Personal Data Encryption vs Convenience

It appears Anthem Inc may have made a poor decision.

Recall that Anthem, the health insurer, got hacked a few days ago, giving up Social Security numbers and other personal data for 80 million customers to those hackers. It turns out that Anthem had deliberately chosen not to encrypt those data. At all.

Scrambling the data, which included addresses and phone numbers, could have made it less valuable to hackers or harder to access in bulk. It also would have made it harder for Anthem employees to track health care trends or share data with states and health providers[.]

Apparently, the company considered convenience more important than the sanctity of the personal data which those 80 million victims had entrusted to Anthem.

Naturally, Kristin Binns, Anthem’s Vice President of Public Relations, as cited by The Wall Street Journal, is excusing the failure:

Anthem encrypts personal data when it moves in or out of its database but not when it is stored, which is common in the industry.

Everybody does it, therefor it’s OK. No, Madam, everybody doing it just makes the failure widespread.

She added

We use other measures, including elevated user credentials, to limit access to the data when it is residing in a database[.]

Plainly inadequate measures. Your IT department could have told you that. If they did not, that omission would seem grounds for their termination. If they did, and senior Anthem management chose to ignore them, that would seem grounds for termination of senior management.

Because, Veterans

President Obama’s 2016 budget blueprint proposes rolling back a program that gives veterans the right to receive faster care outside of the long waitlists at the troubled Veterans Affairs medical system.

Obama signed the Veterans Choice Program into law in August following months of partisan wrangling on Capitol Hill….

His 2016 budget “proposal” doesn’t zero out the program; instead, it achieves elimination of the funding by allowing the VA to reallocate that part of its budget to other purposes

to support essential investments in VA system priorities in a fiscally responsible, budget-neutral manner.

Apparently, veteran choice isn’t an essential investment, or it’s not a fiscally responsible use of the money, or both.

Because veterans are another group of Americans whom Obama and his Democrat minions don’t think are capable of making their own decisions.

On the other hand, it was a Republican addition to last year’s compromise and interim bill for reforming the Veterans Administration. Maybe because, Republicans.

Another Reason

…not to do business through ObamaMart and to get rid of Obamacare and with it ObamaMart. Even the AP has the tale.

When you apply for coverage on HealthCare.gov, dozens of data companies may be able to tell that you are on the site. Some can even glean details such as your age, income, ZIP code, whether you smoke or if you are pregnant.

The data firms have embedded connections on the government site. Ever-evolving technology allows for individual Internet users to be tracked, building profiles that are a vital tool for advertisers.

Connections to multiple third-party tech firms were documented by technology experts who analyzed HealthCare.gov….

Additionally, former Chief Information Officer for President George Bush the Younger and current corporate cybersecurity consultant Theresa Payton was cited by the AP as saying

[T]he large number of outside connections on HealthCare.gov seems like “overkill” and makes it “kind of an outlier” among government websites.

It’s hard, too, to look past the idea that the ObamaMart designers from Kathleen Sebelius on down didn’t know this was a player at the time they chose not to put any security protections into the thing.

Repealing Obamacare

Republicans—leadership, rank and file—and Conservatives want to repeal Obamacare, and they’re right to do so. Obamacare has been an unvarnished disaster for our nation.

To this end, Republicans need to pass repeal legislation and put it on President Barack Obama’s desk, where he surely will veto it. That veto will work to Republicans’ benefit as it helps shape the 2016 elections, but things must not stop there.

The leadership also is playing small ball, working a piecemeal approach. This includes

  • a bill that would define a full-time worker under the health law as working 40 hours per week
  • repeal [of] the…2.3% tax on medical devices such as X-ray equipment and artificial joints
  • a bill that would allow Americans to opt out of the law’s individual requirement to buy insurance

Other pieces that need to be addressed, say I, include

  • repeal of the employer mandate to provide insurance
  • repeal of the contraceptive mandate

All of this will require the Republicans on the right side of the party—the Cruzes, Gohmerts, and so on—to exercise far more patience than has been their wont. Repeal’s veto won’t be overridden, we need a Republican President to sign a re-passed repeal. Most of the piecemeal approaches also will be vetoed, and most of those will be sustained by the Democrat minority in each House. But all of these votes, initial passage and veto override alike, should be by roll call. With all the Democrats—every single one of them—explicitly on the record as favoring the Obamacare disaster, those votes will very favorably shape the ’16 elections.

But that’s not enough. Even when successful, the result will be a return to the status quo ante-Obamacare. The then-existing health insurance and health provision industries badly need restructuring. Republicans need to have in place a plan to achieve that and a timetable for the plan’s execution.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R, WI) has been cited as saying

that Obamacare would be replaced with something that gives Americans more choices and lowers costs, improves their access to care and is “truly patient centered….”

But he says he does not have a “timeline.”

House Speaker John Boehner (R, OH) has said

Our challenge, our opportunity is to pass common-sense solutions…that repeal Obamacare and replace it with patient-centered reforms that will help our constituents have better access to high-quality health care in America….

That’s not enough: it’s time to get specific. It’s time to lay out exactly what legislation will be proposed to restructure those two industries.

There’s this critical caveat, too. Accepting arguendo Obamacare as a general solution for the restructuring, it was doomed to fail because it tried to do too much all at once. The restructuring of those two industries, even in accordance with Conservative imperatives, will see a similar doom if it attempts the restructuring all at once. These industries need to be restructured piecemeal. Pass legislation to correct (some of) the worst ills in one session, and use the year to observe how those corrections worked and where they failed. In the next year of the session, correct the corrections where necessary and pass legislation correcting the next worst ills. And so on, year by year. The industries can be favorably and successfully restructured over the course of 4-6 years (much faster than the 80 years it took to get to the point of Obamacare, but not overnight, and especially not in one fell swoop).

But that takes patience. All or nothing right damn now will only achieve nothing. With Obamacare left in place.

How’s Obamacare Working Out?

How’s Obamacare Working Out?

President Barack Obama offered this justification for the structure of his Obamacare:

My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. That’s how the market works. Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90% is controlled by just one company. And without competition, the price of insurance goes up and quality goes down.

How’s he doing by his own standard?

  • In 2015, 89% of total US counties will have five or fewer companies selling coverage in the exchanges. In 2014, 94% of counties had five or fewer insurers on the exchange.
  • In 2015, the exchange market in 57% of US counties will feature competition among three or fewer insurers. In 2014, 78% of all counties had three or fewer insurers.
  • In Texas, 62% of the state’s counties have only one or two insurers offering coverage in the exchange in 2015. There are 14 different insurers selling policies on the Texas exchange, but no Texas county has more than nine carriers offering coverage.
  • West Virginia still has only one insurer offering coverage on the exchange in 2015. Thus, any state resident purchasing coverage on the ACA’s exchange has no choice of insurer.

A tiny bit of improvement over last year, except in West Virginia, where 100% is controlled by just one company.

But.

By another measure, this one the GAO’s, as reported at the link above,

…in 2013 the individual insurance market encompassed 1,232 insurance carriers selling full health coverage. Obamacare exchanges support just 310 insurance companies as of 2015.

Lastly, this is the trend according to the GAO since Obamacare became law; some of the data predate ObamaMart’s activation:InsurerShare

Hmm….