ObamaCare: Misleading 'guides'
As if consumers didn't have enough worries about providing their personal information to receive ObamaCare coverage, now comes news that some of their “guides” through this maze of government bureaucracy may be ill prepared — or far worse — in their advice.
A House Oversight and Government Reform Committee report found that ObamaCare's so-called “navigators” are improperly trained, gave clients wrong information and, in some cases, encouraged people to commit fraud.
These findings come not from any internal ObamaCare oversight — ineffectual as it is — but from news accounts.
For example, a video shows navigators from the Urban League in Dallas advising applicants to lie on their applications to qualify for tax subsidies, Breitbart reports. In some cases, consumers allegedly are told to low-ball their income to receive more subsidies.
Did we mention that these public assistants responsible for handling reams of sensitive personal information do not, according to the report, undergo mandatory background checks?
“(D)ocuments call into question the effectiveness of the Navigator program and the Obama administration's ability to safeguard consumer information,” the report states.
Americans cannot safely navigate the uncertainties of ObamaCare if they can't at least trust their navigators. And they shouldn't be forced to do so, herded like lambs to the slaughter.
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.
- The regulatory state: EPA picks a fight
- A manger’s light
- Union ‘fairness’: The dues racket
- Holiday Gift Club: The spirit of the season
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Ford City’s solution: Good side to cop cuts