ObamaCare: The fraud continues
Now that President Obama has finished (for now) showboating about ObamaCare's “8 million enrollees,” the Treasury's inspector general has delivered a not-so-insignificant wrinkle: All those enrollees' personal information may not be safe.
IG J. Russell George told senators that he “remains concerned about the protection of confidential taxpayer data.” Not that any of this is news. Since the infamously screwed-up launch of the HealthCare.gov federal website, security specialists have dubbed it “IdentityTheft.gov.”
What's needed — what else? — is more money from Congress, according to IRS officials. This, after the nation's tax collector squandered almost $3 million in bonuses to 2,800 employees with various “conduct” problems.
But there's more: Aside from securing patients' confidential information, it's projected that about 6 million enrollees will claim health care tax credits totaling $16 billion in 2014, writes Laura Trueman for The Heritage Foundation. Mr. George said the IRS fraud-detection system “may not be capable of identifying Affordable Care Act refund fraud or schemes prior to the issuance of tax refunds.”
Last year the government estimated that it paid $4 billion in bogus tax refunds over the previous year, The Associated Press reports.
But rather than address ObamaCare's security shortfalls up front and the challenges to come, Team Obama is more interested in taking dubious victory laps — and tripping badly over its missteps.
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.
- A school choice victory: Follow the child
- U.N. Watch: The Gaza follies
- Kittanning Council conundrum: Why disband authority?
- Mon-Yough Laurels & Lances
- Open contract negotiations: Let the sunshine in
- Saturday essay: Anatomy of a backache
- The student-loan balloon
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- Silencing whistle-blowers
- ‘No man, no problem’