>>174686, >>174687, >>174688, >>174689, >>174690, >>174691, >>174692, >>174693, >>174694, >>174695, >>174696, >>174697, >>174698, >>174699, >>174700, >>174701, >>174702, >>174703, >>174704, >>174705, >>174706, >>174707, >>174708, >>174709, >>174710, >>174711, >>174712, >>174713, >>174714, >>174715, >>174716, >>174717, >>174718, >>174719, >>174720, >>174721, >>174722, >>174723, >>174724, >>174725, >>174726, >>174727, >>174728, >>174729, >>174730, >>174731, >>174732, >>174733, >>174734, >>174735, >>174736
Could an individual travel anywhere, even out of the country, and receive paid leave under this program?
Absolutely.
Could they choose any caregiver, including someone without American medical credentials?
Yes.
Could they get away with it without facing any consequences? You guessed it.
There's nothing in place to hold anyone accountable.
But then Stauber pushed even harder. What if someone were to take their employer's word for it and not provide any proof? he asked.
The response? They could.
The law doesn't require proof of care, and no one would question it. The more Stauber dug, the more unsettling the truth became.
People could get away with fraudulent claims that cost the taxpayers dearly, allowing them to travel the globe while still pocketing government funds.
The situation became even more bizarre when the conversation turned to who could certify a person's need for care.
Could it be someone outside of the U.S.? Without medical licenses? Yes. Absolutely. It didn't have to be an American doctor.
It could be a foreign practitioner with no professional standing in the U.S.
The law's broad definitions leave the system open to exploitation.
The fact that this could be happening under the state's watch without a shred of oversight has caused an uproar.
Here's where the real tension arises. Minnesota lawmakers, including...