Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Buried In the Healthcare.gov Source: "No Expectation of Privacy"

Posted by timothy on from the just-initial-here-and-here-and-here-and-here dept.

realized writes "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 taxpayer-funded 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." Note: As the article points out, that phrasing is "not visible to users and obviously not intended as part of the terms and conditions." So users shouldn't worry that they've actually, accidentally agreed to any terms more onerous than the ones they can read on the signup page, but it's an interesting inclusion. What's the last EULA you read thoroughly?

54 of 365 comments (clear)

  1. How do we get Congress to sign up? by WillAdams · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I want legislation limiting their healthcare and other benefits to those which are available to the general public.

    --
    Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    1. Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? by jerpyro · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sadly, I think a lot of people want a lot of things from Congress right now.

    2. Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Congress is ALREADY required by the ACA to use the plans available from the exchange.

      Whomever tells you they have an exemption is a fucking liar.

      What is now on the table is whether or not Congress (including the staffers who are not particularly well paid) will get a subsidy like everyone else who has employer covered healthcare insurance does.

    3. Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? by sycodon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The latest House proposal for increasing the debt limit specifies that the Pres and Congress must use Obamacare. Not sure if that means eliminating the outrageous 75% subsidy or not. I'm sure the Dems will reject.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    4. Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? by mjr167 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not only that, vote against anyone with a R or D by their name

    5. Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? by SJHillman · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's kind of misleading to say "nobody else is". I know plenty of people who have already had their plans canceled or changed as a direct result of Obamacare; many more have already been warned of sharp premium increases by their insurance company due to Obamacare requirements, which may force some people to cancel plans they can no longer afford.

    6. Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? by cdrudge · · Score: 3, Informative

      What is now on the table is whether or not Congress (including the staffers who are not particularly well paid) will get a subsidy like everyone else who has employer covered healthcare insurance does.

      Republicans tried to embarrass the Democrats by requiring Congress members and and their staff to go to the exchanges. Democrats embraced the proposal except it created the dilemma where the Federal Government has no means to make contributions towards exchange-purchased insurance, and since the government offers insurance but the individuals are required to go to the exchanges, they don't technically qualify for the subsidy either. They shot themselves in the foot with the requirement (not that it's a bad requirement) and they're just trying to figure out how to pay for the benefit they already received.

    7. Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? by Jon_S · · Score: 3, Informative

      This.

      Ironically, if the employer mandate wasn't delayed a year (still don't know what was up with that), it would seem to me that Congress could have been fined for dropping coverage for their employees upon the ACA go-live.

      Congress is the only employer that is actually required by the ACA to drop their existing coverage of their workers and require them to purchase their own insurance (and contrary to popular belief, you don't have to purchase your insurance on the exchanges; that was just supposed to make it easier - although so far that isn't the case - and would be the only way you get the subsidies if you were eligible for them)

      All other employers (above 50 employees) are *required* to provide health insurance to their employees (although enforcement has been delayed a year). So yes, Congress got "exempted", but not in the way the ACA-haters are making it out to be. The "exemption" was actually put in by Charles Grassley, a republican, because he thought that this would kill the bill. However, congress actually said "sure, whatever, we don't have a problem going through the exchanges just like all the people who don't have coverage now". The "exemption" actually requires these employees to get their insurance through the exchanges (or on their own if they want), rather than to just stay on their employer's group plan like most other full time workers in the country.

      The only remaining debate is whether to take the money that Congress was previously kicking in as a contribution to their employees' group health care and add it onto their employees' paychecks instead, which seems fair to me.

    8. Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? by Salgak1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'd like a few things FOR Congress. Tar and Feathers come to mind, for starters. . . .

    9. Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? by JeffOwl · · Score: 2

      Not me. I don't want a lot. I just want them to do their jobs.

    10. Re: How do we get Congress to sign up? by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not quite risk mitigation any more. The pre existing condition clause of the ACA means ypu can wait for the risk to become reality then mitigate costs. That is why it is neccesary to enslave everyone by penalty.

    11. Re: How do we get Congress to sign up? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Insurance is, by definition, payment to mitigate risk. If one has the ability to back up that risk, as the 1% do, it is on average better to not get insurance.

      This may be a good strategy for some (most?) types of insurance, like the rental car collision damage insurance you mentioned, but perhaps not for health insurance. Some health care costs can be quite high, far exceeding the price of the premiums, and having/using insurance can get you a much better rate on most of that, lowering your total expense.

      For example, my wife died of a brain tumor (Glioblastoma Multiforme) in 2006. The list (non-insurance) price for her chemotherapy medicine, Temodar was $11,000 (not a typo) for a one-month supply (one bottle of pills); her HMO co-pay was $40 (forty) - my BC/BS co-pay would have been 10%. She would have needed 4 months, had she lived longer.

      The list price for the treatment she actually received in the 7 weeks from diagnosis to death was about $300,000, but I only paid about $500 - her premiums were far less than the list price of her treatment.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    12. Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2

      Are you sure? The harder they fail at fixing the current mess, the harder it'll be for them to get hired afterwards. Nothing disillusions the supporters of a broken system like its colossal, unmitigated, blatant failure.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    13. Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? by Roman+Coder · · Score: 2

      Think he was speaking towards the current shutdown of the government, moreso than the ACA.

      --
      "The future can only affect the present if there is room to write its influence off as a mistake." - Yakir Aharonov
    14. Re: How do we get Congress to sign up? by Qzukk · · Score: 2

      without ill effects worse than "I won't get to go on holiday this time"

      The next sentence is "but with the payout from the insurance I'll go on vacation next time."

      As opposed to "oh well, I didn't need that stupid money or some dumb holiday vacation."

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    15. Re: How do we get Congress to sign up? by paiute · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Rather than paying $300,000, you and your wife would have had to come to terms that her time on Earth was now limited because you simply were not rich enough. Happens every day on this planet.

      ...in the Third World and the United States.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    16. Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? by Dishevel · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Obama did not write it. He has no idea what is in it.

      Congress had to pass it before they could figure out what it meant. This was written by lobbyists and bureaucrats each piece designed to make money for some individual company with no regard to what it means on the whole.

      Every congress critter that votes on any piece of legislation that they do not understand should be thrown of of their position. After they are raped and killed. Any law that can not be understood by someone without a law degree in 20 minutes should be null and void. Complicated laws are always wrong.

      And fuck every piece of shit that has said "Their ought to be a law" in the last 50 years.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    17. Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? by Frobnicator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are you sure? The harder they fail at fixing the current mess, the harder it'll be for them to get hired afterwards. Nothing disillusions the supporters of a broken system like its colossal, unmitigated, blatant failure.

      In total agreement.

      Both sides are constantly blaming the other for the deadlock in Congress. They haven't passed a budget since April 2009. That is one of the things the Constitution requires them to do, and they haven't done their job in almost five years.

      Both sides blame the other. And both sides are right. It is like the expression "No individual raindrop believes it caused the flood."

      Just like the raindrops, it isn't an individual drip that caused it, it is ALL of them together. Even the ones that are trying to make it better, they still bear some responsibility for the problems. Because ALL of them are responsible, ALL of them should be fired. Many people say "Not my congresspeople, they represent my views!" No. All of them contributed to the mess, ALL of them should go.

      I don't want to see things fail. I would much prefer to be watching a colossal success and the establishment of policies that the entire world holds up as monuments to human achievement. Instead we are watching doomsday debt clocks, there are discussions about global economic collapse, and millions of people wonder about losing their livelihood. I don't like watching things fail, but if they do fail, I hope it fails in such a way that people will again seize control of government, rather than letting government seize them. The best failures are the ones that lead to change and future success.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    18. Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? by Bartles · · Score: 4, Informative

      I buy excellent individual insurance now. My application to enroll on the exchange was just rejected, and I was told I need to enroll in medicaid, because my income is too low at 174% of the poverty line. I just got some quotes for insurance purchased off the exchange and my cost will increas 300%-500%, making buying insurance impossible for me to afford. So everyone is not going to be paying taxes into that. In fact I just got moved from the taxpayer to the dependent category. This law will be a disaster.

    19. Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? by dosilegecko · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your views on this government really align with mine, I thought I was the only one who thought this way. There should be no such thing as career politicians. They are exactly what is wrong with this country. Obamacare is also a train wreck for small businesses. I have seen this first hand.

    20. Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? by nightsky30 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Obama did not write it. He has no idea what is in it.

      And yet he signed the bill. I think every person that had some part in the passing of that bill is equally responsible. There should be more responsibility, integrity, and intelligence in the creation of new laws.

    21. Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? by kommakazi · · Score: 2

      You're already required to buy auto insurance.

    22. Re: How do we get Congress to sign up? by Aqualung812 · · Score: 2

      First, I'm asking, not telling. If it were me or my wife, I'd likely do the exact same thing they they did.
      I've not gone through this. I've heard others that have say they wish they would have let go instead of fight it. I was curious if he felt the same way.

      Second, to answer "who do you think you are": As someone who pays for insurance but has not had such an expense, I'm one of the people that paid for her procedure.

      It is very hard to have these conversations, but they are needed.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    23. Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? by LordLimecat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Obama signed it. Its his constitutional responsibility to know whats in it.

      Sorry, Im not buying that he rallied for it and signed it but had no idea what was in it.

    24. Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And yet, before Obama became president, we didn't seem to have problems passing budgets. At what point is pragmatism going to reemerge? At some point people will recognize that there's a common denominator underlying all these problems.

      The Republicans? If you recall the Republicans did the same thing they are doing now when Clinton was president. Since Reagan their M.O. has been to spend and borrow recklessly while they have control of the White House and oppose everything when the Dems have the White House.

    25. Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? by kommakazi · · Score: 2

      Then pay the tax for not getting insurance and please don't go to the hospital when you're sick or injured unless you have cash up front.

    26. Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? by thoth · · Score: 2

      We had a healthcare system that worked fine for everyone that could afford it.

      Your definition of "worked fine" is strange - denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, medical bankruptcies even for those covered....

      They have no idea what the unintended consequences are.

      This isn't even two weeks old, quit the drama crybaby routine. Universal healthcare works in every other advanced country, and in the U.S. as well (Medicare, VA).

      What exactly are you fighting for - the right to be ripped of by insurance?

    27. Re: How do we get Congress to sign up? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      Health insurance isn't really insurance though (more's the pity), it's the powerful negotiator at the pricing table. Without it, you pay about triple.

      I was always able to negotiate lower costs of dental care and routine physicals, when I self-insured. Pay cash, work out a deal, and it was lower cost than what insurance would cost. Did that for 10 years without much of an issue - just carried catastrophic health insurance with a $10,000 deductible that covered 100% above that level (which sounds extreme, but actually ends up being a better deal than the new Obamacare plans I have to choose from).

      My doctors were always willing to bargain for cash-up-front - saved them a lot of costs and headache and waiting on payment for 60-90 days from the insurance company. Cash-up-front does wonders in more than just buying cars and homes...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    28. Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      Universal Health Care doesn't work everywhere. I have relatives in France, and while HealthCare there IS Universal, it is Universally Bad. Most people try to avoid the system as much as possible because of how bad it is. AND it is going bankrupt.

      ... national insurance system has been running deficits since 1985 — it currently stands at $13.5 billion.

      http://blogs.wsj.com/informedreader/2007/06/29/is-french-health-care-really-better/

      Of course, if all you read is HuffPo you have a different view of the world.

      And actually, my view is that Insurance should be for CATASTROPHIC care, like Car Insurance. Meaning you take care of the Oil, WiperBlades, Brakes, regular Maint stuff, and only use insurance for accidents. Doctor Visits, Prescriptions, basic tests, minor expenses should not be covered by insurance. ONCE the marketplace is engaged again, you'll see competition lower the price and improve over all quality, by giving people the means to find what works best for them.

      I'd also like to see universal pricing by Health Care providers, such as Hospitals and Clinics. One price for everyone, no discounts for being in one insurance rather than another. The idea of "negotiated pricing" is a huge part of the problem.

      I would love to see Emergency Rooms be able to turn people away if they were deemed to not be an "emergency", and sent to a clinic / free health care center. I recently had an "accident" (to be covered by insurance, see above) with my eye. I sat in the Emergency room for two hours because wait caused by people in there because of "flu like symptoms" and the like.

      Finally, I would love to see incentives by government rather than demands. We are slowly turning into a state where government runs people, rather than the other way around. Remember, this Republic was supposed to be Of, By and For the People but lately it seems to exist for itself.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  2. Data mining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The gov finally caught on as most greedy corps do.

  3. EULA Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Practically every EULA is just complicated legalese for one simple sentence: "Fuck you fucking fuckers!"

    1. Re:EULA Translation by ameyer17 · · Score: 2

      No, it's more like "We own you, bitch"

  4. Cut & Paste by wherley · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is boilerplate language from many Federal sites and would seem to be a template cut/paste thing. Examples:

    https://logonsm.faa.gov/dotrso/certoptional/myfaa/

    https://ampedc1.cms.gov/amserver/UI/Login

    http://hsesacpt21.smdi.com/jsso/SSOLogin

    https://fedstar.phmsa.dot.gov/FedSTAR/Default.aspx

    etc.

    1. Re:Cut & Paste by lgw · · Score: 2

      Stereotype much? I first saw this on right-wing sites, were it was very clearly point out that this wasn't in the actual EULA and was just some copy-paste thing.

      But sure, go on believing that the only reason people disagree with you is because they're stupid, that way you don't have to consider their arguments: saves time and all.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  5. Stop pushing the bogus 643 million $ number by andy1307 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I know this is slashdot but stop digging. Here

    1. Re:Stop pushing the bogus 643 million $ number by P-niiice · · Score: 2, Insightful

      welp, fox news as "news source" hyuck hyuck

    2. Re:Stop pushing the bogus 643 million $ number by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      And this unused text string suggests the site is assembled from boilerplate, rather than a real custom, and thus expensive job.

      I would expect well-tested boilerplate, by the way, to keep costs down. But it is government after all. We can do both! We don't have to choose! We can have cheap boilerplate and grotesquely expensive costs. We don't have to choose!!!

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  6. Its *not* $634M by dieswaytoofast · · Score: 5, Informative

    Even the source link points out that its not $634M (except, since it does so in a "Fair and Balanced" way, you can't really tell)
    You can either actually read the article in gory detail, or better yet, go read this breakdown of the numbers.
    TL;DR --> its around $55.7M (which is still a lot, but is - decidedly - not $634M)

  7. Whew! by sycodon · · Score: 2

    Well, that makes it all OK then!

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Whew! by Sockatume · · Score: 2

      Inasmuch as it implicitly limits those terms' scope to the informational parts of the web site, and not its functional as a healthcare data repository, yes, it is reassuring.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  8. let me translate that by slashmydots · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communication or data transiting or stored on this information system" translated into HIPAA means "lol this website is completely illegal."

    1. Re:let me translate that by intermodal · · Score: 3

      That was my first thought upon seeing this. This is a pure violation of HIPAA. If my company did this, we'd be sued into oblivion in no time, provided anyone bothered to read what they signed.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  9. Re:Sooo... by drjoe1e6 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Upon being pushed from an american vagina you have absolutely no expectation of privacy or actual security"

    My kids were born via Cesarian, you insensitive clod!

    --
    Lose = not win ...... Loose = not tight
  10. closer to $500 million with salaries, servers by raymorris · · Score: 3, Informative

    $55 million original estimate for site development
    $90 million paid to one company for site development
    $500 million total site cost including servers, salaries, etc.

  11. plausible deniability for developers by xombo · · Score: 2

    The contract was probably bid as protecting people's privacy and legal got to work right away regarding the terms of service.

    But, the developers were probably never able to successfully implement, or were not given sufficient resources to implement, a truly secure system. This comment was probably included as a protest to cover their own asses when the contract goes sideways.

    Plausible deniability? The client provided the terms of service.

  12. designed to obfuscate actual prices of plans by bigpat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Interesting Forbes article on how healthcare.gov is designed to prevent people to see the full prices of the healthcare plans which is what is causing the upfront bottleneck. On the one hand it makes sense that you don't want to scare people off with high healthcare insurance prices until you know if they are eligible for subsidies, but on the other hand it means you probably have to verify the data entered against what are potentially hundreds of millions of records just to display a screen with prices for the plans.

    Seems a better option would simply to take the persons word for it up front, let them see the prices displayed depending on the personal and family information they entered and then only do the background verification after they "checkout" and actually purchase a plan. That way they just get an email later on if there is a problem with anything they entered or if the prices change based on something determined based on the background check and credit check. Or if as news reports suggest they are going to have to go through an income verification process as part of the Senate compromise, then doing the credit check up front in "real time" is an extra step anyway. Could even make the insurance companies do the final eligibility check as part of their 15% commission.

    Trying to process through hundreds of millions of records in less than tens of seconds is a stupid thing to try to do just to keep people from finding out what your prices really are even if you have hundreds of millions of dollars to blow through. They could have fully insured 100,000 more people for the money that has been wasted just on healthcare.gov.

    1. Re:designed to obfuscate actual prices of plans by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Oh give me a break.

      This information is already available on multiple sources and on Healthcare.gov. I am fucking tired of these articles that have NOT been researched or are published with the intent of misleading people.

      Plan information from Healtchare.gov without signing in:

      https://www.healthcare.gov/find-premium-estimates/

      https://data.healthcare.gov/dataset/QHP ... /ba45-xusy

      Example of plan information from 3rd party sources:

      http://www.valuepenguin.com/

      The actual fact is that healthcare.gov. in the first two weeks of operation has made plan price comparisons FAR easier than it has ever been. This could be a major consumer positive event in healthcare.

    2. Re:designed to obfuscate actual prices of plans by wile_e_wonka · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure I'm not eligible for subsidies. But the system for figuring it out is a joke. It asks if I have any tax deductions such as student loan interest. So, I pulled out my tax return and put in practically every deduction. It isn't clear which deductions are eligible to be deducted.

      Even so, between my income and my wife's I'm almost certainly not eligible for any subsidies based on the information I provided. So, for those of us whose self-input information indicates $0 subsidy, why not just let us see the price? It can't possibly be worse than my holy-fraking-expensive plan available through my employer.

      So, I agree that they've set it up backward, and should take people's word on showing prices and just say "eligibility for reduced prices will be confirmed prior to purchase." But even with the current backward system, there is no reason that the unsubsidized prices shouldn't be shown for those of us whose information indicates that we aren't eligible for a subsidy.

  13. Re:Ignore the whole damn thing by SJHillman · · Score: 2

    From what I've read, there's a big loophole in it so you don't have to pay the fine either:

    "Oh, and the IRS has no authority to go after someone’s assets or wages in order to collect the penalty. It only has the authority to deduct the penalty from a person’s tax refund at year’s end. It won’t take long for people to figure out how to fix that problem by trying to ensure they have only enough withheld to meet their tax obligation. Those who are uninsured and successful at hitting the tax mark will face no effective penalty."

    Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2013/06/27/a-surprising-health-insurance-option-for-those-who-refuse-obamacare/

  14. Stop it already. by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

    Healthcare.gov didn't cost 634 million. Even the article the submitter linked to says it didn't. It appears the actual cost is around $55 million.

    http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2013/10/10/how-55-7-million-doesnt-equal-634-million

  15. Re:Odious terms of service etc by Salgak1 · · Score: 2

    Actually, he's taking charge of his own risk management, examining patches and determining if they're applicable. I seem to recall a McAfee update a few years back, that incidentally "bricked" a sizeable number of XP boxen. . .

  16. Re:Sooo... by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 2

    There's a footnote clause for that my man, no worries, the NSA has you covered!

    --
    I got here through a series of tubes
  17. Re:Ignore the whole damn thing by bobbied · · Score: 2

    It may be cheaper now, but I'm told that the fines/tax for not having valid coverage take quite a jump after 2016... Wonder why they picked THAT year.... Hmmm..

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  18. Re:Ignore the whole damn thing by Rockoon · · Score: 2

    It won’t take long for people to figure out how to fix that problem by trying to ensure they have only enough withheld to meet their tax obligation.

    Well thats been me for over a decade now. I declare 3 exemptions on the federal when I actually "deserve" none, and at the end of the year I owe a few hundred bucks because of it. For a few years I tweaked in an addition flat withholding of $5, but then I realized something...

    If I declared the 0 exemptions that I deserve I would be making thousands of dollars in over-payments, yet when I declare 3 exemptions that I don't deserve its only a few hundred in under-payments. Clearly there is something seriously wrong if most of the country is giving the government a large interest-free short-term loan every year.

    ...I decided that fuck them, they can wait until April 15th for their god damned money, and when I am successful not a single day fucking sooner.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."