Tag: insurance

Check Out Rep. McBride’s Vulgar Dismissal of Massive Obamacare Fraud

Last week, a watchdog group reported on “large-scale systemic failures” that led to massive Obamacare subsidy fraud, including the use of a single Social Security number to get subsidies for more than 70 people. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) ran a test of fake applicants and found that “100% of fake applicants were approved by Obamacare’s marketplace as recently as late 2024. 90% of fake applicants continue to receive coverage in 2025.”

The report also found no mechanism for income verification, meaning millions of subsidies were going to people who aren’t poor or in need. It all spells massive waste. You would think Democrats would take that seriously, right?

Apparently not.

Rep. Tim McBride (D-DE) seems to think such studies are “bulls**t,” and said as much as he’s pushing to extend Obamacare programs.

“I don’t think the American people feel that it’s failed the American people,” McBride said. “That ‘study’…sounds like bullsh**t…sounds like a bulls**t study with a bullsh**t methodology,” he continued. “Sounds like the methodology is pretty questionable.”

When the study’s reporting was shown, McBride doubled down. “First of all, that’s not what that says, and you’ve mischaracterized what the report says. But that’s not what it says. It does not say there’s a 90 percent fraud rate.”

Despite the reporter’s push on the subject, McBride kept insisting that Obamacare is fine. “If they [Speaker Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune] want to work with us and add in measures around verification for the ACA tax credits, we’re ready to negotiate,” McBride said.

Keep reading

The unaffordable Affordable Care Act

The Affordable Care Act—Obamacare—was passed without a single Republican vote, and since, Democrats have been doing their worst to try to convince the public Republicans are to blame for it. That’s because it was never affordable and has required untold billions to prop it up. One might blame John McCain, who was the sole Republican, Trump Derangement Syndrome, vote that prevented repeal of Obamacare.

Americans have eventually tumbled to Obamacare’s reality: the insurance is outlandishly expensive, costs far too much for miserly benefits, and is breaking the taxpayer bank. Now, in a revelation that surprises no one, it’s rife with fraud too.  

The report said insurance companies collected $94 million for people who were dead, one piece of what the Congressional Budget Office estimates to be $27 billion in annual Obamacare fraud, according to the National Pulse.

The GAO report said 58,000 Social Security numbers linked to advanced premium tax credits matched numbers in the Social Security death data. More than 7,000 individuals were found to have died before their coverage even began.

In one case, one Social Security number was used to receive 125 insurance policies covering 26,000 days — the equivalent of 71 years of coverage.

In acts of unusual competence, the GAO sent in fake applications without any of the usual documentation necessary for social security numbers, income and citizenship, and again, to no one’s surprise, were approved for Obamacare subsidies in 2024 and 2025.

Keep reading

VA’s Veterans’ Group Life Insurance Pays Out on Suicide, Incentivizing Death Then Calling the Data ‘Not Public Interest’

A troubling discovery has surfaced for veterans, one that says their life insurance can read like a financial plan for their own death. As for the VA’s reaction, one veteran claims it has been nothing but “silence and stonewalling.”

The Gateway Pundit spoke to Fleeman, who explained that he is referring to Veterans’ Group Life Insurance (VGLI), the program the government sells as financial security for former service members. He spoke solely in his personal capacity, emphasizing that his views are his own and do not represent the views or official positions of the U.S. Government, the United States military, the Department of Veterans Affairs, or any other organization with which he is or has been affiliated.

Using the VA’s comparison worksheet for VGLI, Fleeman pointed out his specific concern. VGLI asks, “Is there a suicide exclusion?”  And according to what the insurance program offers, “No – suicide claims are not excluded.”

“Most Americans think suicide voids life insurance,” Fleeman noted. “But if you’re a veteran under VGLI, VA is telling you the opposite.” In fact, if a veteran dies by suicide while covered, the policy still pays. “Now imagine reading that when you’re behind on the mortgage and waking up every night in a cold sweat,” said Fleeman.

“This might look compassionate in a low-risk population, [but] veterans are not that population,” he pointed out. “These are people carrying blast injuries, PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder), moral injury, chronic pain, and shattered marriages.”

“VA publishes report after report acknowledging that veterans die by suicide at far higher rates than civilians. Everyone in the system knows this is one of the most vulnerable groups in the country.”

Keep reading

Chinese Firm Bought Insurer For CIA Agents As Part Of Trillion Dollar Spending Spree

For years, Washington assumed that China’s outbound investment flowed mainly into developing economies hungry for infrastructure money. But as scrutiny tightens across the West, it’s becoming clear that Beijing’s financial reach extended far deeper into wealthy nations – and far earlier – than most policymakers realized.

One early warning came in 2016, when Jeff Stein, a veteran journalist covering U.S. intelligence agencies, received an unusual tip: Wright USA, a small insurer that specialized in providing liability coverage for FBI and CIA personnel, had quietly been acquired the year before by Fosun Group, a Chinese conglomerate with reported ties to Beijing’s leadership. “Someone with direct knowledge called me up and said, ‘Do you know that the insurance company that insures intelligence personnel is owned by the Chinese?’” Stein recalls. “I was astonished.”

The concern was immediate and obvious. Wright USA held personal information on some of the most sensitive employees in the federal government. The question in Washington became not what the Chinese buyer intended, but who might ultimately gain access to the data. Newly released records reviewed by the BBC indicate that Chinese state banks helped finance the acquisition, routing a $1.2 billion loan through the Cayman Islands to enable Fosun’s purchase.

Though the deal violated no U.S. laws, it triggered alarm. Stein’s story in Newsweek soon prompted a rare inquiry by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the Treasury-led interagency panel responsible for policing foreign ownership risks. Within months, Wright USA was sold back to American owners. Neither Fosun nor Starr Wright USA, its new parent, responded to requests for comment.

High-level intelligence officials say the episode was among the cases that pushed the first Trump administration in 2018 to significantly tighten U.S. investment screening – part of a broader shift as the U.S. began rethinking a two-decade-old presumption that Chinese capital posed few national-security risks.

Keep reading

Obamacare Subsidies Led to Billions in Insurer Profits, CEOs Donated to Democrats

When Democrats shut down the federal government for 42 days, millions of Americans suffered. Veterans couldn’t access services, national parks closed their gates, and federal workers went without paychecks. Nice priorities, right? But the real reason for their obstinacy wasn’t principle—it was profit.

While you weren’t looking, a massive wealth transfer was taking place. While families struggled to make ends meet during the shutdown, Democrat donors in the insurance industry were protecting their golden goose: taxpayer-funded subsidies that have made them billions. The shutdown wasn’t about healthcare—it was about keeping the money flowing to the right pockets.

From ‘Just the News’:

The 42-day federal shutdown forced by Democrats thrust the economics of Obamacare into the limelight, and exposed an uncomfortable truth: An insurance industry whose executives are increasingly liberal donors has seen its earnings soar with the injection of taxpayer-funded subsidies that propped up Barack Obama’s signature health program from collapse.

The nation’s largest health insurance companies have seen good business since Obamacare was first passed in 2010 and fully implemented in 2014. This has come in no small part because of federal government subsidies to the insurance industry, which government estimates show totaled $1.8 trillion in 2023 alone.

This is outrageous. One-point-eight TRILLION dollars. In one year. Your money, their pockets.

The evidence is damning. Since Obamacare’s implementation, the four largest health insurance companies saw their profits explode by 216%. UnitedHealth Group, which dominates the industry, experienced the most dramatic windfall. Their stock prices didn’t just beat the market—they crushed it, growing 1,032% since the law passed, compared to just 251% for the S&P 500.

Keep reading

Obamacare Is A Disaster, Just As Expected

Just over 15 years ago, when the Democrat-controlled House and the Democrat-controlled Senate were debating the healthcare proposals offered by the Democrat president, nearly everyone on the political right was unified in opposition. It may well have been the last time the right was united on anything, but it was indeed unified and resolute.

Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann (MN) warned that “This monstrosity of a bill will not only destroy the private healthcare market, it will lead to massive increases in premiums and rationed care.” Congressman (and eventual vice-presidential nominee and Speaker of the House) Paul Ryan (WI) complained that “This bill is a fiscal Frankenstein. It’s a government takeover that will explode costs and kill jobs.” Senator (and Republican Leader) Mitch McConnell (KY) insisted that Americans “want reforms that lower costs, not a trillion-dollar government experiment.”

Right-leaning commentators like George Will and Charles Krauthammer agreed, not only with each other but with Republicans in Congress as well. Krauthammer, in particular, argued that President Obama’s promise to “bend the cost curve” down was pure, unadulterated, and extensively documented fantasy. National Review, much maligned among Trump supporters these days, dedicated most of an issue to exposing and forecasting Obamacare’s fiscal absurdities and the likelihood that it would result in lower quality of care, increased taxes, and exploding insurance premiums. Even the Heritage Foundation—in the news lately for purportedly exacerbating rifts in the conservative coalition—likewise agreed with everyone in the movement, insisting that Obamacare was a disaster waiting to happen and would keep none of the promises that it made, all while destroying what was good and valuable in the private insurance market.

More than a decade later, when it was clear that the system was in trouble and that only greater government intervention and spending could save it, Heritage (in the form of Robert Moffit, Edmund Haislmaier, and Nina Owcharenko Schaefer) took something of a victory lap, detailing Obamacare’s manifest failures and arguing that it was long past time to scrap the whole experiment.

Keep reading

The Obamacare secret at the heart of the shutdown: insurers made billions at taxpayer expense

The 42-day federal shutdown forced by Democrats thrust the economics of Obamacare into the limelight, and exposed an uncomfortable truth: An insurance industry whose executives are increasingly liberal donors has seen its earnings soar with the injection of taxpayer-funded subsidies that propped up Barack Obama’s signature health program from collapse.

The nation’s largest health insurance companies have seen good business since Obamacare was first passed in 2010 and fully implemented in 2014. This has come in no small part because of federal government subsidies to the insurance industry, which government estimates show totaled $1.8 trillion in 2023 alone.

Those subsidies were greatly expanded by the Biden administration during the COVID-19 pandemic as an emergency measure, but Democrats have fought to keep them permanent.    

Obamacare brought health insurance companies historic profits

A Just the News analysis of public financial records from four of the nation’s largest health insurance companies found that net earnings ballooned about 216% from 2010 to 2024. UnitedHealth Group in particular, which dominates the industry with a market share of around 15%, saw the largest explosion of profits. The other three companies, Elevance, Centene, and Cigna also experienced a marked growth in net earnings after the implementation of Obamacare. 

The healthcare legislation was also a boon for these companies’ stock prices. One study found the weighted average of health insurance stock prices has grown 1,032% from 2010—when the law was passed—and 448% from 2013—the year the legislation’s key provisions were implemented. 

This performance far outstripped the most popular S&P 500 exchange-traded fund, which grew 251% and 139%, respectively, the Paragon Health Institute reported last year. ETFs are designed to track the performance of specific stock indices and, as such, generally represent average market growth.

Keep reading

The Fraud That Won’t Die: Obamacare’s Endless Deceptions

While the government shutdown continues and health-care reform remains gridlocked, Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act) burdens taxpayers with out-of-control costs. For more than a decade, Obamacare has been riddled with systemic fraud that has been denied by Democratic Party bureaucrats, ignored by much of the media, and paid for by weary taxpayers.

Built on lies including “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,” Catholics continue to bitterly recall the duplicitous role that Sr. Carol Keehan, CEO of the Catholic Healthcare Association, played in passing Obamacare—despite the pushback by the Catholic bishops because of its inclusion of abortion funding and the contraception mandate. Sr. Keehan’s mendacious shepherding of the health-care program was rewarded with a silver signing pen from President Obama.

Intensifying the pressure today on an already overburdened health-care system, the influx of several million undocumented immigrants has pushed government-funded health care to a breaking point. According to an October 2024 CBO report to Rep. Jodey Arrington, federal and state governments spent $27 billion on Emergency Medicaid for noncitizens ineligible for full Medicaid coverage between 2017 and 2023. In 2023, the estimated cost of health care for undocumented immigrants in the United States was approximately $3.8 billion, specifically for Emergency Medicaid services.

Hospitals are bound by law to provide emergency services to undocumented patients under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), enacted in 1986. This is a federal law that requires hospitals to provide emergency medical care to all individuals, regardless of immigration status or ability to pay. Under EMTALA, any hospital that receives Medicare funding must conduct a medical screening exam for anyone who arrives at the emergency department and must provide stabilizing treatment for emergency medical conditions, including active labor. This mandate applies to undocumented immigrants as well as uninsured citizens and legal residents—and most of us strongly support the provision of this care to all on an emergency basis.

Unfortunately, such care is costly. According to the Trump administration, the estimated cost of emergency health care in 2024—including labor and delivery and postnatal care of the mothers and newborn babies—of undocumented immigrants in the United States rose 142 percent from the year before to an astonishing 9.1 billion dollars of taxpayer funds to pay for the emergency health care of those in the country illegally. Between 2020 to 2024, Medicaid taxpayer health-care dollars provided to illegal immigrants tripled.

Though critics argue that the Trump administration’s numbers are inflated, few challenge the fact that the nation’s hospitals are facing a fiscal crisis. In January 2024, Dr. Donna Lynne, CEO of Denver Health, publicly voiced concern over the financial strain caused by uncompensated care for undocumented individuals. Speaking at a finance and governance committee meeting, she stated, “Where do you think the migrants are getting care? They are getting care at Denver Health…It’s going to break Denver Health in a way that we didn’t even anticipate.” Her remarks highlighted the hospital system’s mounting fiscal challenges, noting that Denver Health treated over 8,000 undocumented immigrants in 2023, accounting for approximately 20,000 visits. Uncompensated care costs surged from $60 million in 2020 to $136 million in 2023.

Keep reading

Behind Democrats’ Sob Stories Is A Push For More Tax Dollars To Insurance Companies

Democrats like Sen. Amy Klobuchar are framing the fight over the government shutdown and a Republican refusal to keep funding health insurance subsidies as an attack on individuals.

Poor Bill and Shelly Gall — why are congressional Republicans being so mean to them?

The story Klobuchar links to does this remarkable thing, and read this carefully:

The Galls are among roughly 22 million ACA marketplace enrollees — about 92% of all enrollees — who face the prospect of higher premiums in 2026, according to KFF, a nonpartisan health policy research group.

Democrats are pushing Republicans to extend the enhanced subsidies that make enrollees’ health premiums cheaper, as part of a deal to end the federal government shutdown that began Oct. 1. Republicans have said they want to negotiate any extension of ACA subsidies outside of legislation that would reopen the government.

See the premise? Subsidies “make enrollees’ health premiums cheaper.”

They don’t. They make enrollees’ health premiums divided, splitting the cost between the person paying for the insurance and the taxpayers who fund the subsidy, but they flatly don’t make the premiums cheaper.

It’s like you go to the supermarket and buy filet mignon, and it only costs you a dollar — wow, filet mignon is so affordable now! — but the supermarket bills the federal government for $25 every time you make that purchase, and the government gets the $25 from you as taxes. The thing costs what it costs. Subsidies don’t make it cheaper. They just hide the expense at the point of purchase. Subsidies shift and obscure.

Klobuchar claimed, “Early retirees like Bill & Shelly will see their health insurance premiums increase nearly 300%—from $442 to $1,700 per month…” But the cost of their health insurance isn’t changing at all. What’s changing is who pays for it. And if Bill and Shelly pay taxes, they’re paying, at least in part, for their own subsidies. They’re taxed so that their taxes can be transferred to them as subsidies. What a remarkable game.

But then take it one more step.

Democrats frame the subsidy as a payment to Bill and Shelly, and don’t you want poor Bill and Shelly to have nice things? But the payment doesn’t go to Bill and Shelly. It goes to health insurance companies. It’s a subsidy to industry, allowing corporations to hide the cost of their product. It’s a federal gift to private corporations.

As the subsidies die (among other political changes), health insurance companies are talking about the market headwinds that they face: “trouble in the government-funded insurance sector.” The submarine warfare masked with photos of poor Bill and Shelly is over the explosive growth of health care spending as a share of GDP, and the attempt to hide it by paying for it in less-noticed ways. Here’s the big finish from a story this week about the poor recent performance of UnitedHealthcare stock:

Still, shares of UnitedHealthcare remain down some 35% in 2025 as the company struggles with rising medical costs and reimbursement cuts. And these pressures, in turn, reflect the deepest fault lines in the U.S. system, including a population that’s aging faster than the workforce paying for it, medical inflation that outpaces wage growth, and a financial model that assumes employers, taxpayers, and patients can endlessly absorb higher costs—even as the federal government shuts down amid an affordability fight.

The financial model assumes that taxpayers can keep paying more. The fight isn’t about Bill and Shelly. The fight is about a spectacularly unaffordable health care business model that relies on the federal treasury:

The federal government subsidizes health insurance for over 150 million Americans through various programs and tax benefits. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports that in 2023, those costs and subsidies added up to $1.6 trillion, net of offsetting receipts, mainly from Medicare and Medicaid. A small portion of that spending — $91 billion, or 6 percent — goes toward subsidies for health insurance purchased through marketplaces established under the ACA and related spending.

The ACA subsidies are only $91 billion a year, though, so it’s practically nothing.

See also this 2023 CBO report, which projects explosive growth in federal health care costs over the next decade.

We’re not having a debate about giving money to Bill and Shelly so they can enjoy their early retirement. We’re having a debate about how much money the federal government — meaning you, if you pay taxes — is going to give to private corporations. Congressional Democrats are servicing their corporate clients.

“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.”

Keep reading

Health Insurance Companies Spend Big To Support California’s Partisan Redistricting Fight

In Washington, Democrats continue to keep the federal government shut down, demanding an extension of enhanced Obamacare subsidies scheduled to expire on December 31. Half a continent away, two health insurers are helping to fund a partisan campaign by one of the country’s most prominent Democrats. Coincidence?

The political donations represent but one more example of how big corporations want to feather the nest of Big Government and bankroll the leftist politicians willing to expand the same. It’s also yet another reason why Congress should let the enhanced subsidies expire as scheduled.

Big-Money Donations

A September story in the Sacramento Bee discussing money raised for and against the state’s Proposition 50 ballot measure on congressional redistricting noted two sizable donations from health insurers — $500,000 from Blue Shield of California, and $75,000 from UnitedHealth, the nation’s largest insurer. The news raises numerous questions, starting with how the insurers could afford such large political contributions in the first place.

After all, as I have previously noted, a recent California law that went into effect in March requires insurers to engage in “cultural competency training” regarding the transgender agenda. Apart from the fact that such training — more like indoctrination — likely violates employees’ First Amendment rights and federal conscience protections, it could also prove costly for insurers.

On top of the new administrative costs from this new mandate, UnitedHealth faces expenses from last year’s hack of Change Healthcare, one of its affiliates, that caused chaos within the health care system for months. So where and how exactly did these insurers have the wherewithal to make such large contributions?

Partisan Affair

The related question focuses more on the specifics of Proposition 50 itself. The referendum doesn’t touch on a health care-related issue — or really any policy issue whatsoever. It’s a pure political power play by Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-CA, attempting to gerrymander more Democratic-leaning congressional districts in California to offset Republican gerrymanders in Texas and elsewhere. Why are health insurers getting involved in such overtly political activities?

In responding to questions from the Daily Wire, Blue Shield of California claimed that it made its donations to Newsom’s ballot measure committee before it knew that Proposition 50 would end up on the November ballot. That’s arguably true regarding its first $250,000 contribution, made on April 24. But by the time of its second $250,000 contribution on July 16, rumors had started swirling about actions by California to respond to redistricting efforts by Texas Republicans.

Blue Shield of California also told the Daily Wire that it contributes to lawmakers on a bipartisan basis. But after its $500,000 contribution to Newsom’s ballot measure campaign, its next-largest contributions were $50,000 to the California Democratic Party, and $20,000 to the LGBT Caucus Leadership Fund — all of which suggests its donations go overwhelmingly to Democrats in a state with de facto one-party rule.

Keep reading