#Login Register


  • 2 Vote(s) - 3 Average
Home 


Buried In the Healthcare.gov Source: "No Expectation of Privacy"
Anonymous Kritter Show this Post
10-16-2013, 04:08 AM #16
Anonymous Kritter Incognito Anonymous
 
(10-16-2013, 03:41 AM)JayRodney Wrote:  
(10-16-2013, 03:13 AM)Anonymous Kritter Wrote:  
(10-15-2013, 06:04 PM)JayRodney Wrote:  
Quote:The Obamacare website Healthcare.gov has a hidden terms of service that is not shown to people when they sign up. The hidden terms, only viewable if you 'view source' on the site, says that the user has 'no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communication or data transiting or stored on this information system.' Sadly, the $634 million dollar website still does not work for most people, so it's hard to confirm – though when it's fixed in two months, we should finally be able to see it.
Read more: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obam...62489.html#

The Republicans should pass a bill making Obamacare the law for everyone including the president with absolutely no exceptions.
After that, we'd most likely get a healthcare system that actually fekking functions.
The other thing that bugs me is:
"no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communication or data transiting or stored on this information system" means t-dancing.gif "LMFAO this website is completely illegal."
What if we put that disclaimer on our website? Would you volunteer personal information? 13.gif

Jay... I thought we have already been through this?

They are no exception/exemptions then anyone else with a large employer. Nothing has changed except that they are now allowed the same contribution from their employer(federal government) as before.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/201...obamacare/
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/po...orce-hudak

...or do you not bother reading anything that contradicts your pre-madeup mind? or have become nothing but an anti-obama shill that cares nothing about the facts or truth?

Nice thread steering straw man argument however the issue at hand was "no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communication or data transiting or stored on this information system" means t-dancing.gif "LMFAO this website is completely illegal."
What if we put that disclaimer on our website? Would you volunteer personal information?

This was never about my solution to this cluster Fekk. An anti-Obama shill? rofl.gif Hardly. It's the "no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communication or data transiting or stored on this information system" I was pointing out.
Just simple irrefutable fact. I'm not certain about what aspect you fail to get your noggin around partner.

The issue I am addressing is that I see you continuously repeating that congress is exempt even though I have repeatedly shown you the information PROVING that as bullshit but you ignore and continue to repeat just like I see so many other republitards doing even after being proven wrong ...and since you did not bother to address it when I countered your statement in at least 2 other threads I am bringing it up again as you continue to repeat it.

The issue of the site having that disclaimed is another matter... but one could assume that during the build and open testing phases that disclaimer was "turned on" and since it is not displayed now one would also assume that it no longer applies... legally one would think that the case.

That disclaimer could also be a limited reference to this...

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:

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;
Other verification sources including consumer reporting agencies;
Employers identified on applications for eligibility determinations;
Applicants/enrollees, and authorized representatives of applicants/enrollees;
Agents, Brokers, and issuers of Qualified Health Plans, as applicable, who are certified by CMS who assist applicants/enrollees;
CMS contractors engaged to perform a function for the Marketplace; and
Anyone else as required by law or allowed under the Privacy Act System of Records Notice associated with this collection (CMS Health Insurance Exchanges System (HIX), CMS System No. 09-70-0560, as amended, 78 Federal Register, 8538, March 6, 2013, and 78 Federal Register, 32256, May 29, 2013).

https://www.healthcare.gov/individual-pr...-statement

While typically the expectation of privacy refers to site selling data and/or allowing third parties to "sniff" data ...I don't think was the case here. Could have been a more generic disclaimer they slapped up before adding a more detailed disclaimer?

I also find it suspicious that the screenshot of it is too small to read and a quick image search turned up nothing better... anyone else able to confirm this source code text from healthcare.gov? ...I'm thinking it is probably just more bullshit to try and dissuade people from using the site.
Anonymous Kritter Show this Post
10-16-2013, 04:11 AM #17
Anonymous Kritter Incognito Anonymous
 
(10-16-2013, 03:41 AM)JayRodney Wrote:  
(10-16-2013, 03:13 AM)Anonymous Kritter Wrote:  
(10-15-2013, 06:04 PM)JayRodney Wrote:  
Quote:The Obamacare website Healthcare.gov has a hidden terms of service that is not shown to people when they sign up. The hidden terms, only viewable if you 'view source' on the site, says that the user has 'no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communication or data transiting or stored on this information system.' Sadly, the $634 million dollar website still does not work for most people, so it's hard to confirm – though when it's fixed in two months, we should finally be able to see it.
Read more: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obam...62489.html#

The Republicans should pass a bill making Obamacare the law for everyone including the president with absolutely no exceptions.
After that, we'd most likely get a healthcare system that actually fekking functions.
The other thing that bugs me is:
"no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communication or data transiting or stored on this information system" means t-dancing.gif "LMFAO this website is completely illegal."
What if we put that disclaimer on our website? Would you volunteer personal information? 13.gif

Jay... I thought we have already been through this?

They are no exception/exemptions then anyone else with a large employer. Nothing has changed except that they are now allowed the same contribution from their employer(federal government) as before.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/201...obamacare/
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/po...orce-hudak

...or do you not bother reading anything that contradicts your pre-madeup mind? or have become nothing but an anti-obama shill that cares nothing about the facts or truth?

Nice thread steering straw man argument however the issue at hand was "no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communication or data transiting or stored on this information system" means t-dancing.gif "LMFAO this website is completely illegal."
What if we put that disclaimer on our website? Would you volunteer personal information?

This was never about my solution to this cluster Fekk. An anti-Obama shill? rofl.gif Hardly. It's the "no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communication or data transiting or stored on this information system" I was pointing out.
Just simple irrefutable fact. I'm not certain about what aspect you fail to get your noggin around partner.

The fact is that text is not being displayed on the site so to make an erroneous assumption that it is a valid disclaimer is... well... erroneous.
Anonymous Kritter Show this Post
10-16-2013, 04:38 AM #18
Anonymous Kritter Incognito Anonymous
 
Ok... so I did some more gophering to see I could find anyone to validate that source text being true.

OMG! This is the problem I have with people spreading "stuff" without doing their own research. I went ahead and created an account even though I don't need one. The text was commented out, not hidden. I am a Web designer and computer programmer, so I know how to read HTML. This is what you do when you don't want to include something on a Web page. Why would they not want to include it? Not because they're trying to hide something, but because there is a privacy statement that supercedes it. The full text of the site privacy statement is here: https://www.healthcare.gov/privacy ...and it's on the bottom of every page for easy access. I hardly believe there's anything nefarious going on here. The fear-mongering is amazing. But I guess that's how Republicans get supporters. Shameful. Anyone who believes there is a conspiracy is a total idiot. People, do your own homework and stop letting Republicans spoonfeed you! And I am so tired of people LOOKING for problems and manufacturing issues where there are none. Seriously, who looks at the source code of a Web site like this except for someone trying to find problems. The average citizen isn't going to look and that's what they count on. This is how they get you. And you people fall for it every single time. It has nothing to do with politics, but everything to do with the fact Republicans cannot stand having a black man in the White House! No wonder this country is so f'd up!
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/361...ing-andrew

...and I found this comment.

So the quoted bit from the screen shot is true but they intentionally did not want you see it all so they used a screen shot just barely small enough to prevent you from reading the source code text <this should have raised some flags for you Jay.

Infowars also picked up on this story... if that tells you anything.
10-16-2013, 08:41 AM #19
Below Average Genius Member
Posts:1,800 Threads:138 Joined:Apr 2013
(10-16-2013, 03:46 AM)Anonymous Kritter Wrote:  
(10-15-2013, 08:26 PM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(10-15-2013, 06:04 PM)JayRodney Wrote:  
Quote:The Obamacare website Healthcare.gov has a hidden terms of service that is not shown to people when they sign up. The hidden terms, only viewable if you 'view source' on the site, says that the user has 'no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communication or data transiting or stored on this information system.' Sadly, the $634 million dollar website still does not work for most people, so it's hard to confirm – though when it's fixed in two months, we should finally be able to see it.
Read more: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obam...62489.html#

The Republicans should pass a bill making Obamacare the law for everyone including the president with absolutely no exceptions.

After that, we'd most likely get a healthcare system that actually fekking functions.
The other thing that bugs me is:
"no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communication or data transiting or stored on this information system" means t-dancing.gif "LMFAO this website is completely illegal."
What if we put that disclaimer on our website? Would you volunteer personal information? 13.gif

The Republican House offered exactly what you've proposed to the Senate in return for accepting the rest of ObamaTax.

Democrat Harry Reid and the Democrat Senate rejected it.

I wonder why?

Senator David Vitter (R-LA) has sought a legislative solution to the OPM regulation, clarifying the law to be consistent with what he sees as a fair bargain. The solution is to extend the provisions forcing Congress and staff onto the Exchanges to the “President, the Vice President, and political appointees” (Vitter Amendment to S. 761).

The Vitter Amendment also removes the employer contribution that the OPM regulation maintains. The Amendment notes, “No Government contribution under section 8906 of title 5, United States Code, shall be provided on behalf of an individual who is a Member of Congress, a congressional staff member, the President, the Vice President, or a political appointees (sic) for coverage under this paragraph.”

Essentially, the Amendment expands the group required to purchase insurance on the Exchanges while removing a key benefit: the employer contribution.


It takes away what members of congress already had... employer contribution. Nothing changed... no new benefits or exemptions/exceptions are being given but the republitards want to take that away as a matter of "principle" when in reality they know damn well what they are doing ...they themselves do not want this amendment but they know the dems will not accept it so they can use this as a point of argument to further discredit Obamacare.

Now please... quit reading all the propganized bullshit lies and do try to stick to the facts.

Truth as always will prevail... even with the massive onslaught of spew coming from the republican party.

You're misreading it. Congress and the staff were to be given an ADDITIONAL 72% subsidy to help pay for the new ObamaTax.

The House was removing the extra subsidy and requiring that Congress and the WH be covered by the SAME plan as everyone else.

You need to follow your own advice and stop swallowing the juicy juice coming from the left.

Pray for me. hug.gif
Anonymous Kritter Show this Post
10-16-2013, 11:58 AM #20
Anonymous Kritter Incognito Anonymous
 
(10-16-2013, 08:41 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(10-16-2013, 03:46 AM)Anonymous Kritter Wrote:  
(10-15-2013, 08:26 PM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(10-15-2013, 06:04 PM)JayRodney Wrote:  
Quote:The Obamacare website Healthcare.gov has a hidden terms of service that is not shown to people when they sign up. The hidden terms, only viewable if you 'view source' on the site, says that the user has 'no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communication or data transiting or stored on this information system.' Sadly, the $634 million dollar website still does not work for most people, so it's hard to confirm – though when it's fixed in two months, we should finally be able to see it.
Read more: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obam...62489.html#

The Republicans should pass a bill making Obamacare the law for everyone including the president with absolutely no exceptions.

After that, we'd most likely get a healthcare system that actually fekking functions.
The other thing that bugs me is:
"no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communication or data transiting or stored on this information system" means t-dancing.gif "LMFAO this website is completely illegal."
What if we put that disclaimer on our website? Would you volunteer personal information? 13.gif

The Republican House offered exactly what you've proposed to the Senate in return for accepting the rest of ObamaTax.

Democrat Harry Reid and the Democrat Senate rejected it.

I wonder why?

Senator David Vitter (R-LA) has sought a legislative solution to the OPM regulation, clarifying the law to be consistent with what he sees as a fair bargain. The solution is to extend the provisions forcing Congress and staff onto the Exchanges to the “President, the Vice President, and political appointees” (Vitter Amendment to S. 761).

The Vitter Amendment also removes the employer contribution that the OPM regulation maintains. The Amendment notes, “No Government contribution under section 8906 of title 5, United States Code, shall be provided on behalf of an individual who is a Member of Congress, a congressional staff member, the President, the Vice President, or a political appointees (sic) for coverage under this paragraph.”

Essentially, the Amendment expands the group required to purchase insurance on the Exchanges while removing a key benefit: the employer contribution.


It takes away what members of congress already had... employer contribution. Nothing changed... no new benefits or exemptions/exceptions are being given but the republitards want to take that away as a matter of "principle" when in reality they know damn well what they are doing ...they themselves do not want this amendment but they know the dems will not accept it so they can use this as a point of argument to further discredit Obamacare.

Now please... quit reading all the propganized bullshit lies and do try to stick to the facts.

Truth as always will prevail... even with the massive onslaught of spew coming from the republican party.

You're misreading it. Congress and the staff were to be given an ADDITIONAL 72% subsidy to help pay for the new ObamaTax.

The House was removing the extra subsidy and requiring that Congress and the WH be covered by the SAME plan as everyone else.

You need to follow your own advice and stop swallowing the juicy juice coming from the left.

*sigh*

Did you even bother reading anything at the links before commenting?

Like most large employers, the federal government contributes a portion to the premiums of its employees. In fact, like many employers, the federal government pays most of the premiums for its workers; an average of 72 percent on Capitol Hill. The new provision didn’t account for the continued employer contribution for these federal workers who would now be buying their insurance on the exchanges. The exchanges were designed to help people without health insurance and people with overly expensive health insurance. It became clear that without their employer contribution, members and their staffers would essentially be getting a cut in pay and benefits equal to thousands of dollars. Even Grassley, the provision’s author, had tried to amend to law in order to allow the government to continue to contribute to lawmakers’ and staffers’ premiums. What the Obama administration has done is rule that the lawmakers and their staffs will continue to receive the employer contribution to help them buy their insurance on the exchange.
10-16-2013, 03:14 PM #21
j browsing Member
Posts:5,158 Threads:1,098 Joined:Jul 2012
Labor unions are poised to score the delay of an ObamaCare tax in the bipartisan budget deal emerging in the Senate.

The bargain under negotiation would make small adjustments to the healthcare law, including delaying the law's reinsurance fee for one year. The three-year tax is meant to generate revenue that will stabilize premiums on the individual market as sick patients enter the risk pool.








The tax applies to all group health plans, but unions argue it will raise their healthcare costs while providing them no benefit.

The reinsurance tax figured prominently in discussions at a recent AFL-CIO convention, where workers passed a resolution demanding changes to ObamaCare.



Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/hea...z2ht1P6FHd
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

"when life gives you lemons..throw them at someone"...Grumpy Cat good.png
10-16-2013, 03:31 PM #22
j browsing Member
Posts:5,158 Threads:1,098 Joined:Jul 2012
premiums have increased under the ACA...companies and workers are finding this difficult...they will not have a 72 per cent subsidy like congress..so they are asking for a year delay..

"when life gives you lemons..throw them at someone"...Grumpy Cat good.png
10-16-2013, 04:45 PM #23
j browsing Member
Posts:5,158 Threads:1,098 Joined:Jul 2012
bottom line how much will business contribute to employee ACA insurance premium..while tax payers fund 72 per cent of congress ACA premiums

"when life gives you lemons..throw them at someone"...Grumpy Cat good.png
10-16-2013, 08:24 PM #24
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:31,286 Threads:1,438 Joined:Feb 2011
(10-16-2013, 03:31 PM)j browsing Wrote:  premiums have increased under the ACA...companies and workers are finding this difficult...they will not have a 72 per cent subsidy like congress..so they are asking for a year delay..

yup.gif Premiums are up substantially. What do they think this will do to an already anemic economy? From what I've read, there will be about an average of $10,000 less per person of disposable income.
That's money that will not be used to purchase goods or services. I've heard from the dems that this will boost the economy.
Forgive me if I have my doubts. 13.gif

wonder.gif
10-16-2013, 08:56 PM #25
j browsing Member
Posts:5,158 Threads:1,098 Joined:Jul 2012
I know two people who have had their hours cut at work due to the aca...and I know someone whose spouse was dropped from their ins. thru their employment...the premiums are more than they can afford..they are worried about eating and keeping a roof over their heads sad2.gif

"when life gives you lemons..throw them at someone"...Grumpy Cat good.png
Anonymous Kritter Show this Post
10-17-2013, 12:29 AM #26
Anonymous Kritter Incognito Anonymous
 
(10-16-2013, 04:45 PM)j browsing Wrote:  bottom line how much will business contribute to employee ACA insurance premium..while tax payers fund 72 per cent of congress ACA premiums

It has always been that way so don't start complaining about the congress employee contribution like it is something new... they always had that percentage long before Obamacare was even thought of.
10-17-2013, 12:36 AM #27
j browsing Member
Posts:5,158 Threads:1,098 Joined:Jul 2012
I will complain if I want to. no one has told you to shut up.....yet.

"when life gives you lemons..throw them at someone"...Grumpy Cat good.png
Anonymous Kritter Show this Post
10-17-2013, 12:38 AM #28
Anonymous Kritter Incognito Anonymous
 
(10-16-2013, 08:56 PM)j browsing Wrote:  I know two people who have had their hours cut at work due to the aca...and I know someone whose spouse was dropped from their ins. thru their employment...the premiums are more than they can afford..they are worried about eating and keeping a roof over their heads sad2.gif

Is this in one of the red states where they refuse to extend the medicaid program that is suppose to cover people in an income bracket that makes it unaffordable for them on the exchange?

You should watch this...
http://kritterbox.com/Thread-What-do-you...y-or-Obama

Might help to educate you on what's really going on.
Anonymous Kritter Show this Post
10-17-2013, 12:41 AM #29
Anonymous Kritter Incognito Anonymous
 
(10-17-2013, 12:36 AM)j browsing Wrote:  I will complain if I want to. no one has told you to shut up.....yet.

Complain all you want... I'm just saying don't act like this is something new that is the result of Obamacare.
10-17-2013, 01:00 AM #30
j browsing Member
Posts:5,158 Threads:1,098 Joined:Jul 2012
obamacare is something new. obamacare is so wonderful the people who forced the American people to swallow his crap understand this and are running for the hills away from it. please explain this contradiction.

"when life gives you lemons..throw them at someone"...Grumpy Cat good.png



Home 




 



DISCLAIMER / Terms of Service (TOS):
Kritterbox.com - Socialize anonymously, commentary, discussion, oddities, technology, music and more!  This website is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. kritterbox.com shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
This website exists solely for the purposes of exchange of information, communication and general entertainment. Opinions from posters are in no way endorsed by kritterbox.com. All posts on this website are the opinion of the authors and are not to be taken as statements of fact on behalf of kritterbox.com. This site may contain coarse language or other material that kritterbox.com is in no way responsible for. Material deemed to be offensive or pornographic at the discretion of kritterbox.com shall be removed. kritterbox.com reserves the right to modify, or remove posts and user accounts on this website at our discretion. kritterbox.com disclaims all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of any material on this website. Fictitious posts and any similarity to any person living or dead is coincidental.
All users shall limit the insertion of any and all copyrighted material to portions of the article that are relevant to the point being made, with no more than 50%, and preferably less of the original source material. A link shall be visible in text format, embedded directly to the original source material without exception.
No third party links, i.e. blogs or forums will be accepted under any circumstances, and will be edited by staff in order to reflect the original source of copyrighted material, or be removed at the sole discretion of kritterbox.com.
Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science, and technology. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for educational and/or research purposes.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at any time at our discretion.
Copyright © 2011 - 2017 kritterbox.com