.

[Wilikon]

Health Insurance Marketplace
Navigator Standard Operating Procedures Manual

http://www.healthreformgps.org/wp-content/uploads/navigator-SOP-manual-8-26.pdf

Confidential Obamacare Navigator training manual uploaded online


“INFORMATION NOT RELEASABLE TO THE PUBLIC UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY LAW: This information has not been publicly disclosed and may be privileged and confidential. It is for internal government use only and must not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive the information. Unauthorized disclosure may result in prosecution to the full extent of the law.”

That is the warning at the bottom of every page of the 217-page confidential Obamacare Navigator training manual sitting online for anyone to come across –and as Watchdog.org reports, that’s exactly what someone did.

Tammy Duffy, a radiation health physicist from New Jersey, was talking with Obamacare Navigators one day and asked a question regarding people who are self-employed, in which they could not provide an answer. She then asked for a copy of the manual, which they would not give her since it’s not meant to be available to the public.

“I asked the nice ladies for a copy and they said I could not have it because it was a government document not for the public. So I thought maybe there is an outline or shorter version that is for the public. I went to Google and typed in ‘healthcare insurance marketplace Navigator SOP,” Duffy said.

Sure enough, a Google search of “Healthcare insurance marketplace Navigator SOP” yields a link back to the “Health Insurance Marketplace Navigator Standard Operating Procedures Manual.” The manual is labeled as “restricted distribution” by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and threatens prosecution to anyone authorized to view it who ultimately disseminates it to unauthorized people — and it’s online for everyone to see

[1713242283]

1713242283

[cryptasm]

Over 50 million americans without health insurance, poor people literally dropping dead in the street. Is this the american dream? lol

Obama for all his faults is doing the right thing here, most other developed nations have some system of healthcare provided by the government, that's why people pay taxes. Funny how the US government can scrape together over $700 billion for the military industrial complex yet can't even look after it's own citizens. I don't care what political persuation you're from, that's shit's fucking twisted.

[MoonShadow]

Over 50 million americans without health insurance, poor people literally dropping dead in the street. Is this the american dream? lol

Show me the evidence of this.

[Spendulus]

Okay why has nobody said that filing for healthcare online is a bad idea? Best case scenario: the site is never fixed, forcing people to handle their confidential data properly.

I am not able to connect the dots...

Assume you have a  law about how private insurance companies operate - they implement practices to comply with that law because they MUST.  Now start a bunch of hoopla about people 'applying thru the web site'... what is the necessary and useful function of government in this?  

At the back end the government simply sends the applicant input data to one of several private companies.   So it acts as a marketing arm for the insurance companies, then, while vacuuming up all the personal health data and retaining it.  

Quite odd, really.

First we have a problem with cost control because there is a layer of insurance companies between the patient and the providers, then we are going to fix it by putting yet another layer - government - between the patient and the provider.

That is not going to turn out well.

[Spendulus]

@Honeypot
Fucking lol, it scares me that there are people like you in the world. I've got nothing more to say about your unhinged rant, enjoy the rest of your bitter hate-filled life. Watch out for scary black people!!!  

I am impelled to post this video, since you too can capitalize on your scary blackness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yuFy_qjolU

[Spendulus]

Over 50 million americans without health insurance,....
Obama for all his faults is doing the right thing here
.....that's shit's fucking twisted.

Tell you what.

If you like your health plan, you can keep it.
If you like your doctor, you can keep him.
If you are an average family, your costs will go down $2500.

Lying is not doing the right thing, dude.

[cryptasm]

Lying is not doing the right thing, dude.

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb10-144.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/27/uninsured-americans-50-million_n_801695.html
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-09-17-uninsured17_ST_N.htm
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/healthcare/report/2009/05/04/6110/interactive-map-dramatic-increase-in-the-uninsured-rate-in-every-state/
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2015994309_healthinsurance24.html

[Wilikon]

Okay why has nobody said that filing for healthcare online is a bad idea? Best case scenario: the site is never fixed, forcing people to handle their confidential data properly.

Assume you have a  law about how private insurance companies operate - they implement practices to comply with that law because they MUST.  Now start a bunch of hoopla about people 'applying thru the web site'... what is the necessary and useful function of government in this?  

At the back end the government simply sends the applicant input data to one of several private companies.   So it acts as a marketing arm for the insurance companies, then, while vacuuming up all the personal health data and retaining it.

Those are the dots, you've connected them successfully. That data will fund the Affordable Care Act, e.g., admitted to the psych ward years ago, fees for lifetime psychiatric services justified based on known medical history.

Next check-up, even with private insurance, think twice about what info you share. Suicidal thoughts, sexually-transmitted diseases, drinking or smoking, drug addiction, etc., should be treated by a specialist paid in cash!

What I meant in my first post: apply in person or by mail.

It does not matter in person or by mail. Everything has to go to the same internet hub: the same website.
http://news.yahoo.com/insurers-fear-more-problems-revamped-obamacare-website-175732886--sector.html

[Spendulus]

Okay why has nobody said that filing for healthcare online is a bad idea? Best case scenario: the site is never fixed, forcing people to handle their confidential data properly.

Assume you have a  law about how private insurance companies operate - they implement practices to comply with that law because they MUST.  Now start a bunch of hoopla about people 'applying thru the web site'... what is the necessary and useful function of government in this?  

At the back end the government simply sends the applicant input data to one of several private companies.   So it acts as a marketing arm for the insurance companies, then, while vacuuming up all the personal health data and retaining it.

Those are the dots, you've connected them successfully. That data will fund the Affordable Care Act, e.g., admitted to the psych ward years ago, fees for lifetime psychiatric services justified based on known medical history.

Next check-up, even with private insurance, think twice about what info you share. Suicidal thoughts, sexually-transmitted diseases, drinking or smoking, drug addiction, etc., should be treated by a specialist paid in cash!

What I meant in my first post: apply in person or by mail.

I am curious what some of the lurkers and forum posters who live in socialist countries think of the bolded part above.  Is it just the US that is capable of such ridiculous and invasive nonsense?

Is there are reason we don't hear about privacy and data issues from England, France, Norway, etc?  Have they long ago just accepted Big Brother, or is this sort of under the table theft of personal data just not done?

Just curious....

[Schleicher]

Is there are reason we don't hear about privacy and data issues from England, France, Norway, etc?  Have they long ago just accepted Big Brother, or is this sort of under the table theft of personal data just not done?

In Germany the government doesn't collect our heath data. There's no need.
You pay a fixed percentage of your income, no matter if your health is good or not.
If your income is between 400 and 4350 Euro/month health insurance is mandatory.
The insurance companies can't pick their customers, they have to take everyone.

[Hawker]

Okay why has nobody said that filing for healthcare online is a bad idea? Best case scenario: the site is never fixed, forcing people to handle their confidential data properly.

Assume you have a  law about how private insurance companies operate - they implement practices to comply with that law because they MUST.  Now start a bunch of hoopla about people 'applying thru the web site'... what is the necessary and useful function of government in this?  

At the back end the government simply sends the applicant input data to one of several private companies.   So it acts as a marketing arm for the insurance companies, then, while vacuuming up all the personal health data and retaining it.

Those are the dots, you've connected them successfully. That data will fund the Affordable Care Act, e.g., admitted to the psych ward years ago, fees for lifetime psychiatric services justified based on known medical history.

Next check-up, even with private insurance, think twice about what info you share. Suicidal thoughts, sexually-transmitted diseases, drinking or smoking, drug addiction, etc., should be treated by a specialist paid in cash!

What I meant in my first post: apply in person or by mail.

I am curious what some of the lurkers and forum posters who live in socialist countries think of the bolded part above.  Is it just the US that is capable of such ridiculous and invasive nonsense?

Is there are reason we don't hear about privacy and data issues from England, France, Norway, etc?  Have they long ago just accepted Big Brother, or is this sort of under the table theft of personal data just not done?

Just curious....

There are a number of related reasons why people don't care.

1. Having your doctor store your history is not a breach of privacy.  Your doctor is obliged to send a copy to a new doctor if you leave his practice - that saves a lot of hassle.

2. Under EU law, every organisation that has info on you has to share that info if you send the equivalent of $5 to them and they do get prosecuted if they mishandle data. For example, I was able to have my credit record fixed when Experian made a mistake.  This system works well.

3. In the UK, the public supports massive CCTV and the main victims have been the police and politicians.  Cops that used be able to get away with beating up prisoners, with assaults on the public or flat out lying are now being videoed in action and are being prosecuted.  The public loves this.  They also love the way politicians are forced to go on the record almost all the time.  The old days of "memoirs" that really were just whitewashes of history are gone.

4. In most of Europe, over 100 years of bombings by terrorists has left people relaxed about telephone surveillance and the like.  We do have nutters who do want to plant bombs.  These nutters, for example the IRA, precede al qaida by 100 years and will still be active in 100 years time.  That that affects our attitude to privacy.

So we are not that worried about state oversight.  We worry far more about private companies that might break the law and use data in ways that we don't want.  Americans could care less about their private data and they mistrust the state.  Its a significant cultural difference.

[Spendulus]

There are a number of related reasons why people don't care.

1. Having your doctor store your history is not a breach of privacy.  Your doctor is obliged to send a copy to a new doctor if you leave his practice - that saves a lot of hassle.

2. Under EU law, every organisation that has info on you has to share that info if you send the equivalent of $5 to them and they do get prosecuted if they mishandle data. For example, I was able to have my credit record fixed when Experian made a mistake.  This system works well.

3. In the UK, the public supports massive CCTV and the main victims have been the police and politicians.  Cops that used be able to get away with beating up prisoners, with assaults on the public or flat out lying are now being videoed in action and are being prosecuted.  The public loves this.  They also love the way politicians are forced to go on the record almost all the time.  The old days of "memoirs" that really were just whitewashes of history are gone.

4. In most of Europe, over 100 years of bombings by terrorists has left people relaxed about telephone surveillance and the like.  We do have nutters who do want to plant bombs.  These nutters, for example the IRA, precede al qaida by 100 years and will still be active in 100 years time.  That that affects our attitude to privacy.

So we are not that worried about state oversight.  We worry far more about private companies that might break the law and use data in ways that we don't want.  Americans could care less about their private data and they mistrust the state.  Its a significant cultural difference.

Got it, yeah it's a big difference.  Our (my) general interpretation of what you wrote is "yep, successful brainwashing.  Big Brother tells you to be in fear of enemies within and outside, and he will relentlessly pursue them(you)..."

LOL...

But most of what you wrote was about general surveillance and data collection - you've noted at least in Germany that the medical records are not collected by the state.  And that was the focus of my question.

I view the medical data collection by the state as far more dangerous and invasive than say, collecting data on cars passing camera points, or people walking down a certain street.  The medical database can be used by political forces against opposing parties or persons, and would be so used.  At least here it would be.  

Of course that's my (American) perception of the state as bad, evil corrupt...while the European/progressive view is the state is good, merciful and just. 

The state is only 'good' to the extent that the people keep it that way.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Of course that's my (American) perception of the state as bad, evil corrupt...while the European/progressive view is the state is good, merciful and just. 

The state is only 'good' to the extent that the people keep it that way.

"Every nation gets the government it deserves." - Joseph de Maistre

Without wanting to offend, Americans spend a lot of time killing one another compared to other nations.  Your government is bound to reflect that fact. 

[Wilikon]

...snip...

Of course that's my (American) perception of the state as bad, evil corrupt...while the European/progressive view is the state is good, merciful and just. 

The state is only 'good' to the extent that the people keep it that way.

"Every nation gets the government it deserves." - Joseph de Maistre

Without wanting to offend, Americans spend a lot of time killing one another compared to other nations.  Your government is bound to reflect that fact. 

I am glad to learn that was NEVER the case in Europe...

[Hawker]

...snip...

Of course that's my (American) perception of the state as bad, evil corrupt...while the European/progressive view is the state is good, merciful and just. 

The state is only 'good' to the extent that the people keep it that way.

"Every nation gets the government it deserves." - Joseph de Maistre

Without wanting to offend, Americans spend a lot of time killing one another compared to other nations.  Your government is bound to reflect that fact. 

I am glad to learn that was NEVER the case in Europe...

It still is that way where I am from (Ireland).  And we have laws on hate speech, on possession of explosives, on firearms and on membership of terrorist organisations that reflect that.  As I said, no offense was intended. 

[Spendulus]

...snip...

Of course that's my (American) perception of the state as bad, evil corrupt...while the European/progressive view is the state is good, merciful and just.  

The state is only 'good' to the extent that the people keep it that way.

"Every nation gets the government it deserves." - Joseph de Maistre

Without wanting to offend, Americans spend a lot of time killing one another compared to other nations.  Your government is bound to reflect that fact.  

I am glad to learn that was NEVER the case in Europe...

It still is that way where I am from (Ireland).  And we have laws on hate speech, on possession of explosives, on firearms and on membership of terrorist organisations that reflect that.  As I said, no offense was intended. 

Law is often a reaction to perceived social needs or threats.

But what would it mean to start gathering and maintaining a universal medical database on a population?  That the entire population might be a threat?

No question, a possible reaction to terrorism is that a state becomes more totalitarian.  Just having some trouble figuring out the relation of medical to any perceived actual useful utility.

My inclination is to simply attribute this to the workings of perverse authoritarian liberal controller personality disordered people, given jobs where they can do their wildest fantasies without prosecution or fear.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Of course that's my (American) perception of the state as bad, evil corrupt...while the European/progressive view is the state is good, merciful and just.  

The state is only 'good' to the extent that the people keep it that way.

"Every nation gets the government it deserves." - Joseph de Maistre

Without wanting to offend, Americans spend a lot of time killing one another compared to other nations.  Your government is bound to reflect that fact.  

I am glad to learn that was NEVER the case in Europe...

It still is that way where I am from (Ireland).  And we have laws on hate speech, on possession of explosives, on firearms and on membership of terrorist organisations that reflect that.  As I said, no offense was intended.  

Law is often a reaction to perceived social needs or threats.

But what would it mean to start gathering and maintaining a universal medical database on a population?  That the entire population might be a threat?

No question, a possible reaction to terrorism is that a state becomes more totalitarian.  Just having some trouble figuring out the relation of medical to any perceived actual useful utility.

My inclination is to simply attribute this to the workings of perverse authoritarian liberal controller personality disordered people, given jobs where they can do their wildest fantasies without prosecution or fear.

You have entered tinfoil hat mode.  Doctors keep records and as such every country in the world has access to the medical records of its population.  Find something serious to worry about.  Surely obamacare can't be such a success that this is all you can find to criticise?

[Hawker]

Okay don't forget the stream of reports from privately insured citizens forced into inferior service plans with mandatory coverage for diseases they don't have. It will be increasingly difficult for private citizens to purchase health insurance as they see fit. Notice how none of this affects state and federal employees.

Isn't that how insurance is meant to work?

[compro01]

Okay don't forget the stream of reports from privately insured citizens forced into inferior service plans with mandatory coverage for diseases they don't have.

Well yeah.  That's kinda the way things work, unless you want the risk pool to resemble a parking lot puddle and basically defeat the entire point of insurance.

[Spendulus]

....

You have entered tinfoil hat mode.  Doctors keep records and as such every country in the world has access to the medical records of its population.  Find something serious to worry about.  Surely obamacare can't be such a success that this is all you can find to criticise?

Every country has access?  Really?