They absolutely should be going through that process. Why aren’t they?
Then there’s the security of the data hub.
Democrats acknowledge the problem, but say, “We want solutions, not roadblocks!” Oh, okay, so if there’s no solution by Oct. 1, just open the exchanges anyway? Brilliant.
No, and that is because as usual you do not include all the ones that have no doctor. The big lie is for Republican leaders to tell all Americans that they are not fighting for the current “feudal” lords and to continue to seed FUD.
…and that process is? This is GD, so it’s reasonable to expect that you have a *credible * cite of the process that every single government worker with potential access to SSN and other biographical information goes through? Notwithstanding the marketing piece you linked to, I assume this is broken down by requirements and procedures for state and federal workers. And the cite shoudl be clear that it’s not just some workers with access to sensitive information, but that all do, and Obamacare is the anomaly.
Or is it possible that wide swathes of government workers with similar levels of access don’t go through extensive background checks and this is just another piece of shitty, bullshit hand-wringing put out by the Republican Marketing Machine?
If it’s not normal for government workers handling confidential information to go through background checks(and I concede it’s possible), then that would mean the government is far less trustworthy than private corporations, almost all of whom do background checks even if you aren’t handling personal information of customers.
It’s good to know that my employer cares more about confidentiality than my government.
Eventually trial and error has to be done, BTW affirming that it is not perfect or that problems are likely does not mean that we should dump a program that has already a successful pilot in Massachusetts. That would be reckless.
It would be like ignoring that programs that are so beneficial that even the Southerners that opposed it for racist reasons support now, like the GI bill, had no problems that were eventually solved.
I’ve been a contract consultant to the State of Florida for about 16 years now. Every time I get a job, I go though a background check and most of my clients don’t keep “identity theft” information - nor would I have access to it, if they did. Still have to go through background. Recently made mandatory for all executive agency employees (including retroactive checks on current employees).
By personal experience and by looking at good information I can tell you that you are wrong once again, any government agency I did work for did do background checks and even fingerprint checks when private information was going to be part of the job.
That’s not a Republican criticism, but a Republican feature. If Congress was all Democrats (and I’m not saying that would be good), the simpler Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act would have passed.
And with a few less Republicans – something I do favor – we would have a national health exchange rather than the confusing situation where in a single media market like Philadelphia, media has to explain different policies and plans in Pennsylvania (worst, due to a highly obstructionist governor), New Jersey (better, due to a moderately obstructionist governor) and Delaware (best, due to state-federal cooperation).
One problem with debating this is that the relevant web sites will not open until next week. When they do, we’ll have more concrete opportunities for proponents to advocate and critics to cavil. And next year, when Affordable Care is reality, with its great benefits and lesser drawbacks, debate will, I hope, be more realistic.