Shocker: GAO sting reveals Obamacare fraud

The National Journal reports on a sting operation conducted by the Government Accounting Office to test the strength of Obamacare’s eligibility-verification system. To no one’s surprise, the verification system failed the test. Fake applicants were able to get subsidized insurance coverage in 11 of 18 attempts. The total amount of the subsidies for the 11 approved applications was about $2,500 per month.

The investigators created fake identities by inventing Social Security numbers, income, and citizenship, and by counterfeiting documents. Eleven of 12 fake online or telephone applications were approved. The only exception occurred when the investigator refused to provide a Social Security number.

Apparently the laxity of the telephone verifiers is limitless as long as one doesn’t defy them.

The investigators had little success when they applied in person. Presumably, word will quickly spread that the best way to cheat is by phone or online.

What is the Obama administration’s response to the GAO study? Spokesman Aaron Albright says “we are examining this report carefully and will work with GAO to identify additional strategies to strengthen our verification processes.”

But how much “strategy” is required to spot an invented Social Security number?

The problem here isn’t strategy. The problem is that the Obama administration isn’t concerned about fraud. Indeed, it would probably like to dole out as much subsidized health care (aka free stuff) as it can get away with. Otherwise, Team Obama would not be doing such a pathetic job of detecting fraud.

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.

Responses