Slashdot Mirror

It would probably help if agencies like the CDC and HHS used sentences like "This would likely kill a few hundred people worldwide, so don't panic" in their press conferences and speeches instead of phrases like "with potential to harm millions of people around the world" (citation), not to mention the obligatory references to how many tens of millions were killed by the 1918 flu (no mention, of course, of the fact that this was largely do to a world war, and very primitive sanitation and medical treatment at the time).

I just learned that $32,400/yr in the US makes you a 1 percent-er. There must be an awful lot of people on government aid for the 1% level to be only 2.8x the US single person poverty level.

Exactly. And it is far worse than that. A lot of what will result as the Affordable Care Act is not decided in the law, but depends on someone or agency submitting a report. Search for the words "shall submit" using the Edit > Search feature in Adobe Acrobat. There are at least 149 requirements to submit a report!!!

The acronym "MTM" is defined on page 1,056 as "medication management". Begin reading on that page, for example, to realize the enormity of what is not yet defined just in that area.

The Certified Full-Text Version: Affordable Care Act (PDF - 4.27 MB) is 2,409 pages of italics. A student who wrote so poorly would get a failing grade. Why such a mess? Maybe those who wrote it don't want taxpayers to read it.

Here are just 50 of the 149 instances of the phrase "shall submit":
plan shall submit claims for reim5 bursement to the Secretary which shall contain 6 documentation
Labor, shall submit a report to the appropriate 10 committees of Congress concerningâ" 11"(
Secretary shall submit a report to the 15 appropriate committees of Congress containing a 16
shall submit to Congress, within the 15-day pel5 riod beginning on the date
shall submit to the appropriate committees of 21 Congress a report on the study
Exchange shall submit the information 25 provided by an applicant under subsection
Secretary shall submit to the Commissioner 6 of Social Security the following information for 7
Secretary shall submit to the Secretary 7 of Homeland Security the information de8 scribed in
Secretary shall submit 3 the information described in subsection (b)(3)(A) pro4 vided
State shall submit a re25 port to the Secretary
Services shall submit a report to 24 the appropriate committees of Congress on the total
State shall submit to the Sec24 retary for the Secretary's approval the
shall submit to Congress and make available 19 to the public an interim report
shall submit to Congress and make available 24 to the public a final report
shall submit a report to Congress on the results of the 11 demonstration project.
Secretary shall submit to Congress a report con2 taining the results of the evaluation and
section shall submit 6 to the Secretary an application at such time, in such man7
shall submit to the Secretary, at such time and in 10 such format as
Secretary shall submit to Congress and make 14 available to the public a report on
and shall submit with any
State shall submit to the Secretary, in such form and 3 manner as the Secretary
entity shall submit 3 a report to the Secretary demonstrating improve4 ments (if any)
section shall submit an applical5 tion to the Secretary for approval, in such manner as
Secretary shall submit a report to Congress on the 3 results of the evaluation conducted
Secretary shall submit
States shall submit to Congress 19 an interim report containing the results of 20 the
States shall submit to Congress a re4 HR 3590 EAS/PP port containing the results
ices shall submit to Congress a report containing 10 the results of the study conducted
hospital shall submit to the 18 Secretary data on quality measures specified 19 under subparagraph
facility shall submit to the 22 Secretary data on quality measures specified 23 under subparagraph
program shall submit to the Sec4 retary data on quality measures specified under 5 subparagraph
v) shall submit data 15 to the Secretary in accordance with paragraph (2) 16
section shall submit to the Sec20 retary data on quality measures specified under 21 paragraph
Secretary shall submit to Congress 18 a report containing the plan developed under paral9 graph
Secretary shall submit to Congress 11 a report containing the plan developed under paral2 graph
Secretary shall submit to Congress a report con3 taining the results of the study conduct

Exactly. And it is far worse than that. A lot of what will result as the Affordable Care Act is not decided in the law, but depends on someone or agency submitting a report. Search for the words "shall submit" using the Edit > Search feature in Adobe Acrobat. There are at least 149 requirements to submit a report!!!

The acronym "MTM" is defined on page 1,056 as "medication management". Begin reading on that page, for example, to realize the enormity of what is not yet defined just in that area.

The Certified Full-Text Version: Affordable Care Act (PDF - 4.27 MB) is 2,409 pages of italics. A student who wrote so poorly would get a failing grade. Why such a mess? Maybe those who wrote it don't want taxpayers to read it.

Here are just 50 of the 149 instances of the phrase "shall submit":
plan shall submit claims for reim5 bursement to the Secretary which shall contain 6 documentation
Labor, shall submit a report to the appropriate 10 committees of Congress concerningâ" 11"(
Secretary shall submit a report to the 15 appropriate committees of Congress containing a 16
shall submit to Congress, within the 15-day pel5 riod beginning on the date
shall submit to the appropriate committees of 21 Congress a report on the study
Exchange shall submit the information 25 provided by an applicant under subsection
Secretary shall submit to the Commissioner 6 of Social Security the following information for 7
Secretary shall submit to the Secretary 7 of Homeland Security the information de8 scribed in
Secretary shall submit 3 the information described in subsection (b)(3)(A) pro4 vided
State shall submit a re25 port to the Secretary
Services shall submit a report to 24 the appropriate committees of Congress on the total
State shall submit to the Sec24 retary for the Secretary's approval the
shall submit to Congress and make available 19 to the public an interim report
shall submit to Congress and make available 24 to the public a final report
shall submit a report to Congress on the results of the 11 demonstration project.
Secretary shall submit to Congress a report con2 taining the results of the evaluation and
section shall submit 6 to the Secretary an application at such time, in such man7
shall submit to the Secretary, at such time and in 10 such format as
Secretary shall submit to Congress and make 14 available to the public a report on
and shall submit with any
State shall submit to the Secretary, in such form and 3 manner as the Secretary
entity shall submit 3 a report to the Secretary demonstrating improve4 ments (if any)
section shall submit an applical5 tion to the Secretary for approval, in such manner as
Secretary shall submit a report to Congress on the 3 results of the evaluation conducted
Secretary shall submit
States shall submit to Congress 19 an interim report containing the results of 20 the
States shall submit to Congress a re4 HR 3590 EAS/PP port containing the results
ices shall submit to Congress a report containing 10 the results of the study conducted
hospital shall submit to the 18 Secretary data on quality measures specified 19 under subparagraph
facility shall submit to the 22 Secretary data on quality measures specified 23 under subparagraph
program shall submit to the Sec4 retary data on quality measures specified under 5 subparagraph
v) shall submit data 15 to the Secretary in accordance with paragraph (2) 16
section shall submit to the Sec20 retary data on quality measures specified under 21 paragraph
Secretary shall submit to Congress 18 a report containing the plan developed under paral9 graph
Secretary shall submit to Congress 11 a report containing the plan developed under paral2 graph
Secretary shall submit to Congress a report con3 taining the results of the study conduct

I was about to post a mathematical rejection of that idea, but you know, the numbers aren't really that crazy. Someone correct me if I've made a big mistake somewhere, but I've used the poverty level income from here: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm, used the GDP as roughly the total spending we can tax (found here: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp) and used the 2012 budget figures from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_federal_budget

Basically, if you want to pay everyone a poverty line income, you need to increase the government spending by that amount. The sales tax will push up the poverty line, so you need to increase those payments, and then increase the sales tax to pay for that. Fortunately we worked out Zeno's paradox some time ago, so if we pay people enough that a house of more than 8 people can get by you'd need a 24% tax. If we want to pay everyone enough to live one their own it would be a 47% tax. Those numbers look big and scary, but maybe you could sell it if you promise to get rid of the other taxes, and compared to the taxes you see in other socialist countries it's not that bad...

I'd be worried about a repeat of what happened when they introduced the GST (goods and services tax) in Australia. They promised us that the money would be collected federally, and returned to the states, with the states cutting all of their sales taxes/stamp duty/other crap. As you might imagine, the federal government used their new power to put pressure on the states, so the states couldn't afford to get rid of all their taxes and we're left with a big mess. I don't have any hopes that the US would do better...

They're just a body shop living the H1B dream.

I find it somewhat repugnant that a US Healthcare website is being done by a slipshod vendor who relies on H1B staff for delivery and can't follow FIPS 200 standards? That's a no-brainer for anybody dealing with any Federal agency.

https://oig.hhs.gov/oas/reports/region4/41205045.pdf

QSSI had not sufficiently implemented Federal requirements for information system security controls over USB ports and devices. Specifically, QSSI had not: (1) listed essential system services or ports in its system security plan or (2) disabled, prohibited, or restricted the use of unauthorized USB device access. QSSI had not implemented USB security controls because management had not updated its USB control policies and procedures. As a result of QSSI’s insufficient controls over USB ports and devices, the PII of over 6 million Medicare beneficiaries was at greater risk from malware, inappropriate access, or theft.

So Personally Identifiable Information for over 6 Million Medicare beneficiaries wasn't protected and they still are working and billing to provide shitty software. I wonder how much of this is now in the hands if identity thieves selling Fullz..

your government at work folks, what a wonderful sight to behold.

You're one of the 99%. The leeches you should be concerned about are the upper 0.1%. What we spend on social welfare is nothing compared to what the capitalist class extracts from the economy simply because they own. These are the people who are given vast amounts of your money without having to struggle.

But concerning your sister, she's an exception. Most of the uninsured are low income working families. These are people who have jobs, and are struggling to improve their lives. Almost half of the uninsured have full time jobs. Their employer either does not offer insurance, or does not pay them enough for them to afford insurance. This is not something any civilized country can allow.

Half of the remainder have part time jobs, and yes, about 25% of them are unemployed. But remember that these people do not control unemployment rates, the .1% do. Punishing the unemployed for not getting jobs that don't exist, is similarly uncivilized.

So stop letting your personal experience with your sister interfere with making the right choices for the country. I'm guessing that you're from a middle class background, you tend to associate with people from a middle class background, and the poor people you are familiar with are failure largely of their own accord. This is a selection bias on your part. In reality, most of the poor are working poor. They are a lot more like you and I than you'd expect. We struggle every day to make ends meet. They struggle every day, and cannot make ends meet. This is why we have civilization, instead of just letting the strong devour the weak.

Some citations for my numbers:

http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2012/pre-existing/
http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/publications/reports/health-reform/pre-ex-conditions-findings.html

Notice that the non-government site posits a much higher number. I have more faith in the HHS numbers though.

Census data for the uninsured numbers: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb13-165.html

you're more likely not to be insured if you have a pre-existing condition

Citation please.

Logic. If they won't sell it to you if you have a pre-existing condition, then you're more likely to have a pre-existing condition if you don't have insurance than if you do. This is a direct result of Bayes theorem. Look into conditional probability.

And even if we accept your #'s as factual, why not consider the break down of them, to quote a book sitting on my shelf (Liberty & Tyranny (Page 107)):

Yup, that's a real impartial source there. ROFL. Actual studies, government or by a respected university (public or private) or STFU.

Also, use numbers that aren't most of a decade old and from before the worst financial crisis of the last 60 years.

One of the early features of Obamacare was expanding access to so called "high risk pools"... know what happened? Not a whole lot of people signed up: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/06/why-hasnt-anyone-signed-up-for-the-high-risk-health-insurance-pools/239833/

Mostly because people didn't know about it at first- it wasn't well marketed. But FYI, the Maryland plan was sold out for the year months ago. I tried applying for it and was put on the waiting list. And told not to expect to get it this year (I haven't).

Says you (if true)... but still ignoring the immediate secondary effects, not to mention tertiary items such as the loss of insurance by others due to the new law.

Not a single person will lose insurance due to this law. Blatant fearmongering.

Looks the the DEA is winning this argument, based on their efforts and responses.

Thanks for that. I really think that more Americans should be writing letters to their politicians as it seems to be quite easy to subvert the will of the people.

Why would the DEA waste their time and money on this? HIPAA thoroughly establishes prescription records as being contained within the scope of medical privacy.

That's not true, even though they mislead people to think it is.

Prescription records are covered by medical "privacy," which means that only people with a medical or administrative purpose can have access to those records.

But but law enforcement is one of those administrative purposes, and law enforcement has access to those records:

Covered entities may disclose protected health information to law enforcement officials for law enforcement purposes as required by law (including court orders, court-ordered warrants, subpoenas) and administrative requests; or to identify or locate a suspect, fugitive, material witness, or missing person. http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/summary/index.html

Looks the the DEA is winning this argument, based on their efforts and responses.

That deceitful, misleading hhs.gov page doesn't tell you that there are many exceptions to HIPAA, including law enforcement access, which is buried within links that are difficult to get to:

Covered entities may disclose protected health information to law enforcement officials for law enforcement purposes as required by law (including court orders, court-ordered warrants, subpoenas) and administrative requests; or to identify or locate a suspect, fugitive, material witness, or missing person. http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/summary/index.html Summary of the HIPAA Privacy Rule (emphasis added)

What that means is that a cop can go into a hospital, flash his badge, and copy all your medical records if he feels like it, without violating HIPAA. Individual hospitals may have different policies, but nothing in HIPAA prevents that.

There are also no penalties under HIPAA for releasing private health information to third parties like that. All those big fines that HHS is touting are for structural problems with their databases, not for improperly releasing information about specific individuals.

HIPAA specifically permits law enforcement to request PHI through a variety of means. A court order is probably the fool proof way to get it. Or they can just ask for it and say that it's for a specific investigation in a written letter...because no one would ever lie on a written letter. Or just claim that it's for national security. You don't want the terrorists to win do you? Will someone think of the children!?!?

I'm puzzled; I'd think that this was covered by the Medical Records Privacy laws.

Personal information you give to your doctor is shared with insurance companies, pharmacies, researchers, and employers based on specific regulations.

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/index.html
https://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs8-med.htm

Your health records/data are protected by HIPAA (note one p, two a's). See http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/

And he should definitely make that argument. As long as the disclosure is "in the public interest" and "not for the commercial benefit of the requester," the FOI Officer can opt to reduce or waive the FOIA processing fees. See the rules at: http://www.hhs.gov/foia/45cfr5.html#Subd

Alternately, he could start a Kickstarter project, and ask for donations. I bet there'd be plenty of people who would contribute a few bucks to covering the processing fees the NSA is asking for.

The Belmont Study provides profound guidance on this topic.

http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/belmont.html#xrespect

Human beings have a fundamental ethical duty to treat each other with respect.

When this breaks down all sorts of horrors follow. The Belmont Study arose from some situations where lack of respect and lack of autonomy were coincidental.

What Linus is doing is unethical. While the individuals he is treating this way are not likely to suffer significantly because they generally have good autonomy, it is still unethical.

I'd say you need them under 25, since science keeps proving my theory that they're still children until 25+

http://www.hhs.gov/opa/familylife/tech_assistance/etraining/adolescent_brain/Development/prefrontal_cortex/index.html

This brain region gives an individual the capacity to exercise “good judgment” when presented with difficult life situations. Brain research indicating that brain development is not complete until near the age of 25, refers specifically to the development of the prefrontal cortex.

Seems though that once they're used to being Facebook's bitch, they can age to any level and post justify their adolescent actions. As many on this thread will no doubt show.

Very creepy, and really, in a couple of cases violating HIPPA[sic] regulations through their disclosure of who-knows-whom.

I assume you mean HIPAA? How is LinkedIn bound by being HIPAA compliant?

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/srsummary.html

The only privacy agreement they are under is the one you (and millions of others) signed up for AND agreed to.
I truly hope you are not shocked to hear this; but, they sell your information by data mining the heck out of it and categorizing you (and millions of others) into nice little packages of "Would probably buy" product X. Advertisers stumble over themselves attempting to get your eyeballs (and millions of others) into looking at their advert so you (and millions of others) have a chance to buy their product or service(s).

Do you use Google? Their whole business model is to sell profiles to advertisers. Bing, Yahoo!, AskJeeves, and SLASHDOT, too.

I do feel your pain, though.

It was assigned to the wrong DHS... this should fall under the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Someone needs to tell a director that Homeland Security is stealing a project that should be theirs (i.e. taking their power).

Japan's life expectancy in 2010 was 82.9 years, according to the World Bank. In 2006 it was a little lower.

Japanese-American's life expectancy in 2006 was 84.5 years, according to HHS quoting the NIH.

Everybody discussing this issue without taking confounding factors like Simpson's paradox into account should basically be ignored, if you have no chance to respond to them. If you do have a chance to respond to them, then try pointing out facts like the above and seeing if the conversation turns from trying to explain how "the U.S. health disadvantage is pervasive" to trying to explain the opposite. If it doesn't, then you know that their original "explanations" were generated from bias rather than from evidence.

HIPAA *does* set in place specific specifications to comply. The beauty of HIPAA is that the Dept H&HS releases guidance to inform people how to comply on pretty much every aspect:

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/administrative/breachnotificationrule/brguidance.html

When it comes to technology, they always refer to NIST standards as being tested and compliant. Read NIST special publication 800-111 and its references to the FIPS 140-2 standard at http://csrc.nist.gov/ (Publications / Special Publications on the top menu) and you'll see they have very thorough information on how to implement encryption correctly.

Banks, State Agencies, Military, Doctors and Clinics all over the country have data losses all the time, but
nobody gets fined. Because they all have insurance and lawyers.

Nobody gets fined? Are you kidding? Large organizations get fined all the time, often for amounts of money that aren't measured in "K". It is, by the way, the reason that said organizations have insurance. And lawyers. This one is making the news precisely because it's a small organization and a small data breach.

Banks, State Agencies, Military, Doctors and Clinics all over the country have data losses all the time, but
nobody gets fined. Because they all have insurance and lawyers.

Nobody gets fined? Are you kidding? Large organizations get fined all the time, often for amounts of money that aren't measured in "K". It is, by the way, the reason that said organizations have insurance. And lawyers. This one is making the news precisely because it's a small organization and a small data breach.

Banks, State Agencies, Military, Doctors and Clinics all over the country have data losses all the time, but
nobody gets fined. Because they all have insurance and lawyers.

Nobody gets fined? Are you kidding? Large organizations get fined all the time, often for amounts of money that aren't measured in "K". It is, by the way, the reason that said organizations have insurance. And lawyers. This one is making the news precisely because it's a small organization and a small data breach.

Nope. http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/administrative/breachnotificationrule/postedbreaches.html

For some services, we have found pervasive documentation errors. For example, we found that 60 percent of Medicare claims for rehabilitation power wheelchairs did not meet all documentation requirements. These claims accounted for $112 million in improper Medicare payments over a 6-month period. We have also found significant rates of documentation error for certain types of pain management services. We recommended that CMS take actions to address these errors, including improving controls, educating providers, and clarifying guidance. From: http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/2011/07/t20110728a.html

I love kuccinich's opening salvo. He references a thermirisol shield rider added by unknown person to the homeland security bill of 2002.

Trust and legitimacy is absolutely critical here peeps. When parents see government shennanigans and corrupt behavior it is hard to stand around and act surprised when they decide to distrust government recommendations.

I hate skeptics who often use the same tactics and logical fallacies as the conspiracy nuts..only they don't end up looking like crackpots only because they happen to be on the right/safe side of the argument.

In my view the biggest problem with these debates is hubris. Parents think their experience means shit. Doctors the same. Both are wrong.

The only people qualified to draw any conclusions are the statisticians.

Statisticians can't well do their jobs effectivly when bias and lack of conformity is baked into available feedback channels.

There are still doctors who see children after vaccination with high feaver or other problems and don't file the damn report because *they* don't see a link... an attitude made of the same misrecognition of the limits of ones own knowledge as any Alex Jones vaccination tirade.

There needs to be mandatory uniform reporting with appropriate education/guidelines to all doctors on vaccination reactions so everyone has quality data on which to draw informed decisions.

At least the government is trying but they should NOT have to be in a position of begging and settling for incomplete data.

"VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning that reports about adverse events are not automatically collected, but require a report to be filed to VAERS. VAERS reports can be submitted voluntarily by anyone, including healthcare providers, patients, or family members. Reports vary in quality and completeness. They often lack details and sometimes can have information that contains errors.

From: https://vaers.hhs.gov/

"Underreporting" is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The term, underreporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events. The degree of underreporting varies widely. As an example, a great many of the millions of vaccinations administered each year by injection cause soreness, but relatively few of these episodes lead to a VAERS report. Physicians and patients understand that minor side effects of vaccinations often include this kind of discomfort, as well as low fevers. On the other hand, more serious and unexpected medical events are probably more likely to be reported than minor ones, especially when they occur soon after vaccination, even if they may be coincidental and related to other causes."

It really bothers me that the argument is either Autism, or no Autism, because there is a lot more to this. Vaccines still carry a potential risk, and there's plenty of evidence to support this. The mere fact there's a Vaccine Adverse Event Database shows children are being hurt by vaccines.

There are a large number of anti-vacciners (who are intelligent people btw) who simply don't want to take the risk associated with the current multiple vaccine schedule as laid out by the medical community. Some choose to vaccinate on their own schedule i.e. using the multiple vaccines at once approach, or simply not at all. It's a risk either way and I hope people simply do a bit of research either way before deciding.

I'm also very surprised that the majority of /.ers are for blindly trusting government to tell us when, why and how to protect our kids. When they come out and start vaccinating for chicken pox, the common cold, ADHD..will these people blindly follow as well?

The VAERS database is open. You can check yourself to see if your entry is there (assuming you know enough to find it in anoymized form).

    https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index

Actually, no, he's mostly right, to my surprise. From http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/coveredentities/index.html:

"The Privacy and Security Rules apply only to covered entities. Individuals, organizations, and agencies that meet the definition of a covered entity under HIPAA must comply with the Rules' requirements to protect the privacy and security of health information and must provide individuals with certain rights with respect to their health information. If an entity is not a covered entity, it does not have to comply with the Privacy Rule or the Security Rule."

The one thing he got wrong is that while the life insurance company's use of health information is not covered by HIPAA, the medical information clearinghouse *is*, as such clearinghouses are "covered entities" (along with health care providers and health plans--while your life insurance isn't covered by HIPAA, your health insurance is).

Blizzard is not a healthcare provider to their customers (they're arguably detrimental to physical activity wouldn't you say?) and is not subject to HIPPA guidelines for any of their gaming services.

HIPAA might be a good place to start.

The tax should be even at all levels of income, period end of statement. That is the Constitutional answer, as well as the most logical and "Fair". If I pay 13%, then some person making a bazillion dollars a year should pay 13%. If that person pays 10%, I pay 10%.

No, because that shifts a greater proportion of the burden on those at the lower echelons. It needs to average out, which would mean that they'd need to set a higher base rate than they could if they were to exempt lower income tiers and gradually introduce the full tax rate as your income rises.

There's a reason that there's a poverty line, and a tax exempt income level... it's because you need a certain minimum amount of money to be able to survive. If the person who's barely making that money has to pay income tax, then they will not be able to eke out a living. It may interest you to know that working full time, 40hr/week, at minimum wage is below the poverty line in much of the US.

Oregon has the highest minimum wage in the US, at $8.80/hr (surprised the hell out of me, I would have thought it was New York). Assuming you work 40hr/week, and don't take any time off, working the full 52 weeks, it's $18,304/year before taxes. Compare that to Minnesota where the minimum is $5.25/hr, and it's only $10,920/year before taxes. The national poverty line in the US is $11,170/year, and it tends to be more in northern states because of the colder weather (you eat more calories in the winter, and you spend more on heating, while not getting a reprieve from cooling in the summer). Try Oklahoma, where they can legally pay you $2/hr if the employer makes less than $100,000/year, let alone the states which have no minimum wage at all. Even the federal minimum of $7.25/hr is only $15k/year before taxes.

Why should somebody who's not even making enough to stay above the poverty line (Minnesota) pay the same tax rate as I do, when I make more than 6x as much? While I appreciate your desire for equality, 10% of $11,000 is $1,100, leaving him with less than $10,000 to spend on rent, food, transit, clothes, etc., where I'd still have $60,000 left over after taxes. Given that the average rent in Minneapolis is over $1,000/mo for a 1br, that's hardly fair. And that's assuming that the government could even make ends meet with only a 10% income tax... I doubt that would even cover the military budget, let alone the rest of the stuff the government is responsible for.

HIPPA

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Office of Civil Rights
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C., 20201
Phone: (866) 627-7748
Web: www.hhs.gov

The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services
toll free HIPAA Hotline: 1-866-282-0659

Most people who earn minimum wage do not live below the poverty line in the united states.

Common misconception among opponents of the minimum wage. Can you back your assertions with data?

Federal poverty line for a single person is $11,710
Federal minimum wage is $7.25 which equates to roughly $14,500 (assuming you only work 50 weeks).

If you work 1615 (about 9.3 months @ 40 hrs/wk) hours at minimum wage, you exceed the poverty line.

The be sure to CYA, because they are failing at determining what is and is not PHI. The IRB and lawyers at our hospital would not let that one pass at all.

The following identifiers of the individual or of relatives, employers, or household members of the individual must be removed to achieve the Ãoesafe harborà method of de-identification: (A) Names; (B) All geographic subdivisions smaller than a State, including street address, city, county, precinct, zip code, and their equivalent geocodes, except for the initial three digits of a zip code if, according to the current publicly available data from the Bureau of Census (1) the geographic units formed by combining all zip codes with the same three initial digits contains more than 20,000 people; and (2) the initial three digits of a zip code for all such geographic units containing 20,000 or fewer people is changed to 000; (C) All elements of dates (except year) for dates directly related to the individual, including birth date, admission date, discharge date, date of death; and all ages over 89 and all elements of dates (including year) indicative of such age, except that such ages and elements may be aggregated into a single category of age 90 or older; (D) Telephone numbers; (E) Fax numbers; (F) Electronic mail addresses: (G) Social security numbers; (H) Medical record numbers; (I) Health plan beneficiary numbers; (J) Account numbers; (K) Certificate/license numbers; (L) Vehicle identifiers and serial numbers, including license plate numbers; (M) Device identifiers and serial numbers; (N) Web Universal Resource Locators (URLs); (O) Internet Protocol (IP) address numbers; (P) Biometric identifiers, including finger and voice prints; (Q) Full face photographic images and any comparable images; and î any other unique identifying number, characteristic, or code, except as permitted for re-identification purposes provided certain conditions are met. In addition to the removal of the above-stated identifiers, the covered entity may not have actual knowledge that the remaining information could be used alone or in combination with any other information to identify an individual who is subject of the information. 45 C.F.R. à 164.514(b).

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/summary/index.html [hhs.gov]

And calling you up with instructions and giving them to anyone there is a violation.

The following identifiers of the individual or of relatives, employers, or household members of the individual must be removed to achieve the âoesafe harborâ method of de-identification: (A) Names; (B) All geographic subdivisions smaller than a State, including street address, city, county, precinct, zip code, and their equivalent geocodes, except for the initial three digits of a zip code if, according to the current publicly available data from the Bureau of Census (1) the geographic units formed by combining all zip codes with the same three initial digits contains more than 20,000 people; and (2) the initial three digits of a zip code for all such geographic units containing 20,000 or fewer people is changed to 000; (C) All elements of dates (except year) for dates directly related to the individual, including birth date, admission date, discharge date, date of death; and all ages over 89 and all elements of dates (including year) indicative of such age, except that such ages and elements may be aggregated into a single category of age 90 or older; (D) Telephone numbers; (E) Fax numbers; (F) Electronic mail addresses: (G) Social security numbers; (H) Medical record numbers; (I) Health plan beneficiary numbers; (J) Account numbers; (K) Certificate/license numbers; (L) Vehicle identifiers and serial numbers, including license plate numbers; (M) Device identifiers and serial numbers; (N) Web Universal Resource Locators (URLs); (O) Internet Protocol (IP) address numbers; (P) Biometric identifiers, including finger and voice prints; (Q) Full face photographic images and any comparable images; and ® any other unique identifying number, characteristic, or code, except as permitted for re-identification purposes provided certain conditions are met. In addition to the removal of the above-stated identifiers, the covered entity may not have actual knowledge that the remaining information could be used alone or in combination with any other information to identify an individual who is subject of the information. 45 C.F.R.  164.514(b).

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/summary/index.html

$8/hr isn't much for sure but it works out to be $16,640 as an annual salary.

The 2012 Poverty Guidelines show that for 1 person and 2 people annual salary is about $11k and $15 respectively. So, $8/hour is above the poverty guideline levels.

The 2011 US Census on poverty thresholds shows pretty similar numbers. They show 2 people with 1 child under 18 to have a threshold of ~$15.5k.

So, a single person making (about) minimum wage (depending on the state) will be just above the poverty level. What wouldn't be taken into account is standard-of-living. Obviously, at those income levels you won't have much for things outside of necessities. HDTV's, cable TV, smartphones with dataplans and even broadband internet might be out of the cards for you.

They can be fined if any user identifiable medical data was proven to be compromised as a result of the malware.

They also have to do regular internal security scans (IE: Anti Virus scans and other steps) to ensure that they are not infected or allowing people that should not have access to the user identifiable data that they should not)

This also includes regular security training for their staff; which means that the download pages should not have had a "just click on run to install the software"

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/administrative/privacyrule/adminsimpregtext.pdf

I think we often miss the point of why relatives are so often the perpetrators of child abuse. It's a proximity and trust thing. If "strangers" could get that level of trust easily (say, with candy, videogames, music, fancy vans with no windows, or anything else you might warn your kids about) I think child abuse by people the victims don't know would be far more common.

Another key point is we often lump all child abuse into one grouping. A whopping 84% of all child abuse is done by a child's biological parents, but 60% of child *sexual* abuse is done by people known to the child but who are not family members (babysitters, teachers, family friends, neighbors etc). People completely unknown to the child only comprise about 10% of sexual abuses, most of the rest are family. You were close; family members are FAR more common perpetrators than strangers, but that third category of abusers - non-family members in authority positions - make up the majority of sexual abusers.

Sources:
http://faq.acf.hhs.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/70/~/who-typically-abuses-children%3F
http://www.apa.org/pi/families/resources/child-sexual-abuse.aspx

Of course, all of this explains why child abuse in any form is such a violation of the kids in question; these are the people who are supposed to be teaching kids about and protecting kids from the world, but instead these people are harming them. These children tend to learn there IS no safe place or person, and that's a tough lesson to learn that young.

As a brief anecdote (feel free to skip if it's TL;DR. It only serves as a personal example proving no statistics, just how it sometimes happens):

My "inappropriate touching" guy was my piano teacher when I was 9. He had all sorts of "games" to play when I did well on the lessons. I knew the guy; he was from our church ward, and he was always sort of antisocially creepy, like the house the kids don't want to trick or treat at kind of thing. Shit started to get WAY creepy though. That's a difficult spot to be in as a kid; my folks PAY this guy to teach me piano one hour a week, and I really was learning the piano, and he was a nice enough guy when he wasn't being creepy and pushy as fuck, so what was I supposed to do? I mean, some of the stuff was sorta... oogily nice at the time, I guess, but when I thought about it after the fact it was just half guilt (shame? shrug) and half gross. I didn't want to see the guy in jail forever, or whatever; just to get him to knock it off and not feel... responsible for any of it, I guess. I just ended up quitting piano, instead of dealing with it directly. Looking back, I wouldn't say it damaged me permanently or anything, but it was an odd and emotionally complicated way to learn how to "make the white stuff come out" (admittedly, certain specifics got burned permanently into memory). Last I heard, some 25 years ago, a different kid DID tell his folks, and the guy ended up getting arrested. Not sure what happened after that. To this day, I don't have any hate for the guy; it wouldn't serve any purpose. OTOH, I do sure as *hell* keep tabs on who watches my little girls a lot more closely because of it.

There really is no 'certification' for HIPAA... or no set of concrete measurable points...
(But I do like this summary.)

So if anybody claims 'support' for HIPAA, they are either lying, or...

They are willing to sign a Business Associate Agreement: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/coveredentities/businessassociates.html ...and assume some legal liability for PHI breaches.

Almost no big business will step into this nightmare (and I've asked Google and Microsoft both)... they both offer their Services As-Is with regards to HIPAA, and leave it to the customer to determine if the application they provide is compliant.

You may be old enough to comprehend the risks in high school but still probably not old enough to properly act on them.
Young people are stereotypically considered to think themselves invincible for a reason. And "brain damage" is a very vague and hard to appreciate threat, even to a grown adult.

Mainly though, it's traditionally thought that your brain doesn't fully develop the ability to manage risks until about the age of 25.
Source: http://www.hhs.gov/opa/familylife/tech_assistance/etraining/adolescent_brain/Development/prefrontal_cortex/

Of course brain development research is mostly correlation so who really knows.

Yeah, but from your own link, "the role of experience is critical in developing the neural connectivity that allows for conscious cognitive control of the emotions and passions of adolescence. Teens who take risks in relatively safe situations exercise the circuitry and develop the skills to “put on the brakes” in more dangerous situations." There were quite a few of us making good choices while we were teenagers. I had the opportunity to get into trouble several times, but didn't. It's possible that parents that let their kids make more of their own decisions earlier (and let them face the consequences of the bad ones) cause them to mature faster in that regard. It's possible people are maturing at the late age of 25 because we're shielding them too much, and they only get that needed experience in college.

You may be old enough to comprehend the risks in high school but still probably not old enough to properly act on them.
Young people are stereotypically considered to think themselves invincible for a reason. And "brain damage" is a very vague and hard to appreciate threat, even to a grown adult.

Mainly though, it's traditionally thought that your brain doesn't fully develop the ability to manage risks until about the age of 25.
Source: http://www.hhs.gov/opa/familylife/tech_assistance/etraining/adolescent_brain/Development/prefrontal_cortex/

Of course brain development research is mostly correlation so who really knows.

You are an idiot since you apparently can't spend a few seconds Googling that just about every single research endeavor involving monitoring or experimenting with humans must be subject to IRB approval and hence continuous subject consent: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/irb/irb_chapter3.htm#e2

He says it would be great to hear a positive drug story, but he doesn't actually tell a real one. I guess it's supposed to be funny as long as you aren't the one on a bad trip, or dying.

Trends in Unintentional Drug Overdose Deaths

If you actually read the linked article you will find that these "drug overdose deaths" are not attributed to street drugs (heroin, cocaine, LSD, ecstasy etc) but to prescription drugs or "opioid pain killers" (OxyContin and Vicodin). This is just one of the choice quotes (there are many) from a quick scan of the linked article and summary:

One might assume that the increase in drug overdose deaths is due to an increased use of street drugs like heroin and cocaine, because we have in the past associated such drugs with overdoses. However, in a paper published in 2006, the CDC drilled down to another level to look at the codes given to the specific drugs recorded on the death certificates through 2004. When these more specific drugs were tabulated, we found that street drugs were not behind the increase. The increase from 1999 to 2004 was driven largely by opioid analgesics, with a smaller contribution from cocaine, and essentially no contribution from heroin. The number of deaths in the narcotics category that involved prescription opioid analgesics increased from 2,900 in 1999 to at least 7,500 in 2004, an increase of 160% in just 5 years.[1] By 2004, opioid painkiller deaths numbered more than the total of deaths involving heroin and cocaine in this category.

In future, when attacking a subject you know very little about, at least have the decency to provide links and analysis that back up your claims instead of fear driven media bullshit. Thank you.

Peace,
Andy.

He says it would be great to hear a positive drug story, but he doesn't actually tell a real one. I guess it's supposed to be funny as long as you aren't the one on a bad trip, or dying.

Trends in Unintentional Drug Overdose Deaths

The mortality rates from unintentional drug overdose (not including alcohol) have risen steadily since the early 1970s, and over the past ten years they have reached historic highs. Rates are currently 4 to 5 times higher than the rates during the “black tar” heroin epidemic in the mid-1970s and more than twice what they were during the peak years of crack cocaine in the early 1990s. The rate shown for 2005 translates into 22,400 unintentional and intentional drug overdose deaths. To put this in context, just over 17,000 homicides occurred in 2005. The number of drug overdose deaths does not yet exceed the number of motor vehicle crash deaths overall, but for the first time more people in the 45-54 age group now die of drug overdoses than from traffic crashes.

Can I get some examples of main stream science denialism by democrats?

Obvious one right here. You can claim this is one both sides ignore - but like Republicans claiming to be "pro family", Democrats should be held to a higher standard when they are always claiming so vociferously to be the "pro science" party.

But there are others examples. Note, for example, that Democrats oppose scientific studies if it involves testing on animals - human embryo research, though, poses no problems for them. Democrats ignore the scientific consensus in favor of more nuclear power plants, and oppose them for mostly emotional reasons. Note also the Democrat's reliance on the Precautionary Principle for evaluating policy decisions. That idea "imposes a burden of proof on those who create potential risks, and it requires regulation of activities even if it cannot be shown that those activities are likely to produce significant harms." - that doesn't sound very scientific at all, but it's used to oppose all forms of GM food, nuclear power, and even to block research funding in the absence of the ability to prove a negative. This entirely unscientific principle was even evident in Katherine Sebelius's justification to block the availability of Plan B contraceptives over-the-counter

Oh, and then there's the Obama administration's decision to support the oil companies in the fracking lawsuit, even when their own task force had had exactly the opposite conclusion. There is even evidence that many in the current administration are guilty of scientific misconduct.

There is no "Dept. of Public Health".

This seems close enough U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

HHS 2010 Spending - $828,292,000,000