DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Health Exchange Security and Transparency Act of 2014

OK, so what is so wrong with this Bill? Democrats are going nuts, saying that their have only been something like 32 breaches of security since October, and supposedly none that they can find have breaches of private information ... so it's unnecessary.

I happen to disagree, and don't think that this is some unreasonable requirement. If there is a breach of personal information, then the government should have to let those impacted know.

Anyway, here is the Bill, and it is a really short and concise Bill. (especially for DC)

http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140106/BILLS-112hr-PIH-ExchgDataSec.pdf


A BILL
To require notification of individuals of breaches of personally
identifiable information through Exchanges under
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Health Exchange Secu5
rity and Transparency Act of 2014’’.

2
1 SEC. 2. NOTIFICATION OF INDIVIDUALS OF BREACHES OF
2 PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION
3 THROUGH PPACA EXCHANGES.
4 Not later than two business days after the discovery
5 of a breach of security of any system maintained by an
6 Exchange established under section 1311 or 1321 of the
7 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C.
8 18031, 18041) which is known to have resulted in personally
9 identifiable information of an individual being stolen
10 or unlawfully accessed, the Secretary of Health and
11 Human Services shall provide notice of such breach to
12 each such individual.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's it. That's the Bill in its entirety. Unreasonable? I don't think so. What do you think?

Sounds like a good idea.

Can you please post some examples of the democrats going nuts over this bill? Or is that just your take?

That is somewhat my take.

The White House opposes this Bill because they feel that it puts "unreasonable" demands upon the administration. The spokesman for Nancy Pelosi called it a partisan game. (and if that isn't irony, I don't know what is)

http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-ca...t-bill-20140102

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/9/wh-no-veto-threat-house-gop-obamacare-measure/

Liberals don't want it because it forces them to admit there is a problem instead of sweeping it under the rug. Since it's the Obamacare site, blame falls directly on them.

My guess is, they are against it because it forces them to admit there is a chance that your personal information could be stolen... which is kind of ridiculous because ANYTHING you put into the internet can be stolen, but they don't want to admit that specific to the ACA...

And Nancy's office is doing what every politician does, when somebody proposes something you don't like, call it partisanship, assign a name to it, then dismiss it as ridiculous...

If I understand it right, I'd vote in favor of it.. Not sure what the problem is. I'd like to hear the argument against.

"assign a name to it, then dismiss it as ridiculous... "

What name did her office put on this bill?

Tea-party and Right wingers assigned a name "ObamaCare" to ACA, that they now regret naming it after their hated commander in chief of the U.S.A.

Not disputing its effectiveness... give it a bumper sticker type name, act like it's the end of civilization as we know it, and then claim partisanship...

So was a nickname/name assigned to this proposed bill, or are you just expecting a nickname to be assigned to it, and then a dismissal as ridiculous? Are you looking into the crystal ball? Please I guess I'm confused on exacly what you are saying.

The bill makes sense to me. I'd be all for it.

I'm saying that the typical protocol in DC when something comes up like this is give it a catchy nickname, call it partisan, and then call it ridiculous and dimiss it... has this particular one gone through all of those steps? I don't know, I just learned about it this afternoon.. will it go through all of those steps? I don't know that either... Maybe it will only get steps 2 and 3..... what I do know is that those steps (or some combination thereof) are the SOP in DC.......

Quote:

---

Also if this is such the SOP in DC as you claim, please enlighten us all to the other catchy nicknames given to acts, bills, and laws called partisan and dismissed. Obamacare is the only one I recall, but I'm sure you know many more since you brought it up..

---

the Star Wars bill, the Patriot act, the DREAM act, the HIRE act, etc.

How about just applying the same HIPAA standards to the govt they force upon the private sectore. Look them up. If there is a data breach, the govt will crack down hard if you don't follow the law of notifying 3rd cousins of the person whose data was breached. But applying the same standards to themselves is burdensome, or over the top, a strain on their resources. Hmmm....