We've long been fans of transparency in health care, both its delivery and its financing. That is, the ability of the consumer to pre-determine how much a given procedure or med may cost, in order to make an informed decision.
But transparency only works well when both parties participate: providers and insurers offering useful and informative tools (generally on-line) and consumers taking advantage of them.
But what happens when the biggest provider and financer of health care refuses to play?
Well, then, you get this:
"The White House has rejected a request to publicly disclose documents relating to the kinds of security software and computer systems behind the federal health care exchange website ... We concluded that releasing this information would potentially cause an unwarranted risk to consumers' private information"
Orwell called this "doublespeak," and it's an excellent example of the genre. We already know what a complete mess the various contractors have made of the Exchange's so-called "security." To add insult to injury, "Obama instructed federal agencies in 2009 to not keep information confidential "merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears."
Seems they weren't so abstract or speculative, after all.
But transparency only works well when both parties participate: providers and insurers offering useful and informative tools (generally on-line) and consumers taking advantage of them.
But what happens when the biggest provider and financer of health care refuses to play?
Well, then, you get this:
"The White House has rejected a request to publicly disclose documents relating to the kinds of security software and computer systems behind the federal health care exchange website ... We concluded that releasing this information would potentially cause an unwarranted risk to consumers' private information"
Orwell called this "doublespeak," and it's an excellent example of the genre. We already know what a complete mess the various contractors have made of the Exchange's so-called "security." To add insult to injury, "Obama instructed federal agencies in 2009 to not keep information confidential "merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears."
Seems they weren't so abstract or speculative, after all.
Posts
