Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by philobeddoe, Jul 23, 2014.
I'm sure obama's just as pissed as everyone else. That is, whenever he actually finds out about it.
1. To test the verification system;
2. To try to increase the numbers of people enrolled;
3. To try to qualify for a full subsidy and get insurance in case they needed it.
I would guess the benefit to the scammers, in this case the GAO, was finding that the employees and screeners were woefully inadequate.
While some nitpick 60% as being apparently within their suggested margin of error, a reasonable person might conclude that 8 months in the screeners are acting like telemarketers just trying to dishonestly close a sale with taxpayer money.
What else can one expect from a profoundly partisan leftie media guy and liberal lawyer? All bs and no substance .... just like their "guy' in the white house.
With the acknowledged existence of significant medicare and medicaid ..... I can't image what sort would argue there's no abamacare fraud.
Valid response and I appreciate you being adult and reasonable in it. Not always that common here.
1. Obviously GAO did.
2. As I already noted, GAO is paying the premiums. Is it likely anyone would do that in large enough numbers to really affect the total enrollees?
3. You may be right. I don't know if policies under fake names can be used or not. Does the insurance companies do any verification to make sure they're insuring real people?
river, as I've been trying to convey to you all along as to why would anyone sign up for bogus account....simply put, it doesn't friggin matter as to WHY---what DOES matter is that they can! Is it that hard for you to see and accept?? As I've said numerous times now "it doesn't matter whether they do or do not receive ANY benefit whatsoever, the mere fact that they CAN scam the system is enough to warrant concern. And ever since I've been repeating to you several times--what does it matter what they gain or don't gain?? Benefit or not, they should NOT be able to sign up at all. Period. Nada. Finis. Do you not understand this issue??
Why is it so concerning to you that the scammer have something to gain? Why does that 'end result' outweigh the initial concern of a gaping security flaw in the first place?? Is this a 'too close to the forest' issue in your eyes? Why even worry about the end result--isn't "getting into the system" enough to be concerned about and fix BEFORE you even arrive at an end??
Nope. I figure a lot of bogus applications are approved--or rather, conveniently permitted to be approved--in order to fluff the real numbers.
Your desperation in Barry's defense, is simply embarrassing at this point.
Just own the fact that your boy is FOS, and grasping desperately to find some thing, any damn thing, to try to spin his namesake boondoggle, into something resembling a success.
Give. It. Up.
Obarrycare = FAIL.
Hell, Barry = FAIL.
I have been spending a lot of time in the hospital lately with my sick mother and having witnessed numerous people get admitted, specifically through the er, people are showing insurance verification forms and getting treated. The hospital does follow up for more info, but in some cases it is after the fact. So if the insurance card was fake, some could receive care. Not saying it happens a lot, but it can happen.
Also, in regards to #2, if someone were to qualify for a full subsidy, would they have to pay any premium?
River - let's try this to see if you understand the process. I'm not sure I do so I'm asking the following sincerely followed by my guess an to the answer:
1) Who pays the premium. My guess is the scammer.
2) Who benefits from this? My guess in the insurance company.
3) Who pays the subsidy? My guess is the government.
4) Who loses in this? My guess is all taxpayers.
5) Who receives the subsidy? My guess is the scammer if they wait until tax return is filed or insurance company if scammer elects to get paid in advance.
6) Who benefits or loses from this? My guess is the scammer may up at net zero gain or loss, except potentially getting insurance coverage for nothing. I don't think we can rule out that they will not have usable coverage. The insurance company benefits if they get paid the subsidy. Regardless, the taxpayer loses any time an incorrect overpayment of subsidy gets paid.
Regardless of the answers to the above, do you not see a way that unscrupulous enterprising individuals could create a scheme that would make them money? All you need to do is find one willing doctor or one willing insurance agent.
The subsidy gets paid directly to the insurance company. That is what makes it somewhat unclear what there is to gain here for the scammer that they couldn't already accomplish by perpetrating a fraud that didn't require them to pay the remainder of the premium (namely medical ID theft).
Not necessarily. I have corrected my original post for items 5 & 6. Bottom line is who cares if the scammer benefits. The loser EVERY TIME THIS OCCURS is the taxpayer. That should be enough to flat out quit trying to defend this in any way.
I know a little bit about this subject.
In all of the material regarding ACA, it says if you receive too big of a subsidy in error, you will have to repay it in taxes when it is caught.
Hopefully, they will get the income verification mechanism up and working correctly soon.
since no has said that people should be able to sign up on fake accounts, i suggest again that you think about who you are actually arguing with and about what.
Looks like they dropped the ball. Not surprising for the government. At least there are processes in place to identify these kinds of failures and hopefully remedy them before too much damage is done.
I don't know. I suppose it is possible. Obviously whoever is first signing them up is screwing up, especially since the GAO just made up the SSNs. I don't know if anyone else checks or if it is possible to get care with the fake name.
I didn't say that you did say that--nor that you advocate it. You acknowledged that the verification process needs to be fixed. As anyone should feel. What I DID say was that you seem to be more concerned about the motive behind a potential scammer signing up. You posed that early on when the intent of the thread based on the OP was about the fraud potential in the system.
I also asked you at least twice now--why are you 'seemingly' more concerned about the motive of a scammer, and how they would benefit, with of course no real answer--just deflection and repetition from you. Not sure why you are so focused on that aspect, as the initial problem of verification far outweighs the motive factor and who would benefit. At least it seems to be the concern of most everyone else in here other than you and "the motive" deflection, and Ben with his "60% media exaggeration " deflection. Perhaps the rest of us understand the real problem presented by the OP--and have our priorities where they should be....addressing the doorway problem so as to not allow the end result to even become a problem.
Not quite right grasshopper. The federal govt has no tax assessment rights regarding this. They can only collect any overpaid subsidy by taking it out of tax refunds on the person's return. So if these scammers pay no income tax there is no method for the feds to recover the sudsidy. Another major blunder in the Act!
I'm going to need a link supporting this.
I think you do have to look at the motive, because signing up for insurance as a fake person that doesnt exist isnt really a scam with a point. I mean when you point out that fake people can sign up and get approved, I think its fair to ask "why the hell would anyone want to do that?," since there is seemingly little to gain by doing so.