Case in point:
In any other developed western country…this guy would have been forcibly removed from office.
I am beginning to understand how the Roman’s felt when Nero and Caligula were in power.
He is clearly mentally unwell but nobody does anything about it (because the people surrounding him are just as corrupt)
Ah, yes. Insurance companies don’t want you to know this one trick that allows them to keep holding on to money to pay for future claims.
They also used AI to come up with their list / removal conditions, so part of the problem is also AI not understanding insurance
Reading that statement, I think the “and” is doing a lot of work.
(No record of existing) AND (never filed a claim) = (probably didn’t exist)
I’m not at all bothered by the idea of non-existent people having their fully-subsidized coverage terminated.
I’m also extremely skeptical with any statement made by this administration, so I will be not-at-all surprised if/when it’s disclosed that such cases were a minority of those canceled.
Do any Republicans even like Gaetz by this point?
Or is he just another creep that won’t stop following MAGA around, like George Santos and increasingly Lindell?
Never filed a claim over what time period?
In my 20s and 30s i could go for years without seeing a doctor.
Elitist.
(Disclaimer: As I get my health insurance through work, I have no first-hand experience with the ACA exchanges. I could be making some incorrect assumptions here.)
It is my understanding (sanity-tested with AI, but recognizing the imperfections of AI) that if you are a citizen applying for coverage through the exchange, you must supply a Social Security number or proof of legal status with your application.
In theory (and for the moment, ignoring the incompetence and bigotry of the current regime), if the powers that be couldn’t confirm the validity of any SSNs provided or the validity of the legal status claimed, that would be strongly indicative that the application was defective…perhaps because the applicant doesn’t actually exist.
The non-existence of those applicants could be disproven if they had actually filed a claim.
Thus my simplistic observation: (No record of existing) AND (no claims filed) = (probably didn’t exist). I see nothing wrong with terminating the coverage of non-existent people who are receiving subsidized coverage.
However, we are living in the stupidest times.
I don’t know the extent to which the regime double-checked that the affected people/“people” didn’t exist. Typos in SSNs can occur, and I don’t know what would be involved in the cross-checking for the folks without SSNs. I have minimal faith that the current regime would have done a good job at such work (and I don’t claim any objectivity on that subject).
I also don’t know that “we have a plausible reason to believe these people don’t exist” describes as many of the folks kicked out as the article suggests the regime implied. For example, I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if the regime just randomly picked 700k folks who were paying less than $10/month after subsidies and kicked them off of Obamacare.
But to return to the point I made earlier… I don’t think the “no claims” bit means “you weren’t documented as using your coverage, so we’re taking your coverage away from you.” Instead, I think it’s “we don’t think you actually exist because of these reasons; if you had had any claims, that would have disproven your non-existence.”
Again, no claims over what time period? (Eta: from my limited understanding, you could be switching plans frequently, particularly with changing costs. Are we talking no claims over 2 months or 5 years?).
I’d wonder how much of the lack of SSN is due to a screw-up or delay on the part of the insurer. I know with the student loan repayment thing under Betsy Devos, it was to the provider’s advantage not to be able to approve it. It would not surprise me here if whoever was checking made a minimal at best effort to confirm numbers were missing, particularly if they were paid per “fraudulent” claim found.
The article didn’t really go into details as to the parameters of their testing, so 
However, you’re not going to be changing health plans on a month-to-month basis. As I understand it (again, potentially imperfect understanding), you would change plans only at the annual open enrollment, or upon a qualifying event (e.g. you had non-exchange coverage through work or a parent, but lost it mid-year for one reason or another)
Nevertheless, if one were to naïvely take the article at its word and trust the feds’ statement, people aren’t being removed from coverage solely because they didn’t file claims.
But I do agree with and share skepticism about whether the administration did a good job of confirming the bad SSNs were really bad (as opposed to typos), etc. The regime hasn’t exactly done a good job with other instances of analogous tasks.
So, apparently Tommy Tuberville wants to declare war on the furries.
Especially those in elephant costumes, but he can’t say that part out loud. He’d lose too many votes.
Not sure they have a lot of fur. Perhaps a mammoth?
I would be willing to bet that they deployed a model like the one pitched at a CAS meeting - based on name, address and a couple other things, you can guess someone’s ethnicity and other legally protected attributes, but it’s only a model so you can use it in actuarial work and it’s ok - and are using that to kick off the people who flag as immigrants.
“Many airline pilots, flight attendants, and air traffic controllers are part of the furry community,” said Tuberville. “Lord help us. It’s terrifying when you think about this. When you walk onto a commercial flight, it’s possible that the pilot flying your plane could have a deranged fetish of dressing up like an animal. You can’t make this up.”“Many airline pilots, flight attendants, and air traffic controllers are part of the furry community,” said Tuberville. “Lord help us. It’s terrifying when you think about this. When you walk onto a commercial flight, it’s possible that the pilot flying your plane could have a deranged fetish of dressing up like an animal. You can’t make this up.”
I think, in fact, one can and did make this up.
“Many senators are part of the furry community. You can’t make this up. Tommy Tuberville maybe, I don’t know, probably not, but probably.”
Ooh, this is fun!
I think he doesn’t have any concrete examples or evidence, but there are 180,000-ish airlines pilots in the US, I think it is a safe bet that some of them are furries.
And there are what, 30,000ish actuaries in the US? I bet some are furries too. You could have someone with a “deranged fetish of dressing up like an animal” working in your company! It’s terrifying what they might do on a valuation.
lol
But in all seriousness, I think furries skew younger, so probably it is the case that it is less common among pension actuaries.
