Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

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

timothy posted 1 year,15 days | from the just-initial-here-and-here-and-here-and-here dept.

Privacy 365

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?

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

How do we get Congress to sign up? (5, Insightful)

WillAdams (45638) | 1 year,15 days | (#45131741)

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

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45131837)

Vote against the incumbent!

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? (4, Insightful)

mjr167 (2477430) | 1 year,15 days | (#45132013)

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

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? (1)

omnichad (1198475) | 1 year,15 days | (#45132109)

Or an M.D.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? (3, Insightful)

jerpyro (926071) | 1 year,15 days | (#45131855)

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

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? (5, Interesting)

Salgak1 (20136) | 1 year,15 days | (#45132333)

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

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? (2)

JeffOwl (2858633) | 1 year,15 days | (#45132345)

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

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? (0)

SirGarlon (845873) | 1 year,15 days | (#45131863)

Health insurance is for the 99%. The 1% pay out-of-pocket for whatever they need.

Re: How do we get Congress to sign up? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45131959)

Not really. Maybe the top of the 1%, but most making millions will still spend mere thousands to avoid huge costs such as hospitalizations, surgery and cancer treatments. It is a small but worthwhile investment for them. Congress gets top of the line healthcare on your dime, though.

Re: How do we get Congress to sign up? (1)

harvestsun (2948641) | 1 year,15 days | (#45132065)

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. A bit of a gamble, yes, but the upper class gamble with their money all the time. Although I'm not rich, I still forego insurance whenever possible (such as the "extra insurance" offered for rental cars, which is absurdly high).

Re: How do we get Congress to sign up? (1)

ComaVN (325750) | 1 year,15 days | (#45132433)

If one has the ability to back up that risk, (...) it is on average better to not get insurance.

I don't get why this concept is so hard for people to understand.

Like people taking out insurance for canceling a holiday trip. If you have paid up front for your vacation, then pretty much by definition you can afford to lose that money without ill effects worse than "I won't get to go on holiday this time"

Re: How do we get Congress to sign up? (2, Interesting)

sumdumass (711423) | 1 year,15 days | (#45132447)

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.

Re: How do we get Congress to sign up? (4, Interesting)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | 1 year,15 days | (#45132505)

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 [wikipedia.org] ) in 2006. The list (non-insurance) price for her chemotherapy medicine, Temodar [wikipedia.org] 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.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? (3, Informative)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | 1 year,15 days | (#45131927)

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.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45131979)

That's kind of a half-truth. They aren't exempt, but like everyone else, they only have to use the exchange if they don't already have insurance, which they DO. So, NO they don't have to using the plans available from the exchange because they already have insurance--better insurance than you do.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | 1 year,15 days | (#45132479)

I really doubt they have better insurance than I do. Mine is a pretty fucking good Cadillac plan.

And yes they DO have to use the plans in the exchange.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/aug/14/ted-cruz/sen-ted-cruz-says-obama-just-granted-all-congress-/ [politifact.com]

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? (3, Informative)

cdrudge (68377) | 1 year,15 days | (#45132195)

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.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? (3, Informative)

Jon_S (15368) | 1 year,15 days | (#45132213)

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.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45132383)

and you left out about the staffers getting a 73% subsidy. Bias much?
And just wait, ALL HEALTH CARE WILL BE ON YOUR PAYCHECK.
You will be paying with after tax dollars eventually. Why the fck else would our W2's need amendment.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? (1, Troll)

CQDX (2720013) | 1 year,15 days | (#45131935)

This should be the the Republican's argument. Obamacare should be the law for EVERYONE from the President on down. No exceptions. Then we'd see are real effort to get a healthcare system that actually works. And the same should go for income taxes. Every representative should be required to do their own taxes (not hire a CPA) and each should be subject to an audit once each elected term. I guarantee that the tax code would be greatly simplified AND fewer politicians would become career politicians.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | 1 year,15 days | (#45131993)

It seems all the nonsense about Congress being exempt is nonsense. Congress is no more exempt than you or I am (assuming you're an American citizen). However, they do already have health insurance through their employer (the federal government) just like I have insurance from my employer, so I don't need to deal with the exchanges if I don't want to either. Spewing false facts would hurt the Republicans case more than help it... probably why they're not mentioning it. It's even possible some congressional aide did the 2 minute Google search required to find a few reliable sources to verify it.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45132033)

This has been the Republican stance forever. Other than the first 2 days of shutdown, this is also EXACTLY what they have asked for and nothing else.

1. No subsidies for Congress
2. No individual mandate for a year since that is what employers and Obama's buddies get.

You should be wondering how this has been their demands for 2 weeks straight and you hadn't heard about it.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? (2, Interesting)

sycodon (149926) | 1 year,15 days | (#45131957)

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.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? (1)

Alan Shutko (5101) | 1 year,15 days | (#45132041)

Congress and federal employees have an employer-sponsored health plan just like millions of other Americans. The ACA is not intended to replace employer-sponsored plans. Why should Congress lose theirs when nobody else is?

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? (4, Informative)

SJHillman (1966756) | 1 year,15 days | (#45132139)

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.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up? (1)

cdrudge (68377) | 1 year,15 days | (#45132295)

Ironically ACA specifically requires Congress and their staff to go to the exchanges to get their insurance. But since their employer provides insurance as well, it created a quagmire because the law says that they wouldn't qualify for subsidized insurance since the employer has a plan...that they can't get.

I am willing to compromise (0, Flamebait)

approachingZero (1365381) | 1 year,15 days | (#45132337)

I'm their fucking employer, and anyone who voted for the ACA tax should be eager to just ship from their Cadillac private insurance plan (provided by the taxpayers) and take part in this incredible experience known as ObamaCare. It's that simple, Democrats need to take their own medicine. And Democrat staffers and Democrat votes. If it has a (D) next to it's name punish it.

Data mining (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45131757)

The gov finally caught on as most greedy corps do.

Re:Data mining (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45132385)

The funniest part is that anyone would expect Obummer's Administration to care about your privacy. Even Retard W. Bush would blush at how far Obummer had taken the surveillance state that he began.

Fixed in two months (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45131769)

Sure, that will happen. Apparently insurers are getting garbage data and don't expect to sign up many people by then.

Meanwhile, the fucking IRS will be on your ass for their penalty. Good luck, poor people.

Re:Fixed in two months (-1, Flamebait)

P-niiice (1703362) | 1 year,15 days | (#45131797)

I love it when a group who opposes healthcare for the poor actually pretends to care when it makes a point. I really do wish them good luck. At least they will get to get a broken arm looked at without becoming homeless.

Re:Fixed in two months (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45131891)

I love it when a group who opposes an expensive government takeover of healthcare refuses to shill for the Democratic Party.

FTFY

The idea that socialized medicine gives better care than the American health system is a myth, since those under the UK's NHS are four times more likely to die than in the US [dailymail.co.uk] .

Re:Fixed in two months (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45132123)

That is what happens when everyone gets access to healthcare. If you deny healthcare to those who needs it you will see far less deaths in the hospital.

Do you think it is coincidence that the US have far more deaths that isn't related to the healthcare?

Re:Fixed in two months (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45132167)

The US has just as high a death rate as every other nation on the planet.

1 death per capita.

Re:Fixed in two months (1)

daem0n1x (748565) | 1 year,15 days | (#45132235)

Quoting a piece of toilet paper like the Daily Mail doesn't give much credit to your arguments.

Re:Fixed in two months (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45132271)

Yeah, the easiest method to prevent people dying in hospitals is to make sure that the terminally ill cannot afford to get hospital treatment.

Re:Fixed in two months (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45132035)

I love it when naive/arrogant academics that know nothing about the poor tell the poor what is good for them and everyone else what they need to sacrifice to achieve it.

Good luck getting that broken arm fixed in the first place ... take a number and wait in line for a doctor if we can find some. Its not like you have anything else to do with all the hours and jobs being cut.

Liberals: Making more poor people to feel better about forcing others to help poor people while actually making poor peoples lives more miserable since forever.

No surprise here (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45131781)

Could is be that the people running this show are doing it purely out of self-interest, rather than "for the people" as the age-old saying goes?

Re:No surprise here (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45132431)

Oh.. It's "For the people" dear sir.. It's just MY people that it's for. The rest of you are screwed...

Odious terms of service etc (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45131787)

Last one I read was for Google Chrome. After reading it, I decided NOT to install Chrome. At age 75 I will NOT allow anyone to update my computer without my express permission.

Re:Odious terms of service etc (1)

somersault (912633) | 1 year,15 days | (#45131911)

At age 75 I will NOT allow anyone to update my computer without my express permission.

What does age have to do with keeping your software up to date? You're actually just increasing the chances that your computer will get owned if you leave security updates on a manual update schedule.

Re:Odious terms of service etc (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45132039)

No, that's BS. It's a matter of CONTROL. It is HIS computer, not Google's. Anytime someone wants to scare you, they bring out the Cyber-boogy man. *I* manually control what updates are applied to my computers. I've never had a virus, and I've been "online" since the BBS days before there were PCs.

Re:Odious terms of service etc (1)

somersault (912633) | 1 year,15 days | (#45132107)

That's like refusing to get a fault in your airbag fixed just because it's YOUR car, stop trying to CONTROL me you evil bastards!

Re:Odious terms of service etc (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45132161)

You're equaling a life-saving feature on a vehicle with software patches? OK, you go with your bad self.

Re:Odious terms of service etc (1)

somersault (912633) | 1 year,15 days | (#45132369)

Security updates are the closest you're going to get to a "life saving feature" on a computer, so.. yes.

Re:Odious terms of service etc (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | 1 year,15 days | (#45132457)

It's more like the brakes. The airbag is just for you. The brakes are important for both you and everyone else.

Re:Odious terms of service etc (2)

Salgak1 (20136) | 1 year,15 days | (#45132417)

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. . .

Re:Odious terms of service etc (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45132007)

Last one I read all the way through was the Sony Playstation 3 EULA. I unplugged my playstation from the network (after many minutes).

EULA Translation (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45131793)

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

Re:EULA Translation (2)

ameyer17 (935373) | 1 year,15 days | (#45131963)

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

Cut & Paste (5, Informative)

wherley (42799) | 1 year,15 days | (#45131831)

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.

Whew! (2)

sycodon (149926) | 1 year,15 days | (#45131889)

Well, that makes it all OK then!

Re:Whew! (2)

Sockatume (732728) | 1 year,15 days | (#45132077)

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.

Stop pushing the bogus 643 million $ number (3, Informative)

andy1307 (656570) | 1 year,15 days | (#45131839)

I know this is slashdot but stop digging. Here [slashdot.org]

Re:Stop pushing the bogus 643 million $ number (2, Insightful)

P-niiice (1703362) | 1 year,15 days | (#45131881)

welp, fox news as "news source" hyuck hyuck

Re:Stop pushing the bogus 643 million $ number (1)

sycodon (149926) | 1 year,15 days | (#45131937)

Because Infrastructure of a national program doesn't count towards the cost of that program?

So the website itself cost "only" 50 some million. In order to make it work, they needed hundreds of millions more. If Obamcare never passed, how much of that money would be spent?

Re:Stop pushing the bogus 643 million $ number (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | 1 year,15 days | (#45131991)

Because Infrastructure of a national program doesn't count towards the cost of that program?

So the website itself cost "only" 50 some million. In order to make it work, they needed hundreds of millions more.

So if it costs, say, $50 million to build a bridge, and the roads that the bridge connects (and therefore makes the bridge actually work and be useful) cost $1 billion over 50 years, the bridge construction is 50 years late and $1 billion over budget?

Re:Stop pushing the bogus 643 million $ number (1)

sycodon (149926) | 1 year,15 days | (#45132185)

If you had no plans to build a bridge somewhere (say, Alaska) and the bridge costs $50 million, but in order to get people to the bridge so they can cross it, then yes, the costs of the additional roads, etc to "make it actually work" is included in the costs.

If there was no Obamacare, there would be no website and no need for all the extra costs to enable it.

In other words, the engine is part of the cost of the car even though it is separately itemized in the price.

Re:Stop pushing the bogus 643 million $ number (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | 1 year,15 days | (#45132193)

If those extra roads exist solely to service that bridge, then yes.

Re:Stop pushing the bogus 643 million $ number (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | 1 year,15 days | (#45132001)

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!!!

Re:Stop pushing the bogus 643 million $ number (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45131985)

Can we discuss the $11 billion in bogus tax refunds the IRS issued ?

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-24/politics/38791075_1_irs-refunds-earned-income-tax-credit-russell-george

How people can blindly trust the federal government with ever expanding control over their life, speaks to the general publics level of ignorance.

NSA, IRS, EPA... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45131845)

The Obama Administration has proven time and time again that they regard your personal data as the property of the state and the ruling party. Why would ObamaCare be any different?

Re:NSA, IRS, EPA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45132103)

Obamacare is different.

Obamacare taxes people for NON-PARTICIPATION in an activity.

Once upon a time, activity was taxed. Obamacare taxes inactivity.

What next ?

A tax on cow farts ?
A tax on sex ?
A tax if someone smashes their car into you ?
A tax for dieing ?
A tax for watching a movie ?
A tax for flushing the toilet ?

Yeah ... all those are real proposals.

Keep taxing yourselves to death.

Re:NSA, IRS, EPA... (1)

hermitdev (2792385) | 1 year,15 days | (#45132449)

A tax for dieing ?

This already exists. But they call it an estate tax.

If you don't like it don't use it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45131849)

Define OBamaCare today and get on with the American way of life, or are you a socialistic communistic traitor to the american way? Are you?

Vote republican and keep the thinkers in Washington! Let's get the country back on track. Default? Not a problem; it's a made-up problem. Slimdown? You can stand to lose that which is not needed. Vote republican and win, win, win!

Its *not* $634M (5, Informative)

dieswaytoofast (716433) | 1 year,15 days | (#45131851)

Even the source link [foxnews.com] 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 [ordinary-gentlemen.com] of the numbers.
TL;DR --> its around $55.7M (which is still a lot, but is - decidedly - not $634M)

closer to $500 million with salaries, servers (3, Informative)

raymorris (2726007) | 1 year,15 days | (#45132051)

$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.

Re:closer to $500 million with salaries, servers (0)

SJHillman (1966756) | 1 year,15 days | (#45132101)

If I have this right, then it's sort of like saying I agreed to $5,500 for a car but spent $9,000 including repairs and then spent $50,000 towards roads, bridges, signage, etc.

Re:closer to $500 million with salaries, servers (1)

dieswaytoofast (716433) | 1 year,15 days | (#45132237)

Seems to be correct :-)

we paid $500 million for a broken web site (1)

raymorris (2726007) | 1 year,15 days | (#45132467)

We paid $500 million to build a web site that doesn't work. That's the bottom line.

Why is this here? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45131865)

It's about a comment in a webpage that has no legal standing, and quotes a right wing talking point that isn't true: http://www.nationalreview.com/media-blog/360892/no-healthcaregov-didnt-cost-634m-greg-pollowitz

The U.S. Constitution is my EULA (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45131867)

I read it, and re-read it a dozen times, and it appears that the U.S. Government has broken their side of the contract. It's well past the time to throw the federal government back into the crucible of anarchy and restore the republic.

Re:The U.S. Constitution is my EULA (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45132473)

Mark Levin.. Is that you? - Read "The Liberty Amendments" if it's not. Mark wrote it and it's pretty good.

UCITA (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45131883)

If I recall, UCITA was passed in Virginia and Maryland, this allows a non-visible "shrink-wrap license" to be legally binding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Computer_Information_Transactions_Act

Unintelligible EULA-Terms of Service (1)

BoRegardless (721219) | 1 year,15 days | (#45131913)

You need to be a practicing contract lawyer in the field the EULA operates in to understand what they mean.

Last time I tried to read a EULA was on Microsoft's site. I read for maybe 15 minutes and hadn't finished more than a third of the document when MS's website cut me off for 'inactivity'.

EULA's are a joke from any typical user's standpoint.

Microsoft's attitude is part of the reason they get so little respect.

Re:Unintelligible EULA-Terms of Service (1)

i.r.id10t (595143) | 1 year,15 days | (#45131947)

Of course, there are the simpler EULAs... like the GPLv2. Short, easy to read, not too much legalese, fairly easy to understand.

Re:Unintelligible EULA-Terms of Service (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | 1 year,15 days | (#45132071)

One of the beginner classes I had to take in college was on different OSes. We were required to read every OS EULA before we installed it. And we were quizzed on it.

I won't say it's amazing how much crap you agree to (I'm looking at you Notepad, with your fancy limiting the number of cores I can run you on), but it's amazing that someone took the time to come up with all of that crap.

Re:Unintelligible EULA-Terms of Service (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45132251)

...why won't it read!

Sooo... (1)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | 1 year,15 days | (#45131945)

I thought that language is now a part of all american birth certificates. "Upon being pushed from an american vagina you have absolutely no expectation of privacy or actual security" or something like that.

Re:Sooo... (4, Funny)

drjoe1e6 (461358) | 1 year,15 days | (#45132019)

"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!

Wouldn't that be a violation of HIPPA? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45131967)

Wouldn't that term violate the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act?

let me translate that (5, Insightful)

slashmydots (2189826) | 1 year,15 days | (#45131971)

"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."

Re:let me translate that (3)

intermodal (534361) | 1 year,15 days | (#45132115)

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.

Re:let me translate that (1)

Bite The Pillow (3087109) | 1 year,15 days | (#45132377)

It is standard boilerplate, with the HIPAA violation commented out. No part of this is either illegal, or a story. This is the definition of a non story, and your willingness to believe anything bad about Obama specifically or government in general let you swallow this horseshit whole.
Please think before spewing more nonsense. And moderators, there is no +1 fits my preconceived notions". You have an obligation to minimally fact check.

Re:let me translate that (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45132423)

Is it actually a violation? That website is for the buying of health insurance, but the actual communication and payment for health insurance will be done with the individual insurer. Unless the website requires information about conditions (which it shouldn't now since all pre-existing conditions will be covered), then the government can probably screw you on privacy and still be legal.

Re:let me translate that (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | 1 year,15 days | (#45132451)

Actually, I read:

"no reasonable expectation of privacy"

. . . as . . .

"no reasonable expectation of healthcare"

It's commented out (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | 1 year,15 days | (#45131995)

It's commented out, so users aren't agreeing to it. No court in the land would argue that users were in actuality agreeing to the HTML source of a click-through EULA. This is hyperbolic bullshit.

Bzzt. Wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45132003)

I think a court of law would absolutely conclude there was a reasonable expectation of security and privacy for a government-mandated-no-other-choice-but-to-do-this system. If I see these terms on $emailProvider, I can go elsewhere or be careful what I post. Since no such flexibility exists here the same principle cannot possibly be implied.

Nothing is "free" (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45132025)

Good luck with the free healthcare. Nothing is free. Somebody has to pay for it. Now I'm not opposed to giving healthcare to those that can't pay for it. Actually our current system DOES do that. But after Obamacare, those people thinking they will get a freebie, will in fact just get a bill from the IRS. The ones on Medicaid will continue to get their "freebie" (until the entire country goes bankrupt), but the ones that are JUST well enough off to not be eligible for Medicaid will be the ones hurt most. They will be forced to pay for insurance, or get a hefty fine. Those are the people least able to afford it.

Ignore the whole damn thing (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | 1 year,15 days | (#45132049)

It's cheaper, and you're better off just paying the fine, and wait until we get medicare for all.

Re:Ignore the whole damn thing (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | 1 year,15 days | (#45132257)

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/ [forbes.com]

Re:Ignore the whole damn thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45132409)

Unfortunately, medicare-for-all won't happen. Now that the gov has essentially legislated profits for insurance corporations, no matter what we come up with, they'll be in the loop... and it would be political suicide to cut that.

I'm optimistic that at some point (perhaps a decade from now) someone with balls will legislate gov backed "us health insurance"; that say the IRS will collect fees on (so instead of a penalty, you get default coverage). Gov can legislate that anyone who wants to do business with the government on any level has to accept "us health insurance"; that will guarantee near universal acceptance even at private practices. At that point, simply doing "nothing" (no signing up, etc.,) guarantees you can go see a doc. At that point, insurance corps will die off simply 'cause younger generation won't bother signing up.

But I doubt it will happen as a "oh, we've tried the privatization route, that didn't work, so lets try the single payer model"... Democrats caved on that too quickly... now it's kinda late for that.

plausible deniability for developers (2)

xombo (628858) | 1 year,15 days | (#45132119)

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.

Same is true for Big Business based Heath Care (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45132141)

I have no expectation of privacy when I use Highmark Blue shield which has teamed up with WebMD. This story makes it seem like the government is the sole threat here. Put it into context: Governement AND big business want to be able to freely share your data. Period.

designed to obfuscate actual prices of plans (5, Interesting)

bigpat (158134) | 1 year,15 days | (#45132189)

Interesting Forbes article [forbes.com] 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 [forbes.com] .

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.

How the fuck... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45132211)

does a wealthy, developed nation have so much trouble implementing decent public health care? Most others can do this at 1/2 or even 1/3 of the cost. You don't need to mortgage your home to pay for an extended stay in hospital, or to pay for the medications. If a vast, standing army doesn't sound the alarms of 'socialism', I don't see why this issue generates such heat. You know the founders didn't know anything much beyond amputation and leeching, right?

Re:How the fuck... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45132489)

Yes, we just need to get those heart surgeons salary limited to $100k per year.
I mean, that is enough for anyone, right?
Is there a reason you don't go elsewhere for your health care?
What do you do for a living, and shouldn't we have the govt "help" your industry out?

Are we being silly now (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45132253)

This is for your health isn't it? You are supposed to reveal things such as general health info and methods of payment. Any relevant information towards preserving it must be indicated. Or am I the naive one?

Post it enough and it must be true (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#45132289)

This is obviously made up. Anyone can edit the source of a page and take a little thumbnail size screenshot of it. For example: http://i.imgur.com/unbFTZS.png

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?