House of Eratosthenes

Representative Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ) dismissed Thursday’s first congressional hearing on the glitch-laden launch of the Obamacare website as having “no legitimacy.”
:

“No, I will not yield to this monkey court or whatever this thing is….There is no health information in the process. You’re asked about your address, your date of birth. You are not asked health information. So why are we going down this path? Because you are trying to scare people so they don’t apply, and so therefore the legislation gets delayed, or the Affordable Care Act gets defunded, or it’s repealed. That’s all it is, hoping people won’t apply.”

This is just the most eminent example lately of loud, loud lefties — on the talk-show circuit, in Congress, on the innerwebz — trying to somehow fasten the health care website debacle to their opposition. The rationale for political gain is just obvious, but it seems to me there is something more going on here, something operating on the psychological level.

It is worth studying here precisely because it makes so little sense. If someone truly wants Americans without access to health care to get that access, why would such a person object to “going down this path”? The web site doesn’t work. First step to getting that access, as I understand it, is to create an account on the web site and there have been so many people who tried to do that, and can’t.

As far as the legislation getting delayed or de-funded or repealed, you know, Que Sera Sera. Lots of people in this country want lots of things, and some of those things involve conflict with people who want something else. That’s one of the reasons we have a Congress. For now, as we are repeatedly told, ObamaCare is “the law of the land”; and it could very well be that people will change their mind about that if something doesn’t start going right. Can’t blame people for noticing that nothing is, nor can you blame their representatives in Washington for, you know, representing them and their feelings of betrayal, sticker-shock, disgust. Well I suppose you can, if it’s your job to, and Pallone is a democrat. But “That’s all it is” is far-fetched, running treacherously close to dropping the mask. When things go wrong, shouldn’t someone notice?

Watching democrat politicians is fascinating, in this way. By the time they’re sworn in, they have a job to do, and a lot of that job is connected with unreality since it has to do with making bad ideas look good. Hasn’t this just been proven now? So that’s at one end of a spectrum; at the other end is the guy who’s just slowly starting to become a left-winger, and up until now hasn’t given a rip about left-or-right. Obviously, that’s not a job. That’s just an internal struggle with the wrong energies prevailing. Jealousy, inattention to details, neglect of cause-and-effect, lust for quick fixes, obsequiousness. It seems to start, generally, with a feeling of revulsion against what is perceived to be an unfair “distribution of wealth.” There are many mistakes in just this first step, most prominent of which is fabricating the event by which these assets were somehow “distributed.” Much further down the line in this menagerie of grave mistakes, where all the tragedy really starts, is this thought: I’m supporting this plan that is intended to help people, and this must therefore mean that anybody who opposes me must want to hurt those same people.

It is as wrong-headed as it is commonplace. And for those who do not know, oh my goodness, it is commonplace. It’s hard to put it into words.

I daresay there is no class of thinking being on the globe that has less of a grasp of something, than strident modern American liberals grasping the motives of their opposition. It is truly a whole new threshold of ignorance. Someone should circulate a questionnaire sometime just for laughs. “Conservatives want more little kids to get gunned down at schools.” “They want more poison in the drinking water.” “They don’t want to pay their fair share.”

The biggest lie in the world about liberals is that they want to think globally and act locally. If they thought globally, the health care website would work as well as Amazon.com, and would’ve cost about as much to get online. That’s not how they think at all. They want to win arguments. That’s it. They want to be on the winning side, they want to prevail, and they want to be right. All-the-way-right. It’s a very rare thing to hear of a liberal say something like, “We were mostly right, but this one thing we did over here, we probably should’ve done it some other way.” Very rare. It does happen, but not often. Far, far less often you’ll hear a liberal say: “That thing we did there was not right, we shouldn’t have tried it.” Oh, when “we” in context means “United States of America,” that comes pretty easy. But try to find just one who will acknowledge the innate flaws in an idea that has already been accepted into the lefty catechism.

Congressman Pallone did such a great job showing their internal defenses against acknowledging strategic and tactical flaws within any such idea. Everything that goes wrong, is due in some way to the evil machinations of their opposition. Every, little, thing. Again, I say: It’s worth studying in the here-and-now because, with the Affordable Care Act, it makes so little sense. As I pointed out, and has been mentioned many times before, Republican hands are (mostly) clean on this thing. Nobody but democrats, and a couple independents who caucus with them, supported it or voted for it. They rammed it through. Now the website doesn’t work and it’s because of Republicans? How’s that?

So strange. It’s as if they think, there’s no reason for difficulty in any human endeavor anywhere, except for…conflict. If you run across a bump in the road, someone must have put it there. Couldn’t possibly be because you’re trying to do something that demands expertise above & beyond what you’re already bringing.

See, this is why I think of liberalism as anti-learning. It’s not just a case of “they don’t agree with me politically, so that makes them dumb, dumb, dumb.” I personally know of a few libs who are pretty smart. They just don’t bring the smarts to some things. And of course, before you can bring smarts, you’ve got to have them, which means at some point you need to acquire them. How’s that old saying go? Good judgment is the product of experience, and experience is the product of bad judgment. There’s a lot of truth in that. Also, the very first three words to any learning process are: “I don’t know.” You have to admit you don’t know something in order to learn it.

This all requires internalizing, something liberals evidently don’t do. And I find this remarkable, because their efforts according to their own perceptions seem to be along the lines of: Expanding the capacity and sophistication, if not the role, of government to service more and more needs.

Much the way you’d come back to a computer application that is already working fine on its selected workload, with some enhancements that entail added sophistication, maybe better memory models, so it can do something else.

And yet — before you can do that, you have to go down the learning-road. You have to say “I don’t know” a lot of the time, do some research with the designing.

You have to say: We’re still enhancing our model, still researching it, figuring out how & where exactly it may be inadequate. We’re still testing our design. We’re still finding bugs. We’re still polishing down rough edges.

Which means, you have to say: YES, these issues are internal. Nobody fucked with us or what we’re doing. We built something here, that is outdated now, or else never was right in the first place, and since we’re imperfect we’d probably do it again. We’re improving incrementally and that means we make mistakes. It’s more of a journey than a destination.

That’s supposed to be their credo, as I understand it. They don’t live up to it. When they puke in their own boot, it’s always the other guy who made them.

A fascinating sociological experiment would be to tape fifteen year olds arguing with their parents, then substituting stuff like “social justice” for “borrow the car” and “universal health care” for “the prom queen.” Would anybody reading the transcripts be able to tell the difference between this and a typical lefty politician?

This sort of thing is what I was trying to get at with the clunky neologism para-thought. It’s like they’ve got all these criticism-deflection subroutines programmed in; the only “thought” involves picking which one most closely matches the context of the criticism.

If there were ever any higher-level cognition involved, they’d realize why we always snicker at “blame Bush.” Ah yes, Chimpy McHitlerBurton, he of the concussed-trout IQ, who nevertheless ran circles around y’all deep thinkers for eight years straight. He was wrong and evil about everything, so that’s why we’re going to continue all of his policies and even expand them. Oh, and did you know the Heritage Foundation once proposed a market-oriented healthcare reform option that kinda looks like Obamacare exchanges? So it’s really a conservative idea after all!

Et cetera ad nauseam.
- Severian | 10/25/2013 @ 06:28
mkfreeberg: It is worth studying here precisely because it makes so little sense. If someone truly wants Americans without access to health care to get that access, why would such a person object to “going down this path”?

Because the “path” is based on a falsehood.

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex) was suggesting, based on a something that is marked as a comment in the source code, that Healthcare.gov is not HIPAA compliant. As it is a source code comment, it is not part of the working website; consequently, it’s irrelevant. Furthermore, as Healthcare.gov doesn’t collect healthcare data—remember, one of the main facets of PPACA is that it covers preexisting conditions—, Healthcare.gov is not under HIPAA.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/10/24/obamacare_website_hearing_frank_pallone_calls_it_a_monkey_court.html
- Zachriel | 10/25/2013 @ 07:04
Severian: Bush was wrong and evil about everything, so that’s why we’re going to continue all of his policies and even expand them.

Hardly. Bush made some good decisions, and certainly did what he thought was in the best interests of the United States, despite that many of his policies led to disaster.

Severian: Bush Oh, and did you know the Heritage Foundation once proposed a market-oriented healthcare reform option that kinda looks like Obamacare exchanges?

Well, that part is accurate.
- Zachriel | 10/25/2013 @ 07:17
Hey, it’s the Cut-n-Paste kids! I wondered where y’all had gotten off to. Is it class reunion time at Chesty LaRue’s Erotic Massage Academy already?
- Severian | 10/25/2013 @ 07:30
Source code comments are irrelevant if you are a compiler/interpreter. They’re meant to be human-readable; as in, readable to humans, who are not compilers.

They’re not irrelevant. But here we may have a clue as to what went wrong with the website, as certain persons among us are VERY quick to declare things irrelevant. Way too free-n-easy with that word.
- mkfreeberg | 10/25/2013 @ 07:35
mkfreeberg: Source code comments are irrelevant if you are a compiler/interpreter. They’re meant to be human-readable; as in, readable to humans, who are not compilers.

They are not part of the end-user agreement, so they have no legal relevance to HIPAA. In any case, there is no health data being collected, so Healthcare.gov is not covered by HIPAA. The “path” is based on a falsehood.
- Zachriel | 10/25/2013 @ 09:13
No it isn’t, because Congressman Barton was pointing out that the betrayal of sensitive information was “a direct contradiction of HIPAA,” not a violation. See, I can parse things finely too…except this is more of a good-faith parsing, the difference identified actually matters. Rep. Barton was not pointing out that the arrangement was illegal. He was pointing out that, with HIPAA in effect, a lot of people would reasonably assume that their medical records are being protected by certain safeguards. And he was getting aggravated, clearly, that Ms. Campbell was punting on it.

The discrepancy you’re choosing to ignore here is between following the letter of something and following the spirit.

I think we can agree that most people signing on at the website, if they do have concerns here, those concerns are much more likely to be about “I hope my information isn’t compromised” than “I hope this website is fully compliant with all applicable regulations.” So it’s really the people attacking Barton who are perpetuating falsehood.
- mkfreeberg | 10/25/2013 @ 11:42
mkfreeberg: No it isn’t, because Congressman Barton was pointing out that the betrayal of sensitive information was “a direct contradiction of HIPAA,” not a violation.

Except that no health information is provided to Healthcare.gov.

mkfreeberg: He was pointing out that, with HIPAA in effect, a lot of people would reasonably assume that their medical records are being protected by certain safeguards.

As there is no disclosure of medical records to Healthcare.gov, that’s not an issue.

mkfreeberg: The discrepancy you’re choosing to ignore here is between following the letter of something and following the spirit.

As a member of Congress, we would reasonably assume that if he didn’t mean HIPAA, he wouldn’t have insisted on an answer about HIPAA. It’s a right wing trope. While privacy is an important issue, pointing to a source code comment has no bearing on the issue.
- Zachriel | 10/25/2013 @ 11:54
Except that no health information is provided to Healthcare.gov.

Good dodge! Not good enough though, I’m afraid.

Some of us have actually worked with the HIPAA regs since they first started to be implemented, enforced, and before. Y’all must not be aware, it was a big, huge, high-profile deal. By now, it’s certainly an accurate statement to say the average consumer of medical/insurance products has some understanding of PHI and IIHI, and expects some level of protection for such information; they’re not much reassured by y’all’s brush-off of, Don’t worry HIPAA doesn’t apply.

Nor is it unreasonable to think some of these constituents would be represented directly by Congressman Barton. It bears repeating, he didn’t say the website violated HIPAA protections, he said it contradicted them — as in, is not consistent with. It’s a reasonable statement and, unfortunately, seems to be an accurate one.

There is falsehood being perpetrated here, but not from the right. It’s from the left.
- mkfreeberg | 10/25/2013 @ 14:42
mkfreeberg: Good dodge! Not good enough though, I’m afraid.

A policy number is not your “individually identifiable health information” as defined by HIPAA. Nor is Healthcare.gov a covered organization as defined by HIPAA.

mkfreeberg: It bears repeating, he didn’t say the website violated HIPAA protections, he said it contradicted them — as in, is not consistent with.

“You know it’s not HIPAA-compliant,” Barton told her. “Admit it! You’re under oath!”
- Zachriel | 10/25/2013 @ 18:09
I think most people would like their Social Security numbers protected. If you need to have it explained to y’all why that is, I’m not sure I can do it in terms you’ll understand. Baby steps.

To those who would like those protections in place, as has already been explained to you, it is highly doubtful they’d be reassured by what you’ve had to offer here: The law’s not being violated because HIPAA doesn’t apply.

Are y’all trying to say this is how a web site that asks for this kind of information, should work? Your idea of a good roll-out here? This is the way we want to see ’em go?
- mkfreeberg | 10/25/2013 @ 19:06
mkfreeberg: I think most people would like their Social Security numbers protected.

Sure. Neither the exchanges nor healthcare.gov are covered entities under the HIPAA Privacy Rule, falling instead under the federal Privacy Act and relevant state laws, among others.

Your argument fails on multiple counts, primarily because a source code comment, never seen by the user, has no legal relevance.
- Zachriel | 10/26/2013 @ 05:45
My argument fails! That’s wonderful news. Now, if someone spoofs my identity because they got my Social Security number off the website, it’s all good because healthcare.gov is not a covered entity.

So reassuring!
- mkfreeberg | 10/26/2013 @ 06:46
mkfreeberg: Now, if someone spoofs my identity because they got my Social Security number off the website, it’s all good because healthcare.gov is not a covered entity.

Your data is covered under privacy laws. Even if the website if full of holes, your argument is baseless.
- Zachriel | 10/26/2013 @ 06:56
Your data is covered under privacy laws. Even if the website if full of holes, your argument is baseless.

The distinction you’re trying to cover up here (I’ve noticed, over time, there always is one) is between prevention and cure. Also, between security and privacy. The healthcare.gov web site, among its many other flaws, is vulnerable to a variety of exploits.

So it’s a stretch to say the “argument is baseless.” And by “stretch,” I mean lie. We have, at the very least, a sound basis for a congressman to ask some probing questions in a public forum so that his constituency, and America as a whole, can be enlightened about the many glaring problems in this boondoggle.
- mkfreeberg | 10/26/2013 @ 07:03
mkfreeberg: The healthcare.gov web site, among its many other flaws, is vulnerable to a variety of exploits.

Sure, and that is a legitimate concern. Stray comments in the source code are not.

mkfreeberg: We have, at the very least, a sound basis for a congressman to ask some probing questions in a public forum so that his constituency, and America as a whole, can be enlightened about the many glaring problems in this boondoggle.

Inane claims only distract from legitimate inquiry.
- Zachriel | 10/26/2013 @ 09:38
It would be a monumental stretch to call this a “stray comment.” It is HTML code, which must have been put in there deliberately to serve some purpose, either from the past or in the future. The content of this comment makes it clear that there is some idea, either in that past or in that future, directly contradicting your hasty brush-off about privacy laws.

Without any questions being posed or any questions being answered, the common-sense speculation would have to be that this more likely concerns future implementation. After all, if the intent behind this markup code has to do with the past, as in someone found out about your “privacy laws” and word got around, we can’t say no-expectation-of-privacy because there’s privacy laws so comment that code out — why the heck not just delete it?

So a little bit of disciplined thinking, enlightens us to the reality that there’s something to be inspected here. It makes liberals mad when we do. That’s all the more reason to look into it. They’re hiding something, and now they have a history of hiding things.

So bring on those monkeys!
- mkfreeberg | 10/26/2013 @ 09:51
mkfreeberg: It would be a monumental stretch to call this a “stray comment.” It is HTML code, which must have been put in there deliberately to serve some purpose, either from the past or in the future.

It’s boilerplate that’s been commented out. Regardless, it doesn’t make the website non-compliant with HIPAA or any other law, as Barton insisted. It’s just silly nonsense.
- Zachriel | 10/26/2013 @ 10:10
Speaking of silly nonsense, I see the end of the government shutdown has restored internet access to the National Aquarium. Our tax dollars at work.

I think these statutes are quite relevant. Rep. Barton would no doubt agree.
- Severian | 10/26/2013 @ 12:06

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Failure to InternalizeFriday, October 25th, 2013

Failure to Internalize
Friday, October 25th, 2013