Thread: The Future of Obamacare

Opinion


Latest ObamaCare ‘fix’ could extend bailouts for insurers

By John Podhoretz

February 19, 2014 | 4:12am
Modal Trigger
Photo: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

MORE FROM

John Podhoretz



'ObamaCare both sucks and blows'

Congressional Budget Office sends death blow to ObamaCare

Dreary speech by leader who barely believes himself

De Blasio’s mission is to raise taxes

Chris Christie: forever the punch line of Bridgegate jokes




Another week, another possible unilateral and unconstitutional revision of ObamaCare from the White House — this time in the way the bill was successfully designed to buy the support of the nation’s insurance companies.
A few more months of this, and as Election Day approaches the president will be announcing that everyone will get a free oil change with their ObamaCare.
Susan Ferrechio of The Washington Examiner reports that the administration may extend the subsidy program it offered to insurers beyond 2016, when the program was set to expire.
What? you say? Subsidies to evil rich insurance companies? Yessiree.
Under ObamaCare, insurers are at risk of losing money if they sign up too many sick and elderly people and not enough young and healthy people.
All insurance is based on the “risk pool” concept: Some people (typically the young and healthy) don’t use much health care, so they cost their insurer less than they “pay in” in premiums; that covers the people (typically older and sicker) who take out more than they pay in. If more people take out than put in, the insurance companies have a cash-flow crisis.
This was deemed a particular danger at the beginning of ObamaCare, while the new health-care system found its sea legs. To help insurers avoid disaster, the government promised to mitigate the damage insurers would suffer through a “risk corridor” mechanism that would funnel money to insurers with especially large losses.
In theory, this would work both ways: If the companies make way more than they should, they have to give back to the government. This actually happened with the “risk corridor” subsidy in the 2003 law creating a prescription-drug entitlement under Medicare — the program proved so successful and smooth that insurers sent money back to the government.
But there’s no hope of that happening with ObamaCare, given the disastrousness of its rollout. Meanwhile, the companies have taxpayers over a barrel, as Yuval Levin writes on National Review Online.
The new law “commits taxpayers to cover insurance-company losses beyond a certain level and places no limit on the taxpayers’ exposure to the risk of such losses,” Levin says. “Taxpayers could easily end up turning over billions to cover insurer losses.”
If the administration is planning to extend the risk corridors past 2016, that is yet another admission of the disastrous nature of the ObamaCare rollout. Despite happy talk a few weeks ago about how signups had accelerated in January and more young people were on board, the administration either doesn’t know or is lying about how many of the new enrollees are actually paying for their new health care, which is the point.
The administration’s continuing efforts to mitigate the potential political and economic damage of its signature bill underline a point made by the liberal journalist Jonathan Alter in a forthcoming article in Foreign Affairs magazine.
“More than just the future of the ACA and the fate of the Democrats in this November’s midterm elections are now at stake,” Alter writes. “American liberalism is based on the faith that an active government can improve the lives of people — that the government possesses the core competencies necessary to implement an ambitious agenda. But if ObamaCare isn’t fixed soon, that faith could be seriously undermined, making it much harder for progressives to advance any social reform in the foreseeable future.”
Meanwhile, The New York Times tells us that Democrats have hit upon an exciting new strategy in the midterm elections: Talk about ObamaCare!
“Party leaders have decided on an aggressive new strategy to address the widespread unease with the health care law,” Ashley Parker reports, “urging Democratic candidates to talk openly about the law’s problems while also offering their own prescriptions to fix them.”
The late Ed Koch was once asked if he would consent to have his picture taken with a tiger. “The mayor is not a coward — and the mayor is also not a schmuck,” he said. If Democratic candidates adopt this “aggressive new strategy,” they won’t just be posing with a tiger, they’ll be putting their heads in the tiger’s mouth.
They will demonstrate that they’re not cowards. But they sure will be schmucks.

http://nypost.com/2014/02/19/latest-...-for-insurers/

Biden: Coming in 2 Million Short on Obamacare Would Be "a Hell of a Start"

Nick Gillespie|Feb. 20, 2014 9:24 am


Speaking in Minnesota, Vice President Joe Biden talked up Obamacare's enrollment problems, including the program's awful start and lagging enrollments. Not to worry, the VP said:

Biden acknowledged that “we may not get to 7 million, but if we get to 5 or 6 million that’s a hell of a start.”
In total, nearly 3.3 million had enrolled through the end of January. That’s about 75 percent of what the administration had hoped to achieve by that point in the open enrollment period.

Channeling the wisdom he learned over years of occasionally plagiarizing other people's life stories, Biden also offered up this defense of the program's rollout:

“We didn’t want this to start off as shaky as it did,” he said. “But it’s complicated.”

Yes, it is, Joe. Yes, it is.


Whole thing here.
Let's assume that the program only enrolls 5 million in the individual markets. Let's further assume that the demographic mix of those people isn't the acturial balance needed to keep costs the way they were predicted. What happens next? At what point does "a hell of a start" just turn into a hell of a program? Find answers in Reason's ongoing Obamacare coverage.


Via Reason 24/7.
In 2009, Reason TV celebrated "Joe Biden: Real Man of Genius."




Nick Gillespie is the editor in chief of Reason.com and Reason TV and the co-author of The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong With America, just out in paperback.
Follow Nick Gillespie on Twitter
Media Contact Reprint Requests

http://reason.com/blog/2014/02/20/bi...short-on-obama


Words of wisdom by this meathead!!!! I love this article!

Jimmy Kimmel’s ‘Obamacare-care’ spoof mocks Dem disaster again

February 20, 2014 by Michele Kirk 1 Comment

Late night comedy writers might be the only people who actually did benefit from the nightmare health-care legislation the Democrats forced on America.
Jimmy Kimmel cracked himself up on Wednesday’s “Jimmy Kimmel Live” when he asked the audience how many of them had signed up for Obamacare and not a single hand went up.
He followed up with a faux PSA for “Obamacare-care,” a process to help the poor schmucks that believed it would work the first time.
Watch:



Shockwaves over Obama administration’s plan to put government monitors in newsrooms


http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/02/...r-again-102005

posted on February 21, 2014
First Lady: Young People are 'Knuckleheads' Who Need Obamacare

First lady Michelle Obama in an interview on the “Tonight Show” joked that young people were “knuckleheads” who often had unexpected accidents and needed Obamacare.


“A lot of young people think they’re invincible, but the truth is that young people are knuckleheads,” Obama told new host Jimmy Fallon on the late night show.


‘They’re the ones who are cooking for the first time and slice their finger open, they’re dancing on the bar stools,’ she continued to laughter. “But while young people think they’re invincible, they’re not.”


The first lady has taken a prominent role in the administration’s push for more young people to sign up for Obamacare’s insurance exchanges. But the administration is still behind their targets.




Post Continues on washingtonexaminer.com



"Affordable Care Act", "Obamacare" not so good anymore, now it is "Affordable"....No it isn't "Affordable"!!!!!

February 21, 2014 Greta: Democrat Lawmakers Laughing At ObamaCare Fears Is Disgraceful

video at link below

http://conservative50plus.com/blog/g...06c2b5-3065713

Ethnic cleansing in NYC: Almost 50% of 2012 abortions were black

Saturday, February 22, 2014

Margaret Sanger’s grand plan for eugenics is a grand success in New York.

Check it out:
Horrific, horrific, horrific. According to the recently released Summary of Vital Statistics from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, ethnic cleansing is apparently occurring in the Big Apple.

In New York City, there were 56,000 black pregnancies in 2012. Of that total, 31,000 were aborted. That figure represents almost 50 percent of all abortions in New York City, despite the fact blacks represent less than 15 percent of the population. Read the report here.

Post Continues on allenbwest.com


Read the rest of this Patriot Update article here: http://patriotupdate.com/2014/02/eth...pzXgqZ3O34R.99

Minnesota Democrats Laughed at for Trying to Defend Obamacare

By Onan Coca / 25 February 2014


With as bad as Obamacare has gone so far, you’d think that Democrat supporters of the measure would be ready to defend it whenever they spoke publicly. Well, you’d be wrong.
Recently, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, and Representatives Tim Walz and Collin Peterson, were holding a townhall style meeting when they were asked about Obamacare. None seemed ready to give a defense.

A member of the audience asked, "I thought the Affordable Care Act would save $2500 per family. What happened?"

An uncomfortable moment followed the question as the three Democrats could only exchange glances -- one assumes each was hoping the other had a good response -- they didn’t. The obvious discomfort made the crowd erupt in laughter, as the audience seemed to finally understand just how bad Obamacare must be.

Representative Peterson was first to respond, to the chagrin of the other two.

"I voted 'no,' so I'll let these guys handle that," he said.

His fellow Democrats may not have appreciated it, but the crowd loved it. As Peterson finished saying he voted “no” on Obamacare – the crowd exploded in applause and then laughter at his fellow panel mates who had supported the law.

Keep supporting Obamacare, Democrats – it will mean nothing but good things for Republicans in 2014 and 2016.




http://eaglerising.com/4840/minnesot...end-obamacare/

Sebelius Denies Obamacare Reduces Jobs And Uses Obamacare Authority To Reduce Jobs

Posted 13 hours ago by Mark Horne

“There is absolutely no evidence and every economist will tell you this, that there is any job loss related to the Affordable Care Act.” –Kathleen Sebelius.

There is a great deal of evidence that Obamacare has resulted in job loss. But Sebelius, while pretending none of it exists, has provided some of her own evidence.

From Fox News:
But Sebelius herself, using discretion granted her by the Affordable Care Act, cut the maximum allowed by law from home health care funds. The cuts were deep enough that officials offered a damaging prediction of the impact saying, it was estimated that approximately 40 percent of providers would have negative margins.

And companies with negative margins don't last long -- or have to cut workers.

Dan Weber, head of the Association of Mature American Citizens, says "forty percent will be put into the red and anyone who has a brain in their skull knows that they're going to have to cut jobs and reduce services in order to make up the money."

In fact, those cuts put in jeopardy 498,000 jobs of home health care workers who work just for that 40 percent of firms that will be forced into the red -- the kind of home health workers who allow Yvonne Wightman, 98, to avoid expensive hospital or nursing home stays by getting care at home.

So once again we have all this great affordable health care promised to us when what is delivered is the reduction in medical care. Once again we have a case where Obamacare destroys jobs and takes away options from people needing medical care. And, once again, we have a major politician lying through her teeth to ward off criticism that is amply deserved. This was Sebelius’ version of Obama’s “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan, period.”

I’m somewhat curious about why Sebelius made such a hostile move against home healthcare workers. Does she want to see more of the elderly corralled into hospitals and nursing homes? I don’t know yet. As Obamacare progresses (or, rather, degenerates) we will have more opportunities to look at the harmful decisions of our medical masters and try to discern a method to their madness.

Read more at http://politicaloutcast.com/2014/02/...CCs0vD3l2DP.99

I’m somewhat curious about why Sebelius made such a hostile move against home healthcare workers. Does she want to see more of the elderly corralled into hospitals and nursing homes? I don’t know yet. As Obamacare progresses (or, rather, degenerates) we will have more opportunities to look at the harmful decisions of our medical masters and try to discern a method to their madness.

Don't think they like seniors, don't need to know why either!!!

It is all about "Fuzzy Math" They are counting people who enroll but end up being "not" insured for some reason or another, if you go to the site to check it out your counted, it is all smoke and mirrors. All bull crap, just like it's namesake...

Thursday, 03 April 2014 16:57 South Carolina Bill Opposing ObamaCare Rejected by State Senate

Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.


A South Carolina bill that would have restricted the applicability of ObamaCare to citizens of the Palmetto State has failed in the state senate. By a vote of 9-33, state senators rejected HB 3101, the Freedom of Health Care Protection Act. As the record shows, debate on the bill in its original form was interrupted repeatedly by the introduction of hundreds of amendments.
One such amendment was proposed by the bill’s primary sponsor, Tom Davis. Davis’s proposal would have relieved businesses of the purported “quandary” of choosing between obedience to state law or federal law. The Morning News Online reports on the legislative wrangling that accompanied Davis’s effort:
Under Senate Rule No. 24, any amendment attached to a bill must have related language or be germane to the bill. President Glenn McConnell ruled that the amendment was not germane.


Sen. Davis attempted to override McConnell’s ruling, but the attempt failed by a vote of 18 to 24. The Senate invoked cloture, which is rare. Cloture is a procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby cause an immediate vote to be taken on the bill.
According to the Associated Press, Davis’ proposed amendment “sets regulations for navigators who help people sign up for health insurance through the federal website. It also requires state agencies to hold hearings before applying for federal grants tied to the Affordable Care Act.”
Earlier on in the deliberations, Davis reportedly said that “he wants to narrow the proposed ban on state agencies aiding Obamacare to exempt those required to carry out parts of the law.” Another story quoted Davis as saying that he “accepts the federal government's ability to enact the law.”
That’s hardly the bold blueprint for state nullification of an unconstitutional federal act, as anticipated by our Founding Fathers.
James Madison, for example, in The Federalist, No. 45, recommended that state lawmakers “refuse to cooperate with officers of the Union” when the federal authority attempted to enforce any act not falling within its constitutionally enumerated powers.
While Davis’ language as reported by MyrtleBeachOnline.com is not as forceful as the Founders would prefer, in another interview he pointed to a solid Supreme Court case that supports his position of a state’s right to refuse to carry the federal government’s water.
Davis named his failed amendment the “Anti-Commandeering Amendment.” In MedCityNews, Davis’s reliance on the anti-commandeering principle was first reported:
According to Davis, his "anti-commandeering" measure is based on a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that says the federal government cannot force states to use their resources to carry out laws approved by Congress.
As we have reported on many occasions, the concept of anti-commandeering prohibits the federal government from forcing states to participate in any federal program that does not concern “international and interstate matters.”
While this expression of federalism (“dual sovereignty,” as it was named by Justice Antonin Scalia) was first set forth in the case of New York v. United States (1992), most recently it was reaffirmed by the high court in the case of Mack and Printz v. United States (1997).
Anti-commandeering, as set forth in the Supreme Court decision in Mack and Printz v. United States, prohibits the federal government from forcing states to participate in any federal program that does not concern “international and interstate matters.”
Writing for the majority, Scalia explained:
The Constitution thus contemplates that a State's government will represent and remain accountable to its own citizens. As Madison expressed it: "[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." The Federalist No. 39, at 245. [Citations removed.]
According to Davis, then, the House bill he helped re-write for the State Senate relies, at least in part, on the decision handed down in the Mack/Printz case.
Apparently, though, despite taking a stance against Palmetto State enforcement of ObamaCare, Davis does not see his bill as an example of nullification. In fact, he seems not to accept nullification as a valid weapon in the arsenal of liberty.
A report out of South Carolina published earlier this year contains a disturbing statement made by Davis. In a statement published in January on a Tea Party website, Davis reportedly said nullification was not "an available remedy" and then went on to misinterpret Article VI's so-called Supremacy Clause and perpetuate the myth of unquestionable judicial authority.
Island Packet quotes Davis’s denial of a state’s power to nullify ObamaCare: “The conversation really has gotten off the rails a little bit,” Davis said Wednesday, after holding three public hearings across the state that drew hundreds. “Everybody talks about nullification. This isn’t nullification. We can’t nullify.”
But state legislators not only can nullify every unconstitutional act of the federal government, they must do so if they are to faithfully adhere to the oath they swear as mandated by Article VI. What’s more, the Founders of our Republic would expect state lawmakers to stand for state sovereignty.
As James Madison wrote in the Virginia Resolution of 1798:
In case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.
Put simply: State legislators are bound by an oath and by fidelity to the Constitution to nullify every unconstitutional act of the federal government, every time, without exception.
Davis believes, though, that the South Carolina legislature’s only option is to delay enforcement of ObamaCare “as best they can until such time as Congress repeals the Affordable Care Act.”
This tack is moot, now, though, as the bill failed to pass out of the State Senate.
Perhaps it is the failure of the legislation’s own advocates to boldly embrace the nullification of ObamaCare that led to the confusion as to the bill’s purpose; confusion that ultimately led to its defeat.
Concerned citizens aren’t confused, though, and they refuse to wait on Washington to fix a problem Washington caused. Instead, they realize they need to forcibly derail the “long train of abuses and usurpations” and “provide new Guards for their future security” — the states and themselves.
Senator Davis’ opinion to the contrary, nullification is still the “rightful remedy.”
Acts not authorized under the enumerated powers of the Constitution are “merely acts of usurpation” and deserve to be disregarded, ignored, and denied any legal effect.
More state legislators need to learn this. Familiarity with these facts is critical to reclaiming state authority and destroying the threat to liberty posed by the centralization of power in Washington, D.C.
As for Davis, his seemingly self-fulfilling prophecy that “At the end of the day, the ACA will still be the law of the land in South Carolina,” has come true, due in no small measure to his own failure to embrace nullification and unapologetically assert the authority of states to act in all but a few enumerated areas, as protected by the Tenth Amendment.
Perhaps in the next legislative session there can be found in the Palmetto State a lawmaker committed to the Constitution and to forcing the federal beast back inside its constitutional cage.

Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels nationwide speaking on nullification, the Second Amendment, the surveillance state, and other constitutional issues. Follow him on Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton and he can be reached at jwolverton@thenewamerican.com.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...48de-287785873


Well folks "you had to pass it to read it"..now tell me who voted for it, is anyone out there awake yet?? Your politicians working for you!!!!

Subject: Obama and Pope