White House opposes ObamaCare transparency as “administratively burdensome”

posted at 1:21 pm on January 10, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

I don’t have my Yiddish-English dictionary available, but this has to be the best example of chutzpah yet. The White House announced its opposition to bills under consideration in the House that would require HHS to start reporting weekly on their incompetent rollout of ObamaCare and especially the data integrity of the exchange.  The reason?  It’s just too burdensome, the White House explains (via JWF and Instapundit):

The Obama administration stopped short Thursday of threatening to veto House bills to require officials to tell people if their personal data has been compromised through ObamaCare, and to require weekly reports on the health law’s implementation.

The White House said in two Statements of Administration Policy that it opposed both bills, one of which is set for a Friday vote in the House.

Weekly reporting requirements on both enrollments and the operation of the HealthCare.gov website would require “unfunded, unprecedented, and unnecessary reporting requirements” on the health insurance exchanges, it said in one statement.

“It would require the reporting of data on a weekly basis that is generally being provided on a monthly basis,” the White House wrote. “Few major indicators — from job growth to Medicare Advantage enrollment to private shareholder reports — are provided more frequently than monthly; this bill would hold the Marketplaces and State Medicaid programs to unprecedented standards.”

Unfunded? HHS has its own revenue stream for ObamaCare, and has for years. Congress can’t touch it without rewriting the statutes, which would require Senate approval (not likely) and Obama’s signature (good luck with that) or two-thirds majorities for a veto override (not in this session of Congress).  HHS had 42 months to put those revenue streams to work in delivering a web portal that most private-sector firms could successfully launch in six months.

Given the abject failures of the system, it’s hardly unreasonable for Congress to demand a closer accounting for what HHS is doing to rescue itself from its own incompetence.  In fact, it’s a little surprising that the White House isn’t demanding these reports already from Kathleen Sebelius. Are they just checking in with Sebelius once a month? If they’re getting reports from Sebelius more often than that, why can’t they just share those with Congress?

The second statement is even more absurd than the first. In it, the White House objects to reporting requirements on security deficiencies, because notifying consumers of data breaches in a timely manner would “create unrealistic and costly paperwork requirements.” You mean like individual and employer mandates?

The Administration believes Americans’ personally-identifiable information should be protected wherever it resides, and that all Americans deserve to know if that information has been improperly exposed. Accordingly, the Federal Government adheres to extensive requirements for safeguarding against and responding to the breach of personally-identifiable information.  Additionally, the Administration called upon the Congress in May 2011 to pass national data breach legislation reflecting a real solution to this complex issue.

The Federal Government has already put in place an effective and efficient system for securing personally‑identifiable information in the Health Insurance Marketplaces and providing consumers notification if their personally-identifiable information has been compromised. When consumers fill out their online Marketplace applications, they can trust that the information that they are providing is protected by stringent security standards.

The components of the HealthCare.gov website that are now operational comply with Federal security standards.  Security testing is conducted on an ongoing basis using industry best practices designed to appropriately safeguard consumers’ personal information.

The Administration opposes House passage of H.R. 3811 because it would create unrealistic and costly paperwork requirements that do not improve the safety or security of personally-identifiable information in the Health Insurance Marketplaces.  For example, the indiscriminate reporting requirement in H.R. 3811 may seriously impede the law enforcement investigation of a breach.  Unlike existing requirements, H.R. 3811 requires expensive and unnecessary notification for the compromise of publicly-available information, even if there is no reasonable risk that information could be used to cause harm.

Gabriel Malor of AoSHQ took to Twitter to expose the hypocrisy of this claim, especially in the context of compliance for religious organizations:

Hopefully, Gabriel will write more about this later at AoSHQ, but be sure to read the rest of his timeline today (and follow him, if you don’t already). Maybe administrations that don’t want to be administratively burdened by transparency should limit their intrusions into marketplaces and personal choices.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Pajama-obama – what a country!!!

Schadenfreude on January 10, 2014 at 1:24 PM

Serfs have no right to demand accountability from their lords.

rbj on January 10, 2014 at 1:25 PM

Cantor introduces a bill for HHS to report identity theft…Reid/obama oppose already…”too burdensome”.

Land of Fools!!!

“The people voted and now they must be punished” — Ed Koch

Schadenfreude on January 10, 2014 at 1:26 PM

obama always looks so stupid.

Schadenfreude on January 10, 2014 at 1:27 PM

http://clowardandpiven.com/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2010/01/05/cloward-piven-and-fundamental-transformation-america/

I’m going to give you a hard concept to get your arms around: It’s the concept that there are people in this country who want to intentionally collapse our economic system.

How could it be that any American would or would want to do such a thing? Well, those involved sleep just fine at night because they tell themselves that they’re not collapsing, they’re transforming — transforming — America into something better.

The progressive movement in which these people are involved started around the turn of last century. These are the same people who gave us the Federal Reserve. They brought America the concept of redistribution of wealth through the progressive income tax, telling Americans at first that only the rich would be affected.

They are the same people who felt that they knew better about your health than you did that they needed to force you to stop drinking alcohol-through Prohibition. They brought us the League of Nations, then the United Nations. And their biggest contribution of all: They brought the understanding that our Constitution was a flawed, living, breathing document and that our Founding Fathers were a group of rich racists.

Now, today’s group of progressives do not speak the same language as you and I do: Economic justice is taking from haves and giving to the have nots; social justice, to quote Mark Lloyd, is when someone needs to step down so someone else can have turn, and transforming America means collapsing the state as we know it and rebooting it as a progressive utopia.

None of the language is the same. What I would call socialist, they call social justice. That’s critical to understand; they really believe they’re making things better and they’re about to finish the process.

They learned from their earlier failed attempts to transform America and the world, like the League of Nations.

First, there can’t be a debate. They simply declare the debate over and that they have consensus already.

Second, they can’t conduct their transformation in the open.

And third, they can never let a good crisis go to waste.

Now, as we discuss this, keep in mind that you’re watching all of this through your eyes; you see this as trying to collapse our economy. But progressives see this as a fundamental transformation — something better than we’ve ever had — as promised by Barack Obama:

It’s as plain as day……the system is being broken for the greater good of the collective.

It’s here Amerika. You’re living it right now.

PappyD61 on January 10, 2014 at 1:27 PM

This jackass and his corrupt administration need to be removed from office.

justltl on January 10, 2014 at 1:27 PM

White House opposes ObamaCare transparency as “administratively burdensome”

… and Obamacare itself is NOT?!?

ITguy on January 10, 2014 at 1:30 PM

It’s as plain as day……the system is being broken for the greater good of the collective.

It’s here Amerika. You’re living it right now.

PappyD61 on January 10, 2014 at 1:27 PM

I feel bad for the Left when their day of reckoning comes- which it always does.
I think of how they will be relentlessly hunted down and slaughtered.
Terrible.

justltl on January 10, 2014 at 1:34 PM

Meh
-lsm

cmsinaz on January 10, 2014 at 1:35 PM

Wow, I should just keep this in the paste buffer today…

and then hotair will run out of material to bash the President on…that’s what you’re really afraid of, right?

nonpartisan on November 19, 2013 at 4:47 PM

But these Obamacare posts are about whistling past the graveyard, by next Novemeber Democrats will be openly running on the ACA. Mark my words.

libfreeordie on December 20, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Chris of Rights on January 10, 2014 at 1:35 PM

White House opposes ObamaCare transparency as “administratively burdensome”

… and Obamacare itself is NOT?!?

ITguy on January 10, 2014 at 1:30 PM

It certainly is “financially burdensome”.

Bitter Clinger on January 10, 2014 at 1:37 PM

Serfs have no right to demand accountability from their lords.

rbj on January 10, 2014 at 1:25 PM

Pretty much. The King shall do as he likes.

Gatsu on January 10, 2014 at 1:38 PM

Trust us, we’re from the government.

Gothguy on January 10, 2014 at 1:39 PM

With holder usurping scotus and now this. What can we do…..they will ignore us….the media doesn’t give a rat a$$….we’re screaming into the void….

And if a gop president wins in 2016…it’ll be their fault on jan 20 2016 according to the dems/lsm

Eeyore flag raised high….

cmsinaz on January 10, 2014 at 1:39 PM

White House opposes ObamaCare transparency as “administratively burdensome”

… and Obamacare itself is NOT?!?

ITguy on January 10, 2014 at 1:30 PM

The difference is that Obamacare is a means to a desired progressive-fascist end…demands for transparency will inhibit those means to that end.

I continue to hope and believe that Obamacare is so egregious, that even the LIV will take notice of the mendacity and fecklessness of the progressive agenda.

Athos on January 10, 2014 at 1:40 PM

2017

cmsinaz on January 10, 2014 at 1:41 PM

And if a gop president wins in 2016 2017…it’ll be their fault on jan 20 2016 according to the dems/lsm

Eeyore flag raised high….

cmsinaz on January 10, 2014 at 1:39 PM

Schadenfreude on January 10, 2014 at 1:42 PM

Heh, cmsinaz :)

Schadenfreude on January 10, 2014 at 1:43 PM

The most Transparent Administration in the history of the United States.

Irony can be pretty Ironic at times.

Johnnyreb on January 10, 2014 at 1:44 PM

This is why Christie is still a viable choice in 2016. Plus, since his weight loss, he looks better than Alec Baldwin.

bloggless on January 10, 2014 at 1:44 PM

Transparency was a lie the first time he used it in a sentence on the campaign trail in 07. Why are we still surprised?

hawkdriver on January 10, 2014 at 1:45 PM

This coming from a White House that has always opposed honesty as administratively burdensome.

MrKleenexMuscles on January 10, 2014 at 1:46 PM

Thanks schadenfreude…..I need some caffeine

cmsinaz on January 10, 2014 at 1:47 PM

The second statement is even more absurd than the first. In it, the White House objects to reporting requirements on security deficiencies, because notifying consumers of data breaches in a timely manner would “create unrealistic and costly paperwork requirements.” You mean like individual and employer mandates?

You know, it probably isn’t convenient for credit card companies or retailers like Target to let people know when there’s been a potential security breach, but they don’t get to opt out because they don’t feel like it.

Doughboy on January 10, 2014 at 1:47 PM

cmsinaz on January 10, 2014 at 1:47 PM

Passing some coffee over!

CoffeeLover on January 10, 2014 at 1:48 PM

Thanks CL

:)

cmsinaz on January 10, 2014 at 1:49 PM

+1 doughboy

Great point

cmsinaz on January 10, 2014 at 1:50 PM

I call BS on them. I can log into the webstats for my company website right now, and in 10 minutes can tell you: 1) how many people visited the site (repeat visits vs. new); 2) their navigation trail; 3) transactions they attempted; 4) whether or not those transactions were successful; 5) confirmation for the transaction if performed with a credit card, Paypal, or an e-check. The Secretary of HHS says it’s too “administratively burdensome?” Hell, my secretary runs a report like this daily.

VastRightWingConspirator on January 10, 2014 at 1:53 PM

I love the terminology “unfunded, unprecedented, and unnecessary reporting requirements”. Now they understand what it feels like when the federal government imposes their regulations on businesses that don’t have the money or manpower to report such things.
Does anyone think a business can use the same terminology to ignore federal regulations? Do Democrats care that a company’s bottom line is effected by such regulations? If they can impose them on others, then they should be happy to oblige.

djaymick on January 10, 2014 at 1:53 PM

You know, it probably isn’t convenient for credit card companies or retailers like Target to let people know when there’s been a potential security breach, but they don’t get to opt out because they don’t feel like it.
 
Doughboy on January 10, 2014 at 1:47 PM

 
Dang. You win all 57 of today’s hotair points.

rogerb on January 10, 2014 at 1:55 PM

Weekly reporting requirements on both enrollments and the operation of the HealthCare.gov website would require “unfunded, unprecedented, and unnecessary reporting requirements” on the health insurance exchanges, it said in one statement.

I think we found the very first time this administration has used unprecedented with a negative connotation.

Happy Nomad on January 10, 2014 at 2:00 PM

Dang. You win all 57 of today’s hotair points.

rogerb on January 10, 2014 at 1:55 PM

One for each State?

bigmacdaddy on January 10, 2014 at 2:02 PM

That’s the excuse used by every tyrant.

dominigan on January 10, 2014 at 2:02 PM

The truth has always been far too burdensome for this sad excuse for a President. The only thing he ever succeeded to do in his life is to get elected by a moronic electorate. And he didn’t do it by telling the truth.

NOMOBO on January 10, 2014 at 2:03 PM

Dang. You win all 57 of today’s hotair points.
 
rogerb on January 10, 2014 at 1:55 PM

 
One for each State?
 
bigmacdaddy on January 10, 2014 at 2:02 PM

 
Yep.

rogerb on January 10, 2014 at 2:06 PM

Speaking as a small business owner being financially brutalized by non-scalable new federal regulation, Obama doesn’t have the first @&#*$& clue about “administratively burdensome”!!! @#$@)^#

deepdiver on January 10, 2014 at 2:07 PM

White House opposes ObamaCare transparency as “administratively burdensome”

…but no expense/effort spared for harassing TEA party and other activists by the IRS…

Schadenfreude on January 10, 2014 at 2:09 PM

Being held accountable is just so hard.

COgirl on January 10, 2014 at 2:11 PM

Affirmative action administration is burdensome on the country.

jukin3 on January 10, 2014 at 2:19 PM

Weekly reporting requirements on both enrollments and the operation of the HealthCare.gov website would require “unfunded, unprecedented, and unnecessary reporting requirements” on the health insurance exchanges, it said in one statement.

Unfunded, unprecedented, and unnecessary?

This only costs if you don’t have anyone anywhere who gets any of this information. But I guess if you think keeping track of a project and how it’s going is “unprecedented and unnecessary” that would explain why this has been a miserable failure.

gekkobear on January 10, 2014 at 2:23 PM

Most CORRUPT administration, evah!

GarandFan on January 10, 2014 at 2:24 PM

Obama doesn’t have the first @&#*$& clue about “administratively burdensome”!!! @#$@)^#

deepdiver on January 10, 2014 at 2:07 PM

Well of course not. Lazy stupid people are not the ones stuck doing administratively burdensome tasks. If this were Seinfeld, he would be a rat-eared George Constanza. If this were Dilbert, Wally would be black. But since this is real life, all we’ve got is a worthless bum shucking and jiving his way through life since he doesn’t have a clue, has no interest in work, and has been able to get away with it all.

Happy Nomad on January 10, 2014 at 2:28 PM

The second statement is even more absurd than the first. In it, the White House objects to reporting requirements on security deficiencies,

And we get a four paragraph statement that can be been summed up in three words.

“GFY”.

lynncgb on January 10, 2014 at 2:29 PM

It’s just too burdensome, the White House explains

You mean burdensome like the myriad forms and reports required from business and taxpayers for Obamacare?

Or the 14 different Federal forms necessary to apply for and to sell retail fuel?

Or the two inch thick stack of paper and 15 phone calls with the EPA, Bureau of Land Management and National Forest Service just to trim some trees back on my fenceline that borders a national forest?

Or how about the $50,000 per year I pay my lawyer just to make sure I do not run afoul of some arcane rule when running my business? Which, by the way, includes notifying all of my customers in the event I have a data breach?

And on and on and on…….

BacaDog on January 10, 2014 at 2:32 PM

Being held accountable is just so hard.

COgirl on January 10, 2014 at 2:11 PM

Especially when Obama has never been held accountable for anything in his life.

Bitter Clinger on January 10, 2014 at 2:32 PM

And I remember the Obama administration waiving the individual mandate for those who lost their insurance policies in 2013 to cancellation, and the basis of the waiver was that the PPACA was/is a “man-caused disaster”…you know, the same phrase they used to describe terrorist acts.

“burdensome,” indeed. “unfunded,” quite.

DublOh7 on January 10, 2014 at 2:38 PM

“Administratively burdensome”? This from the administration that signed a health care act that requires a pizza parlor to post documented calorie counts for every possible topping combination of the pizzas they sell. A number that runs into the thousands and could cost these restaurants hundreds of thousands of dollars to comply with.

tommyboy on January 10, 2014 at 2:42 PM

Make Michelle do her own hair, makeup and wardrobe selection. That should free up lots of useless warm bodies that can help with the administrative burden.

txmomof6 on January 10, 2014 at 2:42 PM

This is just a fanciful way of saying they’re too incompetent to provide the information, they don’t have any records of any information, and by the way…even if we knew what we were doing, stuff it.

scalleywag on January 10, 2014 at 2:53 PM

‘Transparency’ also exposes the lies, one’s aiding and abetting terrorists, how one is guilty of lying to and scamming the American people, just how illegal and un-Constitutional one’s actions are, etc…

It’s sort of like the Liberal mantra about the need to be tolerant…when they are in the minority or feel they don’t have the upper hand they preach the need for tolerance. Once they have even the appearance of an upper hand they villainize anyone who does not share their views and attempts to RAM their view onto every one else.

In this case, demanding and promising transparency when not in the White House sounded great; however, once in office and the ‘refridgerator light’ came on for the 1st time for even a second, the cockroaches scurried for a hiading place where they decided to remove that darned light.

easyt65 on January 10, 2014 at 3:09 PM

Chris of Rights on January 10, 2014 at 1:35 PM

rogerb has a relative?….I like it!

KOOLAID2 on January 10, 2014 at 3:13 PM

White House opposes ObamaCare transparency as “administratively burdensome”

…how can the White House know about ‘burdensome’…when they have never been able to ‘administrate’ ANYTHING?…that’s not possible!

KOOLAID2 on January 10, 2014 at 3:16 PM

I’d just like to slap his stupid, lying, old man baggey-eyed face.
And then, slap it again.

avagreen on January 10, 2014 at 3:26 PM

I love the terminology “unfunded, unprecedented, and unnecessary reporting requirements”. Now they understand what it feels like when the federal government imposes their regulations on businesses that don’t have the money or manpower to report such things.
Does anyone think a business can use the same terminology to ignore federal regulations? Do Democrats care that a company’s bottom line is effected by such regulations? If they can impose them on others, then they should be happy to oblige.

djaymick on January 10, 2014 at 1:53 PM

They are all stupid, ignorant idiots and think we are the same.

avagreen on January 10, 2014 at 3:32 PM

The MOST transparently transparent Administration EVAR!

Except, you know, for all the burdonsome paperwork they don’t want to do and everything they want secret, and investigating anyone who reports on their secretive ways, harassing of reporters, putting roadblocks in front of FOIA requests… and, really, a SIGNATURE PIECE OF LEGISLATION JUST DOESN’T NEED TRANSPARENCY… but other than those things they do…really transparent.

Except for the opacity everywhere.

ajacksonian on January 10, 2014 at 4:10 PM

HOLY SH!# I hate the government.

EVERYTHING those losers in DC do is administratively burdensome to small business. And you know what the bureaucrats would say to us if we told them that? “We don’t care. Just do it.”

Government workers = lazy morons who could never cut it in the private sector.

Free Indeed on January 10, 2014 at 5:09 PM

If a GOP administration attempted to dodge any level of accountability or transparency with the ‘administratively burdensome’ excuse, the frothing of the LSM would last weeks – and include not only comparisons to Nixon / Watergate, but openly discuss and examine ‘Impeachment’.

Can you imagine the response if Governor Christie responded to questions about the Ft. Lee / GWB ‘traffic study’ as being too much of an ‘administrative burden’ for him to undertake in order to investigate?

Athos on January 10, 2014 at 5:14 PM