ObamaCare 'rules': Loosey-goosey time
We would expect no less from America's modern and growing welfare state:
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says it will not attempt to verify individual eligibility for ObamaCare insurance subsidies. It instead will rely on self-reporting, with minimal efforts to verify the accuracy of the information, The Wall Street Journal reports.
The administration says that since it delayed the employer mandate until 2015 — an illegal act, we contend, given it violates the law passed by Congress — it can't expect individuals to provide documentation that their employers don't offer health insurance and, thus, they will be eligible for taxpayer-subsidized plans.
Allow us to translate: Government-subsidized health insurance will be available to all, with no checks or balances, and likely forever, despite promises of, someday, a “robust” verification process. After all, there's likely no way the government will be able to corral all of these horses stampeding out of the barn.
Nod-nod, wink-wink. Hey, what's a little (or a lot of) fraud, eh?
If you had any doubt that ObamaCare is anything other than the latest in a long line of entitlement programs, none should remain. The Journal calculates that costs associated with the loosey-goosey verification standard could explode by as much as a quarter of a trillion dollars in the first 10 years.
ObamaCare must be taken out. For surely, it will take out America.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Opening the Armstrong County locks: Get the job done
- Revolving doors: Self-protection
- Saturday essay: The picking question
- Carnegie Free Library’s advocate: A role model & more
- Recasting the EPA: Devolving power to the states
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Corbett & taxes: Cue the tap dance
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes