The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) did not implement auditor recommendations to protect personal information at HealthCare.gov, Politico reported.
An official told lawmakers that CMS “has not yet implemented auditors’ recommendations that it conduct privacy impact assessments on HealthCare.gov systems that store personal information,” states Politico.
This is cause for concern considering the Office and Personnel Management (OPM) news that more than 21 million individuals had their sensitive information, including Social Security numbers and family and personal data, accessed by hackers because of a data breach.
“The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has identified a cyber security incident potentially affecting personnel data for current and federal employees, including personally identifiable information (PII),” said OPM in a statement on June 4.
At a House Science, Space and Technology Committee hearing on the OPM data breach, Gregory Wilshusen, an information security expert at the Government Accountability Office (GAO), said he is not aware of any efforts by CMS to act on GAO’s recommendations regarding the Obamacare website. GAO recommended in September 2014 that CMS and HHS “implement security and privacy controls to enhance the protection of systems and information related to Healthcare.gov.” (Read more from “Gov’t Agency Fails to Protect Individuals’ Personal Data on Obamacare Website” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-07-11 03:43:502016-04-11 10:59:02Obamacare Administrators Fail to Protect Individuals’ Personal Data Entered on Obamacare Website
Photo Credit: Washington Times In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court handed President Barack Obama his second major win on his signature health care law, upholding nationwide tax subsidies for millions of Americans.
Chief Justice John Roberts, again siding with the court’s liberal wing, said in the majority opinion that Obamacare allows for residents of states that did not set up their own insurance exchanges to still receive subsidies to pay for their health coverage.
“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” Roberts wrote.
Section 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says customers should receive subsidies through an exchange “established by a state,” leaving the Supreme Court to decide how literal those words are: whether tax credits are restricted to customers in state-run exchanges, or if the federally run marketplace counts as well.
The plaintiffs had contended that the legislative language clearly means that tax subsidies to buy health insurance may only be available to states that established their own health exchanges, excluding residents in 37 states that didn’t set up an Obamcare marketplace, while the Obama administration argued the language broadly meant that all exchanges were eligible for federal tax subsidies. (Read more from “Chief Justice Roberts Leads Court Toward Tyranny in SCOTUScare Decision” HERE)
Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is “established by the State.” It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words “established by the State.” And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words “by the State” other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges. “[T]he plain, obvious, and rational meaning of a statute is always to be preferred to any curious, narrow, hidden sense that nothing but the exigency of a hard case and the ingenuity and study of an acute and powerful intellect would discover.” Lynch v. Alworth-Stephens Co., 267 U. S. 364, 370 (1925) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.
…
Today’s interpretation is not merely unnatural; it is unheard of. Who would ever have dreamt that “Exchange established by the State” means “Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government”?
…
Making matters worse, the reader of the whole Act will come across a number of provisions beyond §36B that refer to the establishment of Exchanges by States. Adopting the Court’s interpretation means nullifying the term “by the State” not just once, but again and again throughout the Act. . . It is bad enough for a court to cross out “by the State” once. But seven times?
…
The Court claims that the Act must equate federal and state establishment of Exchanges . . . Pure applesauce. Imagine that a university sends around a bulletin reminding every professor to take the “interests of graduate students” into account when setting office hours, but that some professors teach only undergraduates. Would anybody reason that the bulletin implicitly presupposes that every professor has “graduate students,” so that “graduate students” must really mean “graduate or undergraduate students”? Surely not. Just as one naturally reads instructions about graduate students to be inapplicable to the extent a particular professor has no such students, so too would one naturally read instructions about qualified individuals to be inapplicable to the extent a particular Exchange has no such individuals.
…
The Court has not come close to presenting the compelling contextual case necessary to justify departing from the ordinary meaning of the terms of the law. Quite the contrary, context only underscores the outlandishness of the Court’s interpretation. Reading the Act as a whole leaves no doubt about the matter: “Exchange established by the State” means what it looks like it means. . .For its next defense of the indefensible, the Court turns to the Affordable Care Act’s design and purposes. . .
…
The Court’s decision reflects the philosophy that judges should endure whatever interpretive distortions it takes in order to correct a supposed flaw in the statutory machinery. That philosophy ignores the American people’s decision to give Congress “[a]ll legislative Powers” enumerated in the Constitution. Art. I, §1. They made Congress, not this Court, responsible for both making laws and mending them. This Court holds only the judicial power—the power to pronounce the law as Congress has enacted it. We lack the prerogative to repair laws that do not work out in practice, just as the people lack the ability to throw us out of office if they dislike the solutions we concoct. We must always remember, therefore, that “[o]ur task is to apply the text, not to improve upon it.” Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment Group, Div. of Cadence Industries Corp., 493 U. S. 120, 126 (1989).
…
Even less defensible, if possible, is the Court’s claim that its interpretive approach is justified because this Act “does not reflect the type of care and deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation.” Ante, at 14–15. It is not our place to judge the quality of the care and deliberation that went into this or any other law. A law enacted by voice vote with no deliberation whatever is fully as binding upon us as one enacted after years of study, months of committee hearings, and weeks of debate. Much less is it our place to make everything come out right when Congress does not do its job properly. It is up to Congress to design its laws with care, and it is up to the people to hold them to account if they fail to carry out that responsibility.
…
Having transformed two major parts of the law, the Court today has turned its attention to a third. The Act that Congress passed makes tax credits available only on an “Exchange established by the State.” This Court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere. We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.
Perhaps the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will attain the enduring status of the Social Security Act or the Taft-Hartley Act; perhaps not. But this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.
I dissent.
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-06-26 03:35:242016-04-11 10:59:36Chief Justice Roberts Moves Court Closer to Tyranny with SCOTUScare Decision: Laws No Longer Mean What They Say
The federal government cannot verify nearly $3 billion in subsidies distributed through Obamacare, putting significant taxpayer funding “at risk,” according to a new audit report.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) released an audit Tuesday finding that the agency did not have an internal system to ensure that subsidies went to the right enrollees, or in the correct amounts.
“[The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] CMS’s internal controls did not effectively ensure the accuracy of nearly $2.8 billion in aggregate financial assistance payments made to insurance companies under the Affordable Care Act during the first four months that these payments were made,” the OIG said . . .
The OIG reviewed subsidies paid to insurance companies between January and April 2014. The audit found that CMS did not have a process to “prevent or detect any possible substantial errors” in subsidy payments . . .
According to the OIG, the government still does not have a complete system for approving subsidies distributed though Obamacare. CMS used an “interim process” to distribute subsidies for 2014, and is planning a “permanent process” to be finished by late 2015. The final system is supposed to approve enrollment and payment data “on an enrollee-by-enrollee basis.” (Read more from “Feds Can’t Verify $2.8 Billion in Obamacare Subsidies” HERE)
Experts say too many patients are being prescribed opioid painkillers by emergency room doctors, and a program created by Obamacare could be enabling the problem.
A new study released this week found 17 percent of nearly 20,000 patients were discharged from emergency rooms with an opioid prescription. Experts and lawmakers say a push under Obamacare for hospitals to get good patient satisfaction scores is one cause of the problem.
America is in the midst of an opioid “epidemic,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Painkillers killed more than 16,000 people in 2013. A huge part of the problem is the prescribing of painkillers, which quadrupled from 1999 to 2013.
Emergency room prescriptions are part of this trend, but data are lacking on the reasons opioids are given out, according to the study published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine.
Patients with back pain got the most opioids, followed by those with abdominal pain. “The majority of prescriptions had small pill counts and almost exclusively immediate-release formulations,” according to the study. (Read more from “Obamacare Program May Be Linked to ER Opioid Prescriptions” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-05-08 00:32:022015-05-08 00:32:02Obamacare Program May Be Linked to “Epidemic” Opioid Addiction [+video]
[A] Princeton University professor has suggested that severely disabled infants be killed to cut health care costs and for moral reasons. In a radio interview Sunday with Aaron Klein, broadcast on New York’s AM 970 The Answer and Philadelphia’s NewsTalk 990 AM, Princeton University ethics professor Peter Singer argued it is “reasonable” for government or private insurance companies to deny treatment to severely disabled babies.
Several times during the interview Singer argued the health-care system under Obamacare should openly acknowledge health-care rationing and that the country should acknowledge the necessity of “intentionally ending the lives of severely disabled infants.” Singer also repeatedly referred to a disabled infant as “it” during the interview. . .
Singer told Klein rationing is already happening, saying doctors and hospitals routinely make decisions based on costs. Klein is the host of “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” a syndicated radio program that airs in several markets across the US. Klein is also a columnist at WND. . . .
During the interview Klein quoted from a section of Singer’s 1993 treatise “Practical Ethics,” titled “Taking Life: Humans.” In the section, Singer argued for the morality of “non-voluntary euthanasia” for human beings not capable of understanding the choice between life and death, including “severely disabled infants, and people who through accident, illness, or old age have permanently lost the capacity to understand the issue involved.”
Singer contends that the wrongness of killing a human being is not based on the fact that the individual is alive and human. Instead, Singer argues it is “characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference.” When asked by Klein whether he envisions denying treatment to disabled infants to become more common in the US under the new health-care law, Singer replied: “It does happen. Not necessarily because of costs.” (Read more from “Ivy League Professor Calls for Killing Disabled Infants Under Obamacare” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-04-21 03:43:202015-04-21 03:43:20Mainstreaming Infanticide: Ivy League Professor Calls for Killing Disabled Infants Under Obamacare
ObamaCare customers who received the wrong tax form from the federal government this spring will not face penalties if they miss the April 15 deadline, officials announced Friday.
Anyone who have not yet been sent corrected tax forms and are “unable to file an accurate tax return” now have until Oct. 15 to file — as long as they request an extension.
The government did not say how many people will be given extra time, though officials said in late March that 80,000 people were still waiting on their corrected tax forms. A total of 800,000 people had mailed the wrong forms.
“If a taxpayer receives their Form 1095-A before April 15 and is able to file using the form before the deadline, they should do so,” according to a statement from the Treasury Department released late Friday.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicare Services (CMS), which is overseeing the rollout of ObamaCare, has acknowledged that it has taken more time than expected to mail the proper forms. (Read more from “IRS Deadline Extended for ObamaCare Customers Sent the Wrong Tax Form” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-04-06 03:57:152015-04-06 03:57:15IRS Deadline Extended for ObamaCare Customers Sent the Wrong Tax Form
President Obama promised that under the Affordable Care Act those who needed health insurance would be covered and that the American people wouldn’t be funding abortions. Unfortunately, it turns out that both of these promises were falsehoods.
According to the Government Accountability Office, in 2014 taxpayers funded over a thousand Obamacare health plans that subsidize abortion on demand—even late-term abortion—in defiance of the Hyde Amendment Obama publicly said he would honor.
Additionally, countless people have come forward and said that Obamacare actually denied them care. For example, in Utah three mothers haven’t been able to add their new babies to their health insurance policies under the Affordable Care Act. According to KUTV, Maggie Long, Robin Williamson and Shawnsi Szerszen attempted to add their newborns within the 30-day window of the child being born but each was denied.
Maggie explained that before she applied for health insurance through Obamacare, she was required to apply for the Children’s Health Insurance Policy (CHIP), which is a program offered by the state of Utah to help insure kids whose parents can’t afford it. However, each of these mothers didn’t qualify for CHIP because of their incomes but the marketplace insisted that they apply with them anyway.
Maggie said, “We knew we wouldn’t qualify. We didn’t want to, but they said we had to.” In emails and phone calls, marketplace workers assured Maggie that the enrollment window would be extended to allow for CHIP to consider her application. Of course, CHIP denied her baby and then when she turned to the marketplace to try and add her daughter, they turn her away as well. “They denied us, saying we went over our time limit and there was no evidence we tried adding her to our insurance,” said Maggie. (Read more about Obamacare denying newborns coverage HERE)
By Fox News. The Obama administration revealed Friday that it sent about 800,000 HealthCare.gov customers a tax form containing the wrong information, and asked them to hold off on filing their 2014 taxes.
The self-inflicted bungle follows weeks of administration officials touting a successful enrollment season — one that saw far fewer technical glitches than the rocky launch in late 2013.
About 11.4 million people signed up this season. But the errors in tax information mean that nearly 1 million people may have to wait longer to get their tax refunds this year.
California, which is running its own insurance market, just announced a similar problem affecting about 100,000 people in that state.
For those using HealthCare.gov, the federal health department said on its blog on Friday that some people received a form that included faulty premium information. The blog said that information “needs to be corrected,” and new forms should be available by early March. (Read more about the incorrect tax forms HERE)
A Second Chance to Avoid a Second Tax Penalty Over Obamacare
By Margot Sanger-Katz. About six million people face a tax penalty this year for failing to sign up for health insurance last year. Now, many of those people will get an extra chance to enroll in coverage for this year and avoid a second penalty.
Sign-ups were supposed to close this month, but the Health and Human Services Department announced Friday that it would reopen the marketplaces in 37 states for six weeks in March and April. The goal is to make sure that people who are learning about the deadlines and tax penalties for the first time won’t be shut out of coverage — and forced to pay a penalty — for a second year.
Several states running their own marketplaces, including Washington and Vermont, have announced similar policies
The health law requires everyone who can afford insurance to obtain it — and charges people who don’t a fee. The fees that will be hitting people’s mailboxes for failing to get insurance last year will be relatively low — $95 a person or 1 percent of their income — but they rise next year. (Read more from this story HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-02-20 23:39:322016-04-11 11:02:12Obama Administration Sent Nearly 1 Million People Incorrect Tax Forms
By Jeryl Bier. In an effort to sign up as many consumers as possible for insurance under the Affordable Care Act (or Obamacare), the Obama administration has gone to extraordinary lengths to partner with churches and other faith-based groups, even publishing sample church bulletin inserts, flyers, and scripts for announcements, as well as “talking points.” These materials are part of the “Second Sunday & Faith Weekend of Action Toolkit,” which is available on the website of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
From the beginning, HHS has sought to develop partnerships with faith-based organizations to promote the Obamacare. This “toolkit” has been available since 2013. However, the details of these partnerships have largely escaped the attention of the national media. The Second Sunday & Faith Weekend of Action program encourages churches to use the second Sunday of each month during open enrollment to hold informational meetings and sign-up events.
The materials also include two full pages of “talking points,” which end with an admonition to churches that “[y]ou are trusted messengers in this community. We hope you share this information with those around you so they can be connected with the care they need.”
Non-profits such as Community Health Connectors have also brought togeather churches and faith-based organizations with government officials for information regarding the ACA, recently even hosting an “off the record” conference call with First Lady Michelle Obama “to discuss how the Affordable Care Act is impacting the lives of your congregation members.” (Read more about the attempt to promote Obamacare HERE)
By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar. After a computer glitch got patched up, supporters of President Barack Obama’s health care law were out in force Sunday trying to get uninsured people signed up by the official deadline for 2015 coverage.
The effort had the trappings of a get-out-the-vote drive, with email reminders, telephone calls and squads of community-level volunteers.
“You can’t avoid it: TV, radio, church, wife, kids, co-workers,” said Ramiro Hernandez, a previously uninsured truck repair shop owner who enrolled himself and his family in Joliet, Illinois, on Saturday.
Technicians anxiously monitored the federal HealthCare.gov website for any new bugs. The administration provided no statistics on weekend sign-ups, instead releasing numbers that showed tens of thousands of consumers were trying to connect, online and by phone. (Read more from this story HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-02-16 01:01:062016-04-11 11:02:23Unholy Alliance: Obama Administration Partnering with Churches to Post Bulletins to Promote Obamacare
By Josh Feldman. When he was on CNN, Piers Morgan infamously really, really fought for gun control. Well, this time it’s not a real gun, but a fake one, that has him more than a little disturbed:
President Obama pretends to fire a gun to promote health care. Is it just me that finds this appalling? pic.twitter.com/cZqSNDIKq0
— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) February 13, 2015
(Read more about the freak out from the ex-CNN host HERE)
Obama Shows His ‘Adorable Human’ Side Captured By Buzzfeed to Sell Obamacare
By Todd Starnes. On the same day the Islamic State announced the death of American hostage Kayla Mueller, President Obama was taking selfies – showing off his pearly whites in a cringe-inducing video montage with Buzzfeed.
The leader of the free world was filmed struggling pronounce “February.” He appeared to be flummoxed over how to dunk a cookie into a glass of milk. (Read more from this story HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-02-14 02:30:282016-04-11 11:02:25Ex-CNN Host Dislikes Guns So Much That He Just Attacked Obama for Bizarre Reason [+video]
