Last year the Senate Finance Committee asked investigators at the Government Accountability Office, or GAO, to test the Affordable Care Act's internal eligibility and enrollment controls. So they created a dozen fictitious identities and applied for insurance subsidies--and 11 fake claimants got them.
The GAO didn't know ObamaCare's verification protocols in advance, so they weren't trying to exploit some known security hole. Online or over the phone, they simply supplied invalid Social Security numbers, doctored citizenship status or misstated their income on tax documents.
The federal exchanges paid some $2,500 a month or $30,000 per year to each John Doe. When it came time to re-enroll at the end of 2014, the 11 fake applicants were able to extend their plans and, in some cases, even received more generous subsidies without providing additional documentation.
The exchanges are supposed to verify income and identity because the dollar value of subsidies is tied to those data. If people can burn taxpayers for money they don't qualify for, ObamaCare will be far more expensive than it has already become.
Yet the GAO notes with its dry wit that "we circumvented the initial identity-proofing control," though the exchanges are "required to seek post-approval documentation in the case of certain application 'inconsistencies.'" The GAO also reports that the follow-up was often unclear or inaccurate and didn't turn off the subsidies. The GAO even includes transcripts of their sleuths bluffing the clueless customer service reps.
I checked the web for the whole GAO report and it's here.
One correction, though. I don't think the subsidies are $30,000 per year to each John Doe. That sounded suspiciously high. Here's what the GAO report actually says on page 6:
For the 11 applications that were approved for coverage, we obtained the advance premium tax credit in all cases. The total amount of these credits for the 11 approved applications is about $2,500 monthly or about $30,000 annually.
That sounds more realistic. It's still a huge problem, but why overstate by an order of magnitude?
PALO ALTO, Calif.--Auto makers have been laying the groundwork to seek relief from U.S. regulators on lofty fuel-economy targets. But Tesla Motors Inc. is rowing in the opposite direction, saying it wants to make the rules even tougher.
The Silicon Valley electric-car maker is preparing to make a public case this week for leaving mileage and emissions regulations intact, or making them even more stringent, a Tesla executive said. The company also will fight to keep other auto makers from loosening regulations in California, which has more ambitious targets than the federal government.
U.S. fuel-economy targets call for manufacturers to sell vehicles averaging 54.5 miles a gallon by 2025.
Tougher regulations could benefit Tesla, while challenging other auto makers that make bigger profits on higher-margin trucks and sport-utility vehicles.
Tesla's vice president of development, Dairmuid O'Connell, plans to argue to auto executives and other industry experts attending a conference on the northern tip of Michigan that car companies can meet regulations as currently written.
"We are about to hear a lot of rhetoric that Americans don't want to buy electric vehicles," Mr. O'Connell said in an interview ahead of a Tuesday presentation in Traverse City, Mich. "From an empirical standpoint, the [regulations] are very weak, eminently achievable and the only thing missing is the will to put compelling products on the road."
The presentation likely will further Tesla's reputation as industry agitator, a role often taken on by founder Elon Musk, who rankles rivals with proclamations about their apparent lack of progress in building viable electric vehicles. It also will mark a significant departure from other auto makers that historically have tried to soften fuel-economy regulations.
The industry typically has agreed to tougher standards under political pressure and only after thorough negotiations. In Detroit earlier this year, Mr. Musk urged auto makers to continue advancing electric vehicles amid falling oil prices, even while disclosing his company likely won't be profitable until 2020.
Bottom line: Elon Musk is a subsidy-sucker and a regulation seeker.
Tesla's $70,000 Model S is as much a "compliance" vehicle as the electric cars built by other auto makers. That's one truth the audience didn't hear from Diarmuid O'Connell, Tesla vice president of business development, who made a much-noted appearance at a Michigan automotive seminar this week.
Mr. O'Connell called on Washington to stiffen the already-stiff Obama fuel-mileage mandates. He criticized electric cars churned out by other car makers as mere "compliance vehicles" that are not "compelling" to consumers.
Uh huh. The kettle speaks. Tesla benefits from a $7,500 buyers tax credit, and generates millions in revenues by selling emissions credits to other car makers under California's zero-emissions-vehicle mandate and federal greenhouse rules.
Tesla is a compliance company. Don't take our word for it. Mr. O'Connell said if other makers don't want to build electric cars, "they can buy credits from us, and we will invest in electric vehicles for them."
As for the Model S, Tesla's big seller may be "compelling" to its customers but it's also an absurd, anachronistic take on the electric automotive future it's supposed to herald. Form eschews function: It apes the conventional sports car with a long, sweeping hood to conceal a powerful piston engine that isn't there. It appeals to confused consumers who simultaneously want to display ostentation and green virtue.
Which brings us to Mr. O'Connell's vocal support for increased mileage mandates. These, in theory, are a mixed bag for Tesla. They generate tradable credits but also pollute the market for electric cars with vehicles built and dumped at a loss. But the rules also prop up Tesla's share price by making the company a potential acquisition target for a full-line auto maker looking to offset its pickups and SUVs.
Bottom line: Elon Musk is a subsidy sucker and a regulation seeker.
Mr. Christie responded, "The hugs that I remember are the hugs that I gave to the families who lost their people on Sept. 11." As Mr. Christie spoke, Mr. Paul ostentatiously rolled his eyes. Voters get to decide if it's reasonable to shrug off American deaths made possible by politicians who prohibit intelligence agencies from operating intelligently.
Really, Gordon? Rand Paul rolled his eyes at the murders of Americans on 9/11? It had nothing to do with Christie's emotional appeal?