Since the passage of Obamacare, all fifty state Medicaid agencies have been forced to create a new standalone database that contains nothing besides the contact information of Medicaid applicants who used Healthcare.gov.
Some of these new databases mail out voter registration forms automatically. You cannot refuse them.
No worthwhile verification occurs before the forms are mailed. Apply for Medicaid and the form will be mailed to you, be you a verifiable citizen or Ayman al-Zawahiri on a computer in Pakistan.
Further, these new databases are accessible by groups like Organizing for Action, the reconstituted ACORN, and malevolent figures like Chris Tarango.
And no reasonable purpose exists for creating the databases besides making them available to the aforementioned Democratic activists.
Heard nothing regarding this before? Not only are you not alone, several state secretaries of State we contacted had no clue any of this was occurring under their watch. One source involved in the recently initiated legal battle to expose and dismantle the databases described the situation as follows:
A complete disregard for certain federal law, the skirting of others, the exploitation of existing Medicaid structures, the issuing of rules and regulations with virtually none of the required paper trail. …
Just evil genius. They friggin’ thought of everything.
The remainder of this article is composed of descriptions of the several decisions made by Obamacare authors that led to the construction of the databases. The listing of these decisions is intended to illustrate the impossibility that these databases were created unintentionally, or due to incompetence — a “fumble.”
We hope to show that a rational, disinterested observer must arrive at the conclusion that these actions could not have been taken for any reason beyond the intended exploitation of the Affordable Care Act as a vehicle for future Democratic election victories.
We invite readers to offer alternative interpretations. We have reached out to several Democratic congressional offices to give them the opportunity to offer their own.
We also have reached out to GOP officials to see if any are willing to go on record stating the lone reasonable conclusion: objectively, some authors of the ACA were not “bleeding hearts,” but white-collar criminals.
Decision #1: The “Honor System”
Applicants to Healthcare.gov must enter their current income level. This is a pivotal piece of data for the system: income alone is used to determine if the applicant will be presented with the option to: a) purchase full-price or subsidized health insurance policies; or b) if the applicant will be directed towards Medicaid/CHIP programs. This determination is calculated according to the new Modified/Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) scale.
However, Healthcare.gov does not perform any checks at all (such as requiring the submission of pay stubs, the prior year’s tax return, etc.) to verify the income amount entered by the applicant. This all-important piece of data is accepted by Healthcare.gov on the “honor system.”
Decision #2: The Community Organizing, Aggressive Application of “Motor Voter” Law
If an applicant’s entered income is low enough to be eligible for subsidy, the applicant will soon be asked by Healthcare.gov if he or she does not wish to receive a voter registration form. This question alone utilizes aggressive application of three provisions of federal law.
The 1993 National Voter Registration Act, or “Motor Voter,” requires all municipal and government facilities which provide public assistance to also offer voter registration services. The Obama administration claims that “Motor Voter” thus applies to Healthcare.gov, and subsequently Healthcare.gov must provide voter registration services. Some states have disagreed with this application as it relates to state exchanges, but expect those states to face DOJ litigation — Rhode Island and other states have.
1. Since the adoption of Motor Voter in 1993, the Federal Government has successfully forced states to push voter registration in all on-line contexts.
This represents a significant distinction: the federal government has necessarily crafted entirely new fields of law to handle the development of electronic interactions.
2. Motor Voter specifies that facilities offering public assistance must have voter registration services available, and the Federal Government is forcing applications to specifically reject voter registration, sometimes multiple times.
As such, you can draw your own conclusions about the motivation behind applying Motor Voter to the ACA, and behind phrasing the question in that manner.
3. A stunning apparent violation of federal law: In practice, Healthcare.gov does not let you say “no” to a voter registration form.
Even if you say “no,” you may be mailed a form automatically.
You may receive a form that is pre-populated with the identifying information you entered into Healthcare.gov. Comprehension of the form is thus unnecessary; the recipient of the pre-populated form need only determine where to sign it.
As explained below, this will occur at the state level, where the design and implementation of Obamacare regarding voter registration make these transparently intentional abuses of Motor Voter seem tame.
Among sources reached for this article, that phrase “evil genius” was employed when referring to what Obamacare requires of state Medicaid entities; we were told its usage has become commonplace.
Decision #3: Restructuring Medicaid’s — and Only Medicaid’s — Eligibility Screening Procedures
Since the enactment of LBJ’s Great Society public assistance programs, most state Medicaid agencies have not been responsible for handling eligibility screenings.
Generally, screening for the various public assistance programs has instead been handled by state departments of Health and Human Services, or by similar state entities. One system would screen for all of the public assistance programs; the individual state program agencies would only handle administration.
After 50 years of precedence, Obamacare has changed this. But only for Medicaid.
As discussed earlier, if an applicant enters a qualifyingly low income into Healthcare.gov, the applicant is sent to the Medicaid side of the website. At this point, those five decades of established fraud prevention procedures are jettisoned.
Identifying information entered on the Medicaid side of Healthcare.gov is treated differently than identifying information entered while applying to all other public assistance programs.
How it works now: each state Medicaid agency has been instructed to create a new stand-alone database for storing identifying information entered by Medicaid applicants via Healthcare.gov. (Note the word “instructed,” not “required by law” or something similar. We will get to that shortly.) As instructed, all fifty states have created one of these databases.
They have further been instructed that this identifying information should no longer be sent to whichever state organization formerly performed the eligibility screening. The information must only go to these new databases.
Decision #4: The Parting of Data
As instructed, each state designed these new stand-alone databases to be dedicated to storing only the identifying information of Healthcare.gov applicants — but no medical data.
If you happen to be familiar with the basics of both health care and election law, perhaps your pupils just grew wide. Because you are aware that medical records are treated by the law as private and sacrosanct, but voter rolls, consisting of only identifying information, are publicly accessible.
- The federal government instructed states that they could not send any applicant data entered into the Medicaid side of Healthcare.gov to their traditional eligibility screeners.
- They then instructed state Medicaid agencies to create stand-alone databases for this new applicant information, and that these new databases would be forbidden from containing any medical information.
- Per an incorrect application of Motor Voter law, the Obama administration considers the Medicaid side of Healthcare.gov to be a public assistance “office,” and as such, required to offer voter registration services.
- The Obama administration also considers it legal to treat the distribution of voter registration forms as “must opt-out,” instead of “must opt-in.”
These four bullet points are the basis of Decision #5.
Decision #5: The Illegal, Automatic Mailing of Voter Registration Forms and “Opt-Out” Forms
States were instructed that, to comply with Motor Voter, these new databases must automatically mail voter registration forms to each new individual applicant sent over from Healthcare.gov.
Recall, you may have said “no” earlier. It doesn’t matter.
The new databases must also mail a second form that states “I do not wish to register to vote,” which you must sign and return.
Otherwise, it is assumed you wish to register.
If the Feds notice you still haven’t replied?
Remember Decision #4: the new databases are publicly accessible, since they do not contain any medical information.
Anyone – perhaps Organizing for Action, or Battleground Texas – can get their hands on it, and then show up at your door with yet another form.
Review the prior five decisions: are you able to determine a reasonable explanation for all five of them besides getting potential voter information in the hands of Democratic organizing groups? Groups populated by bad actors like Chris Tarango, but which nonetheless have the blessings of the administration?
Recall that this is voter information gathered via Medicaid applications, a program whose recipients vote almost exclusively Democrat.
If Orwell comparisons strike you as tedious, an additional instruction to the states about how they are allowed to screen eligibility, along with the precedent-breaking, whispered demands from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) that follow may have you granting an exception.
Decision #6: Eliminating the State Medicaid Screeners
For the past five decades, states have dedicated a tremendous amount of resources to providing a “second-level review” of applicant information transmitted to them via a federal agency.
But now, and quite simply, that has been ended. But only for Medicaid.
States are no longer allowed to challenge the validity of applicant information sent to them from the Medicaid side of Healthcare.gov.
Instead, states are to assume that if information was transmitted to them, the federal government has deemed that information to be valid. States haven’t simply been instructed to no longer let their traditional public assistance eligibility screeners touch Medicaid information from Healthcare.gov — they have been instructed that state Medicaid agencies can’t screen it, either. This isn’t an administrative shift of the state screening processes, it’s the forbidding of state screening processes.
We already know what little concern Healthcare.gov itself has for the validity of applicant information. The site employs the “honor system” for income, the most important piece of data. Also, as previously reported at PJ Media, the Medicaid side of Healthcare.gov allows anyone on Earth to secure at least 90 days of Medicaid with just two easily forged documents and a lie about being a legal alien.
The security bar is even lower for entrance into one of the new state “Medicaid/voter roll” databases. In fact, it’s non-existent: apply for Medicaid as a citizen, you’re going to end up in your state’s new “Medicaid/voter roll” database.
And the state is forbidden from checking the application’s validity.
This development represents an endpoint, with identifiable products of those six federal decisions. The products are:
- Fifty unscreened databases, accessible to all, of identifying information of likely Democratic voters.
- Fifty databases of likely Democratic voters, which automatically mail voter registration forms and required “opt-out” forms to each applicant.
What is the rational result of these two final products following their implementation?
- The Democratic Party exploiting a federal law passed without a single Republican vote, a law that mandates citizen participation, a law that mandates citizens purchase a product to sustain the law financially, to produce an unbeatable tool to utilize for winning elections.
- Bad actors within the Democratic Party, both within and outside of government, using this tool to easily commit voter fraud.
- An organized entity hostile to the United States exploiting the massive security holes created by this Democratic law to flood the Medicaid rolls with fraudulent enrollees, rendering the massive program database unusable.
- An organized entity hostile to the United States exploiting the massive security holes created by this Democratic law to flood the voter rolls with fraudulent identities, rendering the administration of elections impossible.
To employ an example from our prior article on fraudulent 90-day Medicaid enrollments:
- Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, from a computer in Pakistan, can tell Healthcare.gov that his income this year is zero.
- He will be directed to the Medicaid side of the website, where he can claim to be an American citizen temporarily living abroad.
- He can enter the address of his local post office.
- Al-Zawahiri will have himself a voter registration card arrive shortly.
- He can instruct his millions of supporters to do the same.
If Healthcare.gov was actually working, al-Qaeda could get that done by the weekend.
How did the Obama administration accomplish this? Where’s the paper trail? Aren’t there established processes for the development and implementation of rules and regulations applying to a federal bill, and aren’t all of those deliberations required to be publicly released?
Yes. But in perhaps the Obama administration’s worst “fumble,” they bypassed just about the entire rule-issuance process.
Decision #7: Breaking All the Rules
In Part Two of this article, to be published following the Thanksgiving holiday, we will discuss how the federal government’s Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, acted in a precedence-shattering, secretive manner in issuing orders to state Medicaid agencies regarding how to construct the databases.
We will also discuss the massive security holes created by the allowance of “telephonic signature,” and the secretaries of State who were left completely in the dark.
We will link, post, and discuss the paper trail — and who was involved.
And we will discuss the George Soros-funded Demos organization, which helped push the “opt-out” approach to Motor Voter, and which happened to be one of the few entities that had any knowledge of the new databases.
Indeed, they happened to have enough knowledge regarding the databases to prepare and publish a report containing state-by-state strategies for taking advantage of them.