy of your records from any of those agencies, including your doctors. I've seen all my metal health professional's hand written notes and such in my files. I have copies of my brain scans from my MRI's. Including all the inaccuracies that I mentioned due to unclear and incomplete notes.
So what information can't you get that you need?
The audit trail for every agency that has consulted your file? That IS part of your medical records, right?
Re: (Score:2)
The audit trail for every agency that has consulted your file? That IS part of your medical records, right?
Nah, man . . that there's just metadata !
Re:At that rate ... (Score:5, Insightful)
So what information can't you get that you need?
You stole my question.
What information can't you get that you need Mr. Government?
In San Francisco, a police officer can already pull the list of prescribed medications of any girl in California he's interested in dating (without any audit trail or oversight). Does every cop really "need" that kind of access at his fingertips for the war on drugs?
It would be nice if the information also freely flowed the other way. Can you let us know what prescribed medication police officers take? Which of them take meds for being crazy, or take meds for STDs, the public has the right to know about that. In fact, an STD test should also be required of a police officer anytime that police officer has an open cut, or provokes an open cut in someone else.
And what about the medication lists of district attorneys and sitting judges? It would be nice to know about their meds as well. The same goes for the medication of their wives or girlfriends. After all, if a cop/DA can get the medication information, and by inference the medical information, of myself and/or my significant other on a whim. I should also have the right to do the same to him.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen all my metal health professional's hand written notes and such in my files.
How's that acute oxidation problem? Clearing up at all yet?
Re: (Score:1)
My current policy is to pay only the hospital where services were received. If some other company, or multiple companies claim I owen them for the same X-Ray, then that's their problem. They can bill the hospital, or they can take it to court. I have already fought and won such a case.
Hospitals all like to cry and whine about managed care, but at the end of the day, they don't want to manage it.
As a Federal Inmate (Score:3)
Although I knew that I would lose several civil rights, such as carrying a firearm, etc. I never believed that being put into the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Prisons would mean that my personal health history would be shared across thirty-five departments. I do not mind this, and it does not surprise me. However, this is just another example of big brother making decisions that are outside of my control.
See my story at The Market is not Random. [tminr.com]
-Anthony
Re: (Score:1)
Although I knew that I would lose several civil rights, such as carrying a firearm, etc. I never believed that being put into the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Prisons would mean that my personal health history would be shared across thirty-five departments. I do not mind this, and it does not surprise me. However, this is just another example of big brother making decisions that are outside of my control.
See my story at The Market is not Random. [tminr.com]
-Anthony
Just my opinion...
When you're one of the few people who stays healthy through good nutrition and didn't get caught up in the medical matrix, so you don't take a prescription and don't require the dependency-inducing treatments of allopathic medicine, you don't really have much medical record to share.
If I ever got a broken bone, hit by a car, something like that, I want an allopathic doctor. Trauma is what they're good at. Maintaining health? They fucking suck. Any chronic condition would be my own fail
Re: (Score:1)
Any chronic condition would be my own failure to live correctly.
Go tell that to a type-1 diabetic.
Re: (Score:3)
Although I knew that I would lose several civil rights, such as carrying a firearm, etc. I never believed that being put into the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Prisons would mean that my personal health history would be shared across thirty-five departments. I do not mind this, and it does not surprise me. However, this is just another example of big brother making decisions that are outside of my control.
See my story at The Market is not Random. [tminr.com]
-Anthony
Just my opinion...
When you're one of the few people who stays healthy through good nutrition and didn't get caught up in the medical matrix,
Oh how naïve of you... You DO remember that the ACA mandates coverage for 1 doctor visit a year for a physical. They will now know that you did or didn't make that visit, because it is the LAW now that you have health care insurance. The IRS will have to know about your insurance status to make sure you have it or paid your fines. So you may not have any health issues of interest, but information about you will still be available, like it or not.
Your only way of "opting out" of such tracking is to
Re: (Score:2)
Ms. McCarthy, is that you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the article is about sharing information without disclosure... what did I miss?
Re: (Score:2)
You missed that whenever the plan is about sharing information, it doesn't mean the role of each organization involved is to grab the information. The sharing of the information amongst the interested parties implies third parties which will not have a right to look at the information itself but still have a role to make the plan a reality. http://www.weeklystandard.com/... [weeklystandard.com]!
The summary is written to let people think all these organization will have full access to health records of everyone in USA. That is
Re: (Score:3)
Why on earth would they not get to find out? While you're an inmate, they are directly responsible for your care. They need to know what is and has been wrong with you so that they can get that right.
Wow ... (Score:2)
What could possibly go wrong?
Are these agencies going to be covered under HIPAA? Or is this going to be a big giant free for all?
Because this sounds like a huge list of agencies which may or may not have any experience in not sucking at handling this kind of data.
I predict this will more or less put the private information of pretty much everyone into pretty much every government agency, and that this will be hacked and leaked 10 ways from Sunday.
Wow ... (Score:1)
Are these agencies going to be covered under HIPAA?
Nice one, since when does any law apply when national security is at stake?
I predict this will more or less put the private information of pretty much everyone into pretty much every government agency, and that this will be hacked and leaked 10 ways from Sunday.
It already is, so what's the big deal?
Re: (Score:2)
Does the Department of Health and Human Services have a national security mandate?
Or is everything covered under the umbrella of the Ministry of Peace now?
Re: (Score:2)
Does the Department of Health and Human Services have a national security mandate?
Probably. Given what gets classified and then leaked it seems to be that anything that might embarrass the US Federal Government of major political leaders gets classified as a threat to national security, so why not HHS?
Before or after the official launch. Beta hacked? (Score:2)
> I predict this will more or less put the private information of pretty much everyone into pretty much every government agency, and that this will be hacked and leaked 10 ways from Sunday.
Well of course. The question is, will it be hacked while it's in beta, or after it's officially launched?
Re: (Score:2)
Are these agencies going to be covered under HIPAA? Or is this going to be a big giant free for all?
B It's going to be a giant free for all, but don't worry, it already is. They are just adding more data, no need to worry... (sarc off)
Re: (Score:2)
so what is the answer.
If congress is lied to or congress instead lies it self and there is no repercussion to any one... all that means is that the system is fucked. what next?
Re: (Score:2)
Vote all the older incumbents out. There's a broken society there, one than can acculturate a trickle of newbies. Give them the November That Never Ended, 80% turnover at every election for a while. Few go into politics with the intent of becoming corrupt, and culture of corruption, like any other culture, can be overwhelmed by a flood of newbies.
uh oh (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, as long as you have your green card....
Re: (Score:2)
Right, I thought you could just go get one now w/o fear of being deported. Didn't the Big "O" take care of that immigration thing?
Re: (Score:2)
NASA is concerned about the health of its employees. Especially the ones who go off planet.
Re: (Score:2)
NASA is concerned about the health of its employees. Especially the ones who go off planet.
I can understand that.
What I do not understand is NASA having a need to know who I am and whether I have been treated for hemorrhoids, dog bites and male pattern baldness, or why my girlfriend visited Planned Parenthood.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to imply they'll be able to competently grant access to only the information they directly need. I find that unlikely.
You really think they'll be able to set it so NASA can only see medical data on astronauts beyond the extensive stuff they probably already keep in house? NASA subjects astronauts to so many tests they probably don't need anybody else's data.
Or do you think someone in NASA is going to be able to pretty much access everything?
Somewhere, there's always an admin, and that person can
enjoy! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, you guys wanted federal health care.
Please don't act all surprised when this information is used for all sorts of other purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
nope didn't get federal health care at all, still in the hands of private sector.
Re:enjoy! (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean like the private insurance industry has already been doing for years? My insurance carrier is dictating my care to my physician now. I want the power to decide what's best for me place back into her hands. That will never, ever, happen as long as the private insurance industry remains in the position it's in.
Pay for ordinary care out of pocket, and the problem is solved. If health insurance had nothing to do with people who had other power over you, like your employer or the government, but was instead like car insurance - just a product you shopped for, and only used in a crisis, the landscape would totally change.
It amazes me though the number of people pay $3-6K more a year (depending on how many insured) just to jet a lower deductible that works out to the same $3-6K a year! If every doctors visit is paid by insurance instead of you of course the company will call the shots: they're paying the bill - and you're not even saving any money that way!
Just give me a high-deductible plan that I buy like car insurance, and get government back to only regulating the quality of that product, not in the room with me in the doctor's office.
Re: (Score:2)
Our tax system is totally fucked, no doubt, but if you can't see the difference between "government-run health care" and "free market* care with some tax breaks", you're not paying attention.
*Every successful free market includes the government regulating product quality, preventing fraud, and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't think pure catastrophic coverage was even possible under the ACA - don't all ACA-compliant plans have to pay for birth control, and some other similar predictable recurring expenses?
I just want to shop for health coverage like I do for car coverage. Make some minimum coverage a legal requirement - I can see the advantage of that, as you can then require coverage of pre-existing conditions - and just like car insurance add a high risk pool that insurers are stuck covering at a loss if they want to
Re: (Score:2)
No, the most you can say is that, for most people, it's cheaper to pay out-of-pocket and rely on the bankruptcy laws if things go bad. People need coverage if they suddenly find they've got something life-threatening and expensive, and that does happen to some people, even young people. If they've been just paying the doctors as they go, without insurance, they have no chance of paying their medical bills.
No good comes of this (Score:2)
35 more ways for your private information to leak or be hacked.
Not Impressed (Score:5, Insightful)
This will be another fuck up (Score:1)
IMHO, they should concentrate their efforts on fixing the fucked up situation with obamacare before haring off on another projects.
Adding another half-working POS project to the mix won't help anyone except the politicians getting bribes to award contracts and the slimy bastards touting their half-assed programming/db/integration skills as being top end.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also fucked up that so many people ignore the enormous problems that still exist for many people trying to register and use the program. Obamacare may have brought some healthcare to many people, but it's going to crash faster than social security.
Shit would work better if medical providers would just charge EVERYONE the same fucking amount that the insurance companies have negotiated. When a person's hospital bill runs $22000 and the insurance company's discount runs their payout to only $3500, there'
Re: (Score:2)
Man, you sure used a hell of a lot of bytes convincing me that the gov't is a failed experiment. I wouldn't say anything, but you're preaching to the choir.
Politicians, lawyers, marketers, all are good for little more than landfill.
Sweet Irony (Score:2)
People arent RTFA (Score:2)
From peoples reactions it is readily apparent they are not reading the article, and those that are are focusing on the handful of agencies that stick out ignoring that most of them are health related agencies.
Just another typical day on /.
Re: (Score:2)
and the article itself didnt exactly do its best to point that out either. liek usual, they chose a hook to get eyballs, and that hook was to point out the agencies that dont have an immediately apparent connection (though some minor thought will lead to one)
the privacy issue (Score:2)
Has any individual ever been held responsible for a privacy leak?
Gone to jail? Paid a fine? Flogged in the village square?
Would it make a difference if a particular person or group would be named as the responsible party and dire consequences would result from any leak? Consequences including loss of income, fines, jail time and never being able to take a similar job? OTOH, if they do the job well, they are well paid and respected.
Why wouldn't Sony or Target or a big government agency want this?
This is exac
If you like your privacy ... (Score:2, Insightful)
If you like your insurance you can keep your insurance. ...
If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.
If you like your privacy you can keep your privacy.
If you like your freedom
Thank You, Jonathan Gruber [nationalreview.com]
Obamistas believe they had to lie to pass Obamacare because Americans are stupid.
Weird (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the network infrastructure should use Blackberry tech though.
You mean the company that gave every country a backdoor key?
Re: (Score:2)
as opposed to open door policy by others?
Re: (Score:2)
No, as opposed to the "we're giving our users encryption we can't get into" companies.
Re: (Score:2)
that is also true for blackberry and has been always. not just something that was a reaction but rather a design. The design is for the Enterprise which is the use case scenario here.
Granted BB may not be long in the world so maybe use their design as a basis for some new deployment rather than use BB. but the others... fahhhhh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
These are the 35 organizations involved into the project and it never means they all have access to personal health records of anyone.
And the consequences if it does mean that? Even if it's breaking the law?
And don't say they (the federal government) will get punished. Just look at the CIA directly lying in testimony to congress and those consequences.
Re:No bother in commenting... (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, the problem is that we fall for the "It's for the starving children" political rhetoric and have VERY short memories. What happens in reality is what Jonathan Gruber (sp) said happened with the ACA, it's how you package it. It's all about the marketing and the sound bites and NOT about the truth. In short, lie, cheat and steal what you want and politics has turned into a PR propaganda campaign where the truth comes in second to the cause. "The ends justify the means."
However, all is not lost. Despite the problems of politics, the voters still do respond to such tactics eventually. Every Senator that got elected for their first time in 2008 and voted for the ACA just lost their re-election bid. Many others who voted for the ACA are also gone. Once the real effects of the ACA started to hit home and the propaganda proven untrue, the voters responded.
Short term, the tactic works, but in the long run, I still have faith in the voters... At least the slice of voters in the middle who actually decide things for us...
Re: (Score:2)
Every Senator that got elected for their first time in 2008 and voted for the ACA just lost their re-election bid.
If that is true then why is Al Franken [wikipedia.org] still one of my senators? Granted I do prefer him to Amy Klobuchar.
Re: (Score:2)
My mistake... make that "most" instead of "every"...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, look, another lefty enamored with himself. (Score:3)
It's rather presumptive of you, and every other Democrat, to pretend to know people's interests better than they do. It's part of the unmistakable arrogance that comes from the left, and was perfectly displayed by Gruber. You and your fellow leftists are cut from the same cloth as every other human, but you whip each other up with flattery on how kind, intelligent and compassionate you are fo
Re: (Score:2)
However, all is not lost. Despite the problems of politics, the voters still do respond to such tactics eventually. Every Senator that got elected for their first time in 2008 and voted for the ACA just lost their re-election bid. Many others who voted for the ACA are also gone. Once the real effects of the ACA started to hit home and the propaganda proven untrue, the voters responded.
So business as usual. Politicians are the mercenaries in the war of the power elite against the general populace. They were always considered disposable... and they were disposed. It does not matter as their purpose was served: The ACA remains and it will not be removed.
Re: (Score:2)
The ACA remains and it will not be removed.
I'm not so sure about that. It may take a few more years and a republican president, but I think there is a lot of pressure to repeal. At the very least, the ACA will be fundamentally modified. IMHO, it will be repealed in total, with the more popular parts re-implemented piecemeal.
However, we are stuck with it for the next two years at least, unless the democrat party goes into full revolt and enables a veto proof senate vote and override the presidential veto.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you mean the ACA that allowed me to get better coverage at half the cost? (No deductible, less than 300 a month. And I don't even qualify for a subsidy)
No deductible? No way that is possible. The "no deductible" part is for ONE preventative visit to a doctor per year for a physical. Anything else WILL have deductible and co-insurance or copays. Most plans I've seen have maximum out of pockets north of $5k for a family or more.
If $300/month sounds great to you, just make one extra doctor's visit and you will be paying both the $300 AND what the doctor chooses to bill you. If you hit the max out of pocket in the year, your monthly cost is north of $700.
Re: (Score:2)
Shared by 35 departments? The privacy implications are that more than one of those departments will be hacked into and the data stolen, and most of the anonymous information can be tied to a person, particularly when They don't care that much if they actually get the right person.