The Affordable Care Act II - Because Mr. Obama Loves You All

[Taro T]

Am I missing something here? Why can't HL's insurance carrier just let the individual purchase an additional rider for contraception? HL doesn't carry it and every insurance company wants their members to have contraception for a multitude of reasons - the Insurance Carrier would probably sell the rider for minimal cost....or does HL prohibit this?

Yes, what you are missing is that in order to be ACA compliant, the insurance policies MUST cover contraception. They can't go as an additional rider paid by the employee.

[B-Man]

Am I missing something here? Why can't HL's insurance carrier just let the individual purchase an additional rider for contraception? HL doesn't carry it and every insurance company wants their members to have contraception for a multitude of reasons - the Insurance Carrier would probably sell the rider for minimal cost....or does HL prohibit this?

 

Its mandatory . That would not satisfy the ACA (re: Federal Government) this is the next paragraph in the article.

 

 

It is on that last point that the Affordable Care Act offends most egregiously. While it is hardly obvious that there is a compelling state interest in subsidizing access to contraception, which is widely available and inexpensive (a woman who required an emergency dose of Plan B once a quarter would still spend more annually on toothpaste), it is entirely implausible that the least restrictive way of achieving that subsidy is a nationwide legal mandate for coverage of those products at no out-of-pocket expense by every employer in the country offering health insurance — and the federal government will penalize them if they don’t offer it. Even if we accept for the sake of argument the belief that subsidized contraception comes under la raison d’État, there are ways of achieving it without burdening religious belief in the way the ACA mandate does: The government could simply offer vouchers to anybody who wants one. Even better, it could have reformed health care in such a way that Americans could shop for insurance as individuals rather than as herds, but the herding instinct is strong in the Democrats.

Edited March 24, 2014 by B-Man

[B-Man]

It’s the Law : Obama flouts the ACA.

 

 

 

 

Encouraging Signs at SCOTUS : Even liberal Breyer was tough on HHS.

 

 

 

 

Religious Freedom in Justice Kennedy’s Court

By Helen M. Alvare

 

.

 

 

Two More Hurdles for Obamacare

By Grace-Marie Turner

 

 

.

Edited March 26, 2014 by B-Man

[meazza]

Speak to Magox and OC. This is what they do for a living, both on different sides of the business.

 

Why would you do that to the poor guy???

[Nanker]

It’s the Law : Obama flouts the ACA.

 

 

"... a key feature of Obamacare’s complex architecture is that employers and certain individuals are subject to penalties only if those tax credits are available.

 

This created both a policy problem and a political problem for the Democrats: Without the subsidies and punitive taxes, those 34 federally created exchanges will collapse. At unsubsidized rates, premiums will exceed 8 percent of income for practically all of the residents of states receiving subsidies through the federal exchanges — which the Affordable Care Act defines as “unaffordable” — triggering exemptions from the individual mandate to purchase insurance. Which is to say, Obamacare would lose its power to bribe and its power to coerce simultaneously.

So the Obama administration has ordered its health-care enforcers at the IRS to ignore the law and offer the subsidies and credits through the federal exchanges as well. The IRS has no legal authority to do so, and Congress has appropriated no funds for the purpose of underwriting those subsidies. The president is ordering agents of the federal government to violate the law."

 

Encouraging Signs at SCOTUS : Even liberal Breyer was tough on HHS.

 

 

 

 

Religious Freedom in Justice Kennedy’s Court

By Helen M. Alvare

 

.

 

 

Two More Hurdles for Obamacare

By Grace-Marie Turner

"So the ACA offered the States a choice: either take control of the state health insurance market through establishment of a State Exchange and accept the associated federal tax burdens, or yield control of the health insurance market to a federal Exchange and protect local citizens and businesses from the tax penalties associated with the individual and employer mandates. The premium assistance credit for health plans purchased through a State Exchange was intended to sweeten the deal and to encourage States to choose to establish State Exchanges and to accept the accompanying tax burdens. See Adler & Cannon, supra, at 153.

The IRS Rule eliminated the statutory choice by imposing those tax burdens in all States—even those that declined to establish their own Exchanges. The result is a more expansive exertion of federal regulatory control over health insurance than the statute contemplated. Because health insurance is traditionally within the province of State—not federal—regulation, the IRS’s interpretation of the relevant statutes violates the rule that “if Congress intends to alter the ‘usual constitutional balance between the States and the Federal Government,’ it must make its intention to do so ‘unmistakably clear in the language of the statute.’ Gregory, 501 U.S. 452, 460 (1991)."

 

.

[IDBillzFan]

Unbeleivably, it's being reported the WH is about to delay the enrollment deadline by a month.

 

I'm sure that will make things better. Any time you can't get something done in four years with trillions of taxpayer dollars, usually you just need that extra month to make it all come together.

[B-Man]

Unbeleivably, it's being reported the WH is about to delay the enrollment deadline by a month.

 

 

 

Busted! After promising ´no delay´ in final Obamacare sign-up deadline, Obama administration unveils new ´honor system´ *

by David Martosko

 

Original Article

 

 

 

 

 

 

PHILIP KLEIN: It’s time for White House to start sweating over legal challenge to Obamacare subsidies.

 

 

 

 

 

OBAMACARE BLOG COMMENT OF THE DAY:

 

We shouldn’t forget that ObamaCare was written in the dead of night by Harry Reid’s office, voted on, unread, by the Senate hours later and sent to the House which passed it “as is” so it would not have to go back to the Senate where Scott Brown’s vote would have killed it.

 

Therefore, there was no internal consistency check. There was no opportunity for clarifying amendments. There was no opportunity for anything Harry Reid did not think was appropriate. That is why we keep finding these unintended consequences that Obama tries to paper over with Executive Orders.

 

That is why the idea of “fixing” ObamaCare is a very bad idea. There are so many traps in the bill (as well as in the stacks of “rules”) that no one could untangle the mess. This is just like a badly designed web site. Best to start all over than try to add undocumented patch upon undocumented patch in a vain attempt to fix it.

 

If the Republicans get control of the Senate, they should identify what the minimum requirements of a health care system should be, and create a much simpler, easy to understand bill and send that to Obama.

[IDBillzFan]

Ladies and gentlemen, more of your progressive left.

 

Harry Reid: The problem with Obamacare isn't the law. It's the people. They just don't know how to use the internet.

 

No. Seriously.

 

http://youtu.be/AAtgsizDWV0

[Nanker]

Hiary **** Reid should rewrite the sign to say, "A Fair Shot AT Everyone!"

[B-Man]

REMINDER: Kathleen Sebelius lied about not extending the Obamacare enrollment deadline past March 31.

 

And she did it less than two weeks ago. There’s video at the link.

 

 

 

 

 

Boehner: 'What the hell is this, a joke?'

 

 

 

 

 

Unruly Progressives

When policy is dictated by emotion.

 

 

 

 

 

.

[TH3]

OCinBuffalo, on 21 March 2014 - 01:49 PM, said:

 

Yet again you drop another thoughtless assertion.

 

Our health care costs ARE on par with the rest of the world's. The difference is: we report our health care cost straight up, all of them.

 

They do not. They look at what "they" are paying, ONLY in terms of what the government is paying. They don't account for side payments(because they are illegal, but everybody does it) or private insurance in their "per capital health care spending" charts.

 

You need to understand the very real difference between what is actually happening, and some report you get sitting at your school board meeting. They are not the same thing.

 

What you will get if we do what "everybody else" does: sure, you'll get your nice report that says costs have gone down, and therefore your district has to pay less. And, if that's all you care about, getting that report, then fine, but: it's a lie. It's a lie, because instead of really paying for health care, the government is just setting an abritrary, low reimbursement rate, and then? The providers start taking the "side payments" to deliver care/see your health care enrollees first, which make them whole.

 

The teacher's union will work something out with the local hospital, so teacher's get first crack, but you aren't in that union, so either you grease some palms at the emergency room, or, you wait for 3 days.

 

That's the reality of the rest of the world's fake, "low health care costs" here. You want nice cost reports that show you're doing a good job on the school board? Hell, I can print out all sorts of nice reports for you using this: http://d3js.org/ but the underlying data will all be a lie.

 

Rather than actually cutting costs, all the rest of the world does: move those costs from one payer to another, and report on the difference.

 

Single Payer: one of the biggest lies ever, because in any Single Payer system, you will always find multiple payers. Always.

 

You want to focus on costs, fine, let's do that. But, just stop with this is "rest of the world" crap. Again, your assertion is completely false.

For one - i have not proposed ANY HC programs - so get off my back.

Second - got ANY reports etc that show these "shadow costs" that other countries have?

 

Waiting for OC to answer this......

Edited March 26, 2014 by baskin

[3rdnlng]

OCinBuffalo, on 21 March 2014 - 01:49 PM, said:

 

Yet again you drop another thoughtless assertion.

 

Our health care costs ARE on par with the rest of the world's. The difference is: we report our health care cost straight up, all of them.

 

They do not. They look at what "they" are paying, ONLY in terms of what the government is paying. They don't account for side payments(because they are illegal, but everybody does it) or private insurance in their "per capital health care spending" charts.

 

You need to understand the very real difference between what is actually happening, and some report you get sitting at your school board meeting. They are not the same thing.

 

What you will get if we do what "everybody else" does: sure, you'll get your nice report that says costs have gone down, and therefore your district has to pay less. And, if that's all you care about, getting that report, then fine, but: it's a lie. It's a lie, because instead of really paying for health care, the government is just setting an abritrary, low reimbursement rate, and then? The providers start taking the "side payments" to deliver care/see your health care enrollees first, which make them whole.

 

The teacher's union will work something out with the local hospital, so teacher's get first crack, but you aren't in that union, so either you grease some palms at the emergency room, or, you wait for 3 days.

 

That's the reality of the rest of the world's fake, "low health care costs" here. You want nice cost reports that show you're doing a good job on the school board? Hell, I can print out all sorts of nice reports for you using this: http://d3js.org/ but the underlying data will all be a lie.

 

Rather than actually cutting costs, all the rest of the world does: move those costs from one payer to another, and report on the difference.

 

Single Payer: one of the biggest lies ever, because in any Single Payer system, you will always find multiple payers. Always.

 

You want to focus on costs, fine, let's do that. But, just stop with this is "rest of the world" crap. Again, your assertion is completely false.

For one - i have not proposed ANY HC programs - so get off my back.

Second - got ANY reports etc that show these "shadow costs" that other countries have?

 

Waiting for OC to answer this......

 

OC posts in spurts, like really long spurts, but he'll get back to you sooner or later.

[Taro T]

Ladies and gentlemen, more of your progressive left.

 

Harry Reid: The problem with Obamacare isn't the law. It's the people. They just don't know how to use the internet.

 

No. Seriously.

 

http://youtu.be/AAtgsizDWV0

In fairness to him, any country that could have 1/2 of its legislative branch run by this dolt might truly have a large portion of the citizenry that IS too stupid to use a website.

[IDBillzFan]

In fairness to him, any country that could have 1/2 of its legislative branch run by this dolt might truly have a large portion of the citizenry that IS too stupid to use a website.

 

Fair enough. After all, he's leading people like him who are concerned that Guam is going to tip over. Or are glad that today we have "two Vietnams, side by side, North and South, exchanging and working."

[Taro T]

Fair enough. After all, he's leading people like him who are concerned that Guam is going to tip over. Or are glad that today we have "two Vietnams, side by side, North and South, exchanging and working."

 

Plus we don't know whether he's speaking from personal experience. Perhaps he can't turn on a computer himself.

[IDBillzFan]

 

Plus we don't know whether he's speaking from personal experience. Perhaps he can't turn on a computer himself.

 

Ohmahgosh! The Koch Brothers are forcing people to forget how to use a computer!! Telepathically! On a horse!

[DC Tom]

Ladies and gentlemen, more of your progressive left.

 

Harry Reid: The problem with Obamacare isn't the law. It's the people. They just don't know how to use the internet.

 

No. Seriously.

 

http://youtu.be/AAtgsizDWV0

 

What's truly sad is that public accessibility and usability of federal web sites is a matter of federal law, up to and including the provision of alternatives. So if Reid's 62-year old lady can't get insurance because she can't use healthcare.gov, it is ENTIRELY the responsibility of the federal government to provide an alternative.

 

Dumbest. Law. Ever.

[Nanker]

 

 

Fair enough. After all, he's leading people like him who are concerned that Guam is going to tip over. Or are glad that today we have "two Vietnams, side by side, North and South, exchanging and working."

And let us not forget that the Gulf ports of Jacksonville, Miami, New York, and London have to be bailed out in order for people to know what's in the Healthcare law.

[BillsFanM.D.]

Dumbest. Law. Ever.

 

The whole thing is becoming more than embarrassing. Forget mandates and extensions. Looking only at the site itself and the data it's supposedly generated: We still have no idea who's signed up or paid?? Seriously?

http://www.foxnews.c...till-not-fixed/

 

Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, raised concerns over it at a recent hearing with Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services. “The number that's really important," Doggett said, "is not how many people have enrolled, but how many people have paid their premiums that are actually getting in exchange-base coverage. A number," he said pointedly, "we've never been given."

[Nanker]

The whole thing is becoming more than embarrassing. Forget mandates and extensions. Looking only at the site itself and the data it's supposedly generated: We still have no idea who's signed up or paid?? Seriously?

http://www.foxnews.c...till-not-fixed/

 

Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, raised concerns over it at a recent hearing with Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services. “The number that's really important," Doggett said, "is not how many people have enrolled, but how many people have paid their premiums that are actually getting in exchange-base coverage. A number," he said pointedly, "we've never been given."

A link from your link: "Sebelius to stump for Obamacare at Montclair State University today" is an object lesson in her stupidity and a hilariously flawed strategy to push enrollment in this abortion. She's going to a college to pontificate on the virtues of the law which allows coverage to virtually 100% of the student body which is under age 26, and the professors and administrators and their staff which are totally covered under cadillac plans. Brilliant!

I wonder if they'll have kiosks set up to handle the tens of thousands of new enrollees they're expecting to get at this college.