Skip to comments.Health insurance marketplaces will not be required to verify consumer claims
Posted on 07/07/2013 8:21:15 AM PDT by Rusty0604
The Obama administration announced Friday that it would significantly scale back the health laws requirements that new insurance marketplaces verify consumers income and health insurance status.
Instead, the federal government will rely more heavily on consumers self-reported information until 2015, when it plans to have stronger verification systems in place.
After encountering legislative and operational barriers, the federal government will not require the District and the 16 states that are running their own marketplaces to verify a consumers statement that they do not receive health insurance from their employer.
The exchange may accept the applicants attestation regarding enrollment in eligible employer-sponsored plan . . . without further verification, according to the final rule.
The federal government will, however, conduct an audit for the states where it is managing the new insurance Web portal.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Will you need a photo ID?
That would be racist.
They need people to sign up, so they don’t care whether or not the information is correct.
Another reason why Amnesty is critical to the left.
They are bringing it down quickly so they can implement single payer, which was the goal all along. Obama admitted that before he was even elected.
It is all about VOTES for the radical left. Nothing else, including healthcare — they could care less.
How are they going to implement a single-payer system? People don’t want it.
In writing the deciding opinion that Obamacare was in fact constitutional Chief Justice John Roberts justified or rather rationalized his abandonment of the Constitution with the cavalier observation to the effect that it was not the job of the Court to correct unwise legislation, that was the province of Congress.
The problem, Mr. Chief Justice, is that nobody, especially not Congressmen, knew what was in the legislation when it passed, indeed we have the third in line for the presidency of the United States telling us we had to pass the legislation to know what's in it. Now we find out that what's in it is nothing less than wholesale abdication of article 1 legislative responsibilities, the handing off to unnamed, faceless bureaucrats a virtually unfettered hunting license to create a healthcare regime as and when they see fit.
Mr. Chief Justice, you have abdicated your responsibilities no less than has the Congress of the United States. Congress will not legislate and the courts will not adjudicate but both wash their hands of the evil bureaucrats do. Try to get a court to seriously rule on a "regulation"-one can be more than half serious when he describes regulations as being treated by the courts as more sacrosanct than the Constitution itself.
Is a pity that we can't find a way to bring an action and complain that the runaway regulators are working hardship on African-Americans, or transvestites, or Mohicans (if we can find any) and then we could place the entire regime of healthcare regulators under 24/7 merciless scrutiny by the courts.
If they have enough people signed up in the exchanges and the rest of the law is not enforced that provides most of the funding, I would imagine that they will claim that they can’t possibly turn out all those insured people out in the streets and the only way to solve it is switch to single payer.
Whether Congress would stop that I don’t know; the people need to get after them.
The House has repealed the law (but then proceeded to fund it). If we can get a majority of real conservatives in the Senate that would be a step in the right direction.
“How are they going to implement a single-payer system? People dont want it.”
The same way they are implementing everything else. The people didn’t want Obamacare. The people don’t want open borders. The people want to own guns, the people want voter ID cards at the polls, the people don’t want gay marriage in most states, the people don’t want easy welfare, the people don’t want their children indoctrinated by Marxists in schools. The people are getting what they don’t want because their government represents moneyed interests that fund elections, not the will of the people.
they will ONLY have to ‘verify’ it (for purposes of arrest and prosecution) for known Republicans
“The House has repealed the law (but then proceeded to fund it). “
If the Republicans had been serious they would have defunded it. The fact they keep passing bills to repeal the law, but at the same time continue to vote for the continuing resolutions that fund it, is proof they aren’t serious. Two possible reasons:
1) Follow the money trail
2) The contents of FBI files
Single-Payer; except for the favorite Classes (Blacks, Hispanics, Abortion-Seekers, Unions, etc.) The REST of Americans will pay for all the AIDS-infected (pre-existing condition) faggots, and pay for all the Flukeing-caused mistakes......more parasitic programs on the backs of Taxpayers, as always, to re-distribute the nation’s dwindling wealth.
The lead paragraph is misleading and I think purposely boring in stating that the verification is about whether someone has employer provided insurance.
The true significance of the abandonment of verification is that an applicant for SUBSIDIES (eg. free insurance) is not going to be checked out if the applicant states they are eligible for the subsidy.
Bend over taxpayers, here comes a more expensive scam than the free Obamaphone.
no proof means code of ILLEGAL ALIENS.
But of course, noone applies that doesn't qualify.
I knew lots of people who worship obama who have always been for a single payer system. Yet these same people have nothing but disdain for the VA.
They implemented Obamacare because some conservatives stayed home in 2008 to “teach the GOP” a lesion and we got democrat majorities in both Houses.
I think the House has been defending Obamcare as best it can. That’s why Sebelious has had to go try and shake down private insurers and plead with the NBA for funding .
defending or defunding?