I'd just like to point out that many of the things they listed in their article have a "Mostly True" or "Barely True" label, meaning that those items are more true than they are false.

It's also worth pointing out that this one:

Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure! False: Section 113 of the bill requires the Health Choices commissioner to conduct a study to make sure health reform does not unintentionally create incentives for businesses to self-insure or create adverse selection in the risk pools of insured plans. There is no mandated audit.

Fails to take into account that calling it a study doesn't make it any different from an audit.

Originally posted by Jenna
I'd just like to point out that many of the things they listed in their article have a "Mostly True" or "Barely True" label, meaning that those items are more true than they are false.

It's also worth pointing out that this one:

Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure! False: Section 113 of the bill requires the Health Choices commissioner to conduct a study to make sure health reform does not unintentionally create incentives for businesses to self-insure or create adverse selection in the risk pools of insured plans. There is no mandated audit.

Fails to take into account that calling it a study doesn't make it any different from an audit.

Thanks for pointing this out, Jenna. I'm a little confused on the terminology, though. Would the Health Commissioner ensure that actual reforms don't create loopholes for corporations, or would the HC be studying individual businesses on a case-by-case basis? It seems to me like they would study the actual laws/processes to make sure there aren't ways to take unethical advantage of the program.

However, the wording's a little confusing!


On a side note, government audits are a joke. I used to do internal auditing for Sarbanes-Oxley (this was all passed after the whole Enron debacle).

A company has to shell out the cash to pay for an audit where they test you on your own rules, regardless of how complicated the rules are. If you have a check or control in the procedure, that's all they care about. If you have someone prepare you for the audit internally (what I did), it was extremely easy to go through issues that were completed incorrectly, unethically, without a controlling check, etc. and create the evidence you needed or "complete the process" after the fact.

The auditors would go in and select a random sample of issues, then use your rules to see if you left an appropriate paper trail for each step, which always seemed like a waste of time because if the company really wanted to they could create their own paper trail or just alter their rules to be easier without changing how they handled anything.

Just a quick lesson on how stupid government audits can be!