December 8, 2013

The government can "imagine some people may be upset" but also that some "will be comforted and relieved at getting the help they need to navigate a confusing process."

The quotes are from Peter Lee, the executive director of California health exchange, about sending private insurance companies the contact information for individuals who started an application on  the website but did not complete the process.  They also did not agree to be contacted by insurance agents. This release of information was no accident, but a new program designed to get people signed up.

Some are upset by invasions of privacy, but others are comforted.

27 comments:

Bob Boyd said...

Didn't we recently outlaw telemarketing because people hate it when companies contact them at home without permission and try to close them?
Now we're going to have the telemarketers saying, 'you have to do this, its the law.'
Brilliant.

Reminds me of an Al Capone quote. "You can get more with a kind word and a gun than with a kind word alone."

ddh said...

Most Californians, I suspect, will welcome the help. Even more, if the insurance companies leave long voicemails several times a day. "Such a comfort," they will think.

Kirk Parker said...

And where did this confusing-to-navigate process come from in the first place?

PB Reader said...

Yes, be comforted, because big brother is watching out for you. Always watching.

great Unknown said...

I am impressed by the fact that nobody is questioning the legality of this privacy violation. Apparently, people have come to accept the concept of lawless government.

Hagar said...

Can he be sued in Federal court?

SGT Ted said...

Progressives are always comfortable about violating the rights of others.

Privacy laws are for the little people to follow. Not for Government to follow.

Illuninati said...

"Some are upset by invasions of privacy, but others are comforted."

Of course, they should be comforted. It shows that the government is doing its job.

The purpose of the HIPPA rules is to criminalize the traditional flow of medical information and to protect the citizen from the prying eyes of people close to him who traditionally cared for him and supported him. HIPPA rules are necessary since medical information can be embarrassing. Obviously these rules of privacy should not apply to strangers in the government since to a bureaucrat you are just a cypher. Why should a cypher be embarrassed?

Government bureaucrats need unlimited access to the citizen's private information in order to replace the traditional family support network. Indeed, the citizen should be comforted to know that his new support network is working well and that his new keepers know everything about him and are able to share his information with anyone they deem appropriate. They need unlimited access to his information to effectively control and protect him.

Of course, lefties are still entitled to absolute right to privacy since they are the ones who have the responsibility to shape and control everyone else and to make sure everyone else is equal. It would be impossible for them to do their job if their own information were available to other people in government since they might use the information against their fellow government masterminds.

If anyone thinks this sounds idiotic, I invite them to look at North Korea where they lefty dream has reached its maximum potential. Who is in control? Kim Jong-un. Who has the right to know everything about everyone else? Kim Jong-un. Who has the right to absolute privacy himself? Kim Jong-un. Who do the lefties all secretly wish to emulate except that they want to be more effective at it? Kim Jong-un.

Mary Beth said...

"But I can see a lot of people will be comforted and relieved at getting the help they need to navigate a confusing process."

Maybe they should have made it less confusing.

Since you have to create an account and log in before you can see what's available, isn't it likely that many of the people (like the man in the article) decided they could do better on their own? Why assume they need help? Does California think its residents are stupid? Does the site give consumers an option of having someone contact them? If not, it should. If so, then they should leave the others alone.

Oso Negro said...

I suppose in the future, they can send over a social worker or therapist if people's browsing patterns suggest that they may be depressed. I shudder to think what will be done "for the children."

MaxedOutMama said...

I'd be pretty angry if the government started sending my private info it gleaned from a government system to private companies so they could sell me products. No, let me correct that to "VERY ANGRY".

When word spreads about this, it will surely make people less likely to use the CA exchange, because they will correctly reason that their privacy is of no concern to the government.

MaxedOutMama said...

An addendum: I am also awed in a depressive sort of way by the logic behind the decision to do this - they appear to be assuming that if consumers did not buy a policy, it was due merely to confusion. The reverse is probably true - these were probably people who had other options and were checking them out, and then decided for the other options.

Not only is it a real privacy breach, it's an insulting privacy breach. Essentially the determination here was that the consumer was too stupid to use the website to sign up.

Tom said...

Everything thing is property of the collective. The collective is the government. Thus, everything is property of the government. This includes our rights. This is the a ultimate sin of the left. I'm not religionous but I believe the very act of our own creation endows us with rights. These rights provide us with a basic, unconditional respect that we share with each other. The left denies these unconditional right (and so does the authoritarian right). And this sin replaces our creator (whatever the metaphysical cause) with the state. The Old Testimate God and even Nature are cruel. But neither are as cruel as the government.

Beldar said...

Stalin and Mao had their fans, too, for essentially the same reasons.

DKWalser said...

Of course, if I endeavored to help my clients by sending their confidential information to a bank (so my clients could get a better rate on their mortgages), I'd end up in jail. It's good to be king.

khesanh0802 said...

Wow! People are anxious enough about the security of their data within the system. Now this.

As DKWalser notes this probably violates every privacy policy in effect and would end in jail time in the private sector. It is hard for me to believe that there is not a violation of CA privacy statutes here. Someone, or class, will sue.

CWJ said...

HIPAA is for the little people. It protects us right up to the point it becomes politically inconvenient for those in power. However, those in power will enforce it literally and mindlessly on those who are not in power. Therefore be thankful, HIPAA is truely for the little people.

I trust you are no longer confused and are now comforted.

elkh1 said...

The little people are comfortable sending their information to private insurance companies on their own initiatives, they don't need Peter Lee to do that for them and be comforted.

Proof that the real reason for Obamacare is to keep control of the little people.

elkh1 said...

Thanks to our all knowing Dear Leader, may gods be with him. He mandates Obamacare on us before we even know we need help. He knows where we live, what ails us, and will regularly send us reminders of what he knows. He will send our info to his loyal followers to help us to vote the correct way.

Fred Drinkwater said...

Illuminati,
Right up to the last paragraph, I was thinking "Hey, it's Blighter, or even better, a NEW Blighter."
But you are never going to get the gullible to take the bait, if you flash a view of the hook. You gotta TRUST your skills, man.

Illuninati said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Illuninati said...

Blogger Fred Drinkwater said...
"Illuminati, Right up to the last paragraph, I was thinking "Hey, it's Blighter, or even better, a NEW Blighter."

Blighter is a new word for me. Thank-you for expanding my vocabulary.

n.n said...

So, there is no choice, and there is no privacy. It's telling when and why their positions are reversed. People ignore the principles of evolution (i.e. process) at their own peril.

A minority are comforted that they will never be required to spread their wings and leave the nest. At least not until an invasive species displaces them from their comfortable perch, or the resources of an older generation are completely recycled with nothing remaining.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Illuninati, Blighter isn't a word. Well, OK, it is that, but Fred Drinkwater is talking about a prize satirist (nom de plume "blighter") who frequents (though not nearly frequently enough for me) Megan McArdle's blog at Bloomberg. S/he does Lefty argument well enough that there are invariably a few people per comment who take it for the real thing, and laboriously reply to each point.

Fred Drinkwater said...

Michelle, quite correct. (Does blighter use the lowercase "b"? I can't remember.) Actually, it's my fault for forgetting that blighter [in]frequents McMegan's site and not this one. Too bad, actually.
Illuminati, how about picking up the slack? Clearly, you've got the raw talent, and there's a crying need.

gregq said...

So, can the people whose privacy was violated sue?

PD Quig said...

I want Peter Lee's phone number, email address, and home address. You never know when I'm going to want to 1) call him at bed time 2) email him repeatedly, or 3) show up at his house with a bus load of protesters.

Peter Lee is another life-long public trough inhabitant with all the signature characteristics.