‘navigators’ will have access to Americans’ personal, medical, tax information

[boomerang]

Planned Parenthood ‘navigators’ will have access to Americans’ personal, medical, tax information

What's the problem you ask? We all know about all the wonderful health care services PP provides for women across the nation. Well there is this one issue...

I imagine this goes hand in hand with the push to not be able to consider the background of potential employees. People convicted of pedophilia that served their time cannot be discriminated against for employment purposes if you own a day care. What could go wrong?

So, people who have sketchy or criminal pasts that work for PP may now have access to every bit of information one would attempt to keep from, oh, let's say an identity thief. What could go wrong?

Remember that your Congress critter didn't want to be in this program? Remember that their staff won't be in it? Remember all the exclusions granted? None of them will have to be concerned with this. You? Not so much.

The attorney general of my state is fighting back. How about yours?

I'd hate to be a Democrat running for office in 2014 and 2016.

Bolding is mine.

WASHINGTON, D.C., August 21, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Planned Parenthood employees will soon have access to a vast federal database of sensitive information, including the Social Security number, tax form, bank account, and medical records of every single American citizen as the president seeks their help in implementing ObamaCare.

Consumers purchasing health insurance through health care exchanges will speak to “navigators,” whose job is to help them find the best coverage and determine if they are eligible for a federal subsidy.

The Obama administration has awarded Planned Parenthood more than $655,000 of taxpayer funds to hire “navigators” for the president's health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act (ACA). State affiliates in Iowa, Montana and New Hampshire were among the 105 organizations receiving $67 million in federal grants.

HHS will not require background checks or fingerprinting of employees, and a previous criminal conviction – including one for identity theft – does not necessarily disqualify an employee from becoming a navigator.

Navigators and their assistants will have access to the federal data hub, an online nexus containing information from the Department of Health and Human Services and seven federal departments: the IRS, the Social Security Administration, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Defense Department, the Office of Personnel Management, the Veterans Health Administration, and the Peace Corps.

ObamaCare: When Socialist Theory Meets Practice

 

[Jhhnn]

Sourced from the American Stinker?

Color me skeptical.

 

[sactoking]

Navigators will not have access to medical information/history. Why would they when medical underwriting is forbidden?

 

[DominionSeraph]

boomerang, WTF are you even doing? Let's take a look at this "LifeSiteNews" main page:

"Marxist"
"homosexualism"
"same-sex"
"religious liberty"
"porn"
"drag queen"
"abortion"
"Planned Parenthood"
"Christian"
"gay 'commitment ceremony'"
"abortion"
"abortionist"
"pro-life"
"abortion"
"sex"
"pro-abortion"

You know this is the forum of a tech website, right? Exactly how much credit do you think is going to be given to the desperate propaganda of small-minded religious nuts?
Do you think you're "witnessing to the unbelievers" here? I doubt you're going to find anyone willing to convert to Christianity here.

 

[Brainonska511]

Out of all the real and potential problems with the ACA, you choose to tilt at windmills instead?

 

[boomerang]

OK, let's see what we have so far.

A prog that doesn't like the website. Although he's got the wrong website. He only looked at the source link for the article in the main post. In other words, read nothing but still had a comment.

An educated individual with a long running thread answering questions related to Obamacare that singled out one item out of many. What was expressed may be true but I see nothing other than opinion to back up an assertion. Also, based on the exponential amount of lies that come out of this administration I trust nothing they say. Few if any understand the bill they passed in the dead of night. Also, what use are navigators to help with the decision making process if they know nothing of the history of the individual they are helping? Makes little sense. But, it is our government that will be running the program. No need for anything that resembles common sense.

And then pony girl. My favorite response so far. Nothing in regards to the information presented. She thinks I'm a religious zealot out to convert the masses. Got news for you girlie. I'm an atheist with no use whatsoever for organized religion. Unlike yourself though, I am capable of respecting the beliefs of others. Your post is a waste in every respect. Not worth the time it took to type or read. No surprise.

And for anyone still reading, the post is about people that have proven themselves that they cannot be trusted having access to personal information that could be used for nefarious purposes by themselves or the highest bidder.

I don't want my SS number, name, address, income, bank account balance and the like being shared with someone that did time for identity theft to cite the example used in the article. This is the issue. Make a case for why navigators won't have access to personal information as cited in the article.

You're in the lead sactoking and by a wide margin. If you don't want to reiterate in this thread, point to specific posts in your long running thread.

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't want my SS number, name, address, income, bank account balance and the like being shared with someone that did time for identity theft to cite the example used in the article.

Yes, I'm sure that the parties contracted by the govt normally hire that sort of people all the time.

If you think that Lifesitenews is any more credible than the stinker, whom you linked, you're delusional.

 

[Angry Irishman]

Yes, I'm sure that the parties contracted by the govt normally hire that sort of people all the time.

If you think that Lifesitenews is any more credible than the stinker, whom you linked, you're delusional.

It's about as accurate as Fox, CNN, MSNBC....the list goes on.

 

[Doppel]

Need a real news source.

 

[PokerGuy]

Yes, I'm sure that the parties contracted by the govt normally hire that sort of people all the time.

Without criminal background checks (which are, after all, discriminatory according to dear leader), how exactly would they know if they're hiring people with a criminal past, like identity thieves?

 

[boomerang]

Here ya go my leftie friends. The "holy grail" of news sources, non other than NPR.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/201...urance-navigators-as-obamacare-deadline-nears

As part of the enrollment process, navigators will look at tax records, take Social Security numbers and have access to sensitive health information. Sebelius says her agency has done similar work for many years with Medicare and Medicaid recipients and that the rules in place safeguard privacy.

That's one part of the equation. It seems that there is no knowledge of EEOC guidelines that essentially prohibit not hiring former criminals based on their criminal past. Jhhnn thinks PP would not hire people like this. PP has no real choice in the matter if they wish to abide by the law. If you take into account where their funding comes from, they're going to pretty much be on the front lines of this initiative by the EEOC.

Google "EEOC and criminal convictions", there is a ton of information.

Here is one link from that search.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanad...und-checks-on-job-candidates-be-very-careful/

Here are the EEOC guidelines.

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/arrest_conviction.cfm#I

Here's a thread I started on it in February of this year.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2303921&highlight=criminal

So, the article I linked to in my OP that is in question, ties this information together. I should not have assumed that others would be as well versed in this information as I am. Please don't insult anyone's intelligence here by saying that Sebelius' statement about safeguarding privacy is anything other than doublespeak. It's the kind of shit political operatives say - because they're paid to say it.

 

[ivwshane]

Here ya go my leftie friends. The "holy grail" of news sources, non other than NPR.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/201...urance-navigators-as-obamacare-deadline-nears



That's one part of the equation. It seems that there is no knowledge of EEOC guidelines that essentially prohibit not hiring former criminals based on their criminal past. Jhhnn thinks PP would not hire people like this. PP has no real choice in the matter if they wish to abide by the law. If you take into account where their funding comes from, they're going to pretty much be on the front lines of this initiative by the EEOC.

Google "EEOC and criminal convictions", there is a ton of information.

Here is one link from that search.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanad...und-checks-on-job-candidates-be-very-careful/

Here are the EEOC guidelines.

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/arrest_conviction.cfm#I

Here's a thread I started on it in February of this year.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2303921&highlight=criminal

So, the article I linked to in my OP that is in question, ties this information together. I should not have assumed that others would be as well versed in this information as I am. Please don't insult anyone's intelligence here by saying that Sebelius' statement about safeguarding privacy is anything other than doublespeak. It's the kind of shit political operatives say - because they're paid to say it.

Holy fuck are you retarded!

Did you even read the guidelines before you posted your crap? For one there isnt a prohibition of not hiring people because of their criminal record and there certainly isn't any prohibition of using criminal records when the crimes can be related to the job function.

If you had bothered to read the EEOC guidelines yourself you would understand that they are prohibiting using criminal records in a discriminatory manner.

For example;
Al, a white male and Ted, a black male, apply for the same job. Al has an arrest record for disorderly conduct and assault of a police officer, Ted, also has an arrest record but only for disorderly conduct. The company hires Al and sends Ted a rejection letter sighting his arrest record as the reason for the rejection.
Both candidates were equally qualified but Ted had a lessor arrest record therefore a case of descrimination based on race could be made.

Does it feel good to know you are spoon fed garbage?

 

[boomerang]

<insult, ranting, etc.> QUOTE]
No surprise to me but you don't understand what the thread is about.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

ivwshane runs a close second to phokus for the epitome of angry young demoncrat/progressive position in the forum.

 

[Brian Stirling]

boomerang, I'll be blunt with you -- you're an idiot, please go away or at the least, keep your rantings to yourself!

I work with a guy just like you, same right-wing nuttery, following the same right-wing news sources, and blathering that right-wing nonsense as if it were true.

Please, go away...


Brian

 

[First]

So in other words, the same access to PHI as Medicare/Medicaid, decades-old programs.

Yawn.

 

[ivwshane]

<insult, ranting, etc.> QUOTE]
No surprise to me but you don't understand what the thread is about.

Oh I know what this thread is about as its the same exact thing all your threads area about; lies and half truths mixed with baseless accusations.

The accusation here is that people who probably shouldn't have access to people's personal information will now be allowed to access it because "obama" said we can't descriminate based on criminal records.

Of course, as I explained previously, that is simply not true. The basis for the EEOC update was to add criminal record type things as an addition to be sure people aren't being descriminated against, and as a form of descrimination in of itself.

I can see why you righty mouth breathers hate using facts, because when you do use them they bite you in the ass.

But feel free to ignore this post as well because I doubt your dumbass can even comprehend what I wrote anyway.

 

[ivwshane]

ivwshane runs a close second to phokus for the epitome of angry young demoncrat/progressive position in the forum.

I don't align myself with any ideology so...

 

[werepossum]

I don't align myself with any ideology so...

LMAO!

Good one!

 

[boomerang]

boomerang, I'll be blunt with you -- you're an idiot, please go away or at the least, keep your rantings to yourself!

I work with a guy just like you, same right-wing nuttery, following the same right-wing news sources, and blathering that right-wing nonsense as if it were true.

Please, go away...


Brian

Not a chance. But you can ignore my posts through different means. Through a method built into the forum software, just not read them or stay away from my threads. You can also put your hands over your eyes and not read anything that doesn't dovetail into what you were taught.

But I'm going to guess that you fall into that control freak obsessive camp that wants everybody to be good little cookie cutter progressives.

You want me to go, but I want you to stay. I respect your right to say what you want and think what you want. I'll even read yours.

Just think, your work is a living hell. Now, this place will be too. Doesn't bode well. But instead of trying to alter the behavior of others, why not try something new and alter your own? It would mean taking some responsibility for your own actions and the worst part is that there will be no plastic trophy. You'll be a winner, but only you will know. I'm rooting for you!

 

[ivwshane]

LMAO!

Good one!

Did I bust the bubble you live in? Probably, that's why you don't believe it.

 

[boomerang]

Oh I know what this thread is about as its the same exact thing all your threads area about; lies and half truths mixed with baseless accusations.

The accusation here is that people who probably shouldn't have access to people's personal information will now be allowed to access it because "obama" said we can't descriminate based on criminal records.

Of course, as I explained previously, that is simply not true. The basis for the EEOC update was to add criminal record type things as an addition to be sure people aren't being descriminated against, and as a form of descrimination in of itself.

I can see why you righty mouth breathers hate using facts, because when you do use them they bite you in the ass.

But feel free to ignore this post as well because I doubt your dumbass can even comprehend what I wrote anyway.

I love you too just as I do all of God's creatures.

If you're interested, click the link to my February post to get an idea of my position on the EEOC as it relates to this. That way I won't have to go through it all again. Now, I know it's really tough on you, but we're allowed to have different opinions here in the U.S. I understand it's not what you were taught and that it's hard to come to grips with. But you'll be happier overall when you come to understand that. No better time to start than now. I'm your biggest fan!

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I don't align myself with any ideology so...

If you say so

 

[Brian Stirling]

Not a chance. But you can ignore my posts through different means. Through a method built into the forum software, just not read them or stay away from my threads. You can also put your hands over your eyes and not read anything that doesn't dovetail into what you were taught.

But I'm going to guess that you fall into that control freak obsessive camp that wants everybody to be good little cookie cutter progressives.

You want me to go, but I want you to stay. I respect your right to say what you want and think what you want. I'll even read yours.

Just think, your work is a living hell. Now, this place will be too. Doesn't bode well. But instead of trying to alter the behavior of others, why not try something new and alter your own? It would mean taking some responsibility for your own actions and the worst part is that there will be no plastic trophy. You'll be a winner, but only you will know. I'm rooting for you!

Actually I'm an independant and have been so since Bill Clinton ran for president. I was a Democrat back then but he changed that. How, did he change that?

Well, anyone with even a single functioning brain cell knew that the open door policies that brought about NAFTA and the WTO would result in the outsourcing of millions of good jobs to places where wages were a fraction of US levels. The proponents of it, including Clinton, swore that it would result in more jobs and that anyone that loses a job will get a better one. How did that work out?

Anyway, I have no time for the Dems or the Repubs -- they both work for an overlapping group of people whose power isn't elected or checked.

In the 80's, as the Dems were in the wilderness during the Reagan era, then governor Clinton was one of a number of Dems that looked into why they were being marginalized and they realized the major factor was money. At the time Repubs running for national office could expect to have 2X-10X as much money for elections as the Dems. So, what Clinton realized is that they, the Dems, needed to make friends with the folks that could bankroll elections and set about adjusting their policies to accomplish that.

Clintons plan worked and he, and other since him, were invited to the money trough but there were conditions with that invitation. Clinton and now Obama have stacked their administrations with the same Wall Street crowd that has long handed out large checks, with strings of course, to the Repubs.

You and I are not invited to this game -- sadly, you buy the rights BS stories hook line and sinker.


Brian

 

[Jhhnn]

Without criminal background checks (which are, after all, discriminatory according to dear leader), how exactly would they know if they're hiring people with a criminal past, like identity thieves?

Unsupported supposition not based on fact, but rather on bullshit.