The Glade 4.0

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

Some of you here are getting very close to essentially arguing "anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot." When you claim that Obamacare provides no benefits to anyone, anywhere, either in the short or long term, this is the argument you are basically making, as the only reason anyone would support such a thing is stupidity.

I honestly can not decide. Was this legislation purposly done so poorly as to warrent further intrusion to correct its "features", or was it honestly just poorly written?

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

Harry Reid Says Obamacare Just A First Step Toward Single Payer

Peter Suderman|Aug. 12, 2013 1:25 pm



Conservatives have long worried that Obamacare is just a stalking horse for an eventual single-payer health system. Over the weekend, Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid seemed to vindicate their fears.

credit: Center for American Progress Action Fund / Foter / CC BY-NDOn a Las Vegas PBS program, Reid said “he thinks the country has to ‘work our way past’ insurance-based health care,” according to the Las Vegas Sun. “What we’ve done with Obamacare is have a step in the right direction, but we’re far from having something that’s going to work forever,” the paper quotes Reid as saying.

I’ve long been skeptical of the idea that the Affordable Care Act was step one in some devious, far-reaching plan to take us to single payer. And for the most part I still am.

For one thing, a provision that was explicitly designed as a single-payer advance scout—the government-run insurance plan usually referred to as the “public option”—was removed from the final bill. And it’s probably the case that the Obama administration was never particularly concerned with the public option anyway; it was floated mostly in order to be sacrificed so that President Obama could say he compromised on a big liberal goal.

For another thing, it assumes too much power to execute complex, long-term legislative planning on the part of Congress and the White House. The ten-year, multi-step plan to achieve single-payer is not in any sense a real thing. Legislators today cannot easily tie the hands of legislators down the road. Most can barely commit themselves to long-term legislative goals. That means it would be very difficult for even a large and motivated group of Democratic legislators to make a premeditated single-payer-in-steps plan work.

At best, some Democratic legislators, including perhaps Reid, believed that passing Obamacare would create conditions under which single-payer might easier to achieve at some unspecified point in the future. But that doesn't get you very far. If single-payer is seriously on the table in the next decade or so, it will almost certainly be because of problems, and public dissatisfaction, with Obamacare. Is it really plausible to think that the public, which has never been supportive of the health law, would once again turn to Democrats and support them in a plan that is even more far-reaching in terms of the influence it gives public officials over the health system, that adds far more to taxpayers’ tab, and that would effectively wipe out an entire industry (or convert it into an arm of the government, depending on the transition details) along with numerous related ripple effects? Especially when the original vote for Obamacare was so close, and the public has never been fully behind the law? Maybe you can tell a story in which this happens, but it doesn’t strike me as the most likely scenario.

No, the best way to understand Reid’s comments is that he’s a liberal, talking to liberals, and throwing progressives a bone while irking conservatives in a way that’s essentially cost free.

But that doesn’t mean there’s no news here. The important bit isn’t the single-payer innuendo, but the idea that Obamacare is only a “step in the right direction,” and not “something that’s going to last forever.” Obamacare, in other words, isn’t the be-all-end-all of health policy. It’s an admission that Democrats believe the law is not enough, and a sign, arguably, that some now understand it won’t entirely work. Reid isn’t laying the groundwork for single payer—not really. But he’s putting up cover for the law’s potential failures, and warning, to anyone who will listen, that "fixes" will be coming down the line.

Administration delays ObamaCare caps on out-of-pocket costs

By Lara Seligman - 08/13/13 07:51 AM ET


The Obama administration has delayed a main provision in President Obama's healthcare reform law that would limit out-of-pocket insurance costs for consumers until 2015.

The cap, which includes deductibles and co-payments, was supposed to limit consumer costs to $6,350 for an individual and $12,700 for a family. But administration officials have quietly delayed the requirement for some insurers, allowing them to set their own limits starting in 2014.

The delay has been outlined on the Labor Department's website since February, but went largely unnoticed.

An administration official said the health law would “protect consumers from the worst insurance company abuses, by banning discrimination based on a pre-existing health conditions [sic], ending lifetime and annual limits on what an insurance company will cover, and capping out-of pocket spending to protect Americans and their families.”

“The February guidance builds on these landmark consumer protections by requiring that health plans limit out-of-pocket spending for major medical coverage for the first time, in 2014, on time,” the official added. “This single limit will apply to additional benefits in 2015.”

The move is the latest setback in the administration’s efforts to implement ObamaCare, the president’s signature domestic achievement. Last month the administration decided to delay the law’s employer mandate which forces large businesses to provide healthcare coverage or pay penalties.

An administration official defended the move to delay the cost caps, telling the New York Times that insurance companies which used different computer systems and companies to administer coverage needed time to comply.

“We knew this was an important issue,” the official said. “We had to balance the interests of consumers with the concerns of health plan sponsors and carriers, which told us that their computer systems were not set up to aggregate all of a person’s out-of-pocket costs. They asked for more time to comply.”

The delay on cost caps is sure to fuel GOP efforts to discredit and defund the president’s healthcare law.

Before Congress left for its August recess, the Republican-controlled House voted for the 40th time to defund or repeal elements of ObamaCare, and Tea Party lawmakers have vowed to block any spending measures that fund that law, risking a government shutdown after Sept. 30.

“Once again the president is giving a break to big businesses struggling with his health care law while individuals and families unfairly remain stuck under its mandates,” said Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) in a statement. “This report is just the latest evidence that the law is too costly and too complex to work – and that it’s not being implemented fairly.”

“Almost as troubling as the continued failures of the law’s implementation is the lack of transparency,” he continued. “Burying this announcement online in a ‘maze of legal and bureaucratic language’ shows little concern for the promises with which this law was sold. What else in the law isn’t working that we don’t yet know about?”

Boehner said "American families deserve a break" from the health law's mandates as well, calling on the Senate to take up the House measure delaying the individual mandate when lawmakers return from recess.

Both supporters and opponents of the law have launched campaigns to sway public opinion as the administration prepares to begin enrolling consumers in its insurance exchanges on Oct. 1.

The delays underscore the challenges the Obama administration faces as it attempts to roll out the healthcare law. Polls continue to show that the overhaul is unpopular and misunderstood by the public.

The administration, though, insists the law’s implementation is on schedule.

White House press secretary Jay Carney said last month that the administration was “moving forward” and said Republicans had presented no viable alternative to Obama’s healthcare reforms.

Boehner last month, however, vowed “a lot more” votes to derail the law.

Republicans said the delay of the employer mandate highlighted that the law, as a whole, was unworkable.

This story was last updated at 12:27 p.m.

Elise Viebeck and Justin Sink contributed.

You'd be begging the government to take over all health care too, if you believed all of that.

In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin

You forgot a key component Xeq

6. Health Care is a Right.

Obamacare penalty: Your family could pay more for insurance

Published: Tuesday, 20 Aug 2013 | 9:27 AM ET
By: Dan Mangan | Health Care Reporter


Just imagine saying this to your boss: "Don't offer me health insurance benefits."

Those apparently bizarre words might actually end up being uttered next year because of a quirk in Obamacare that could financially penalize a number of workers and their families.

That quirk means that for some people, it will be more economical to have an employer not offer health insurance subsidies for them and their families—and for the entire family to then instead be able to buy insurance with government subsidies on the Obamacare state health exchanges.

"For a lot of people, that may be a better deal," said Jonathan Wu, co-founder of the price-comparison site ValuePenguin.com. "We're talking like thousands of dollars."

Wu noted that companies might be able to shed health-care costs as a result of the quirk, too.

"Our analysis suggests that employees and employers across the country should sit down and discuss the potential merits of discontinuing employer-sponsored plans," ValuePenguin.com said in a new report. "The company would end up saving money while the employee would benefit from thousands of dollars in tax subsidies—a clear win-win for both parties."

What Wu calls one of several "weird" unintended effects of the Affordable Care Act—effects that lead to some less-than-affordable outcomes—stems from a rule that was adopted by the Health and Human Services Department last winter and goes into effect in 2014.

Under the ACA, popularly known as Obamacare, a worker whose employer offers company-subsidized health insurance that costs the worker less than or equal to 9.5 percent of household income is considered to be receiving "affordable coverage."

Is Obamacare crumbling under its own weight? Mark Hannah, a former campaign aide for John Kerry and Barack Obama, and Betsy McCaughey, author of "Beating Obamacare," share their opinions.


Workers with access to that supposedly affordable coverage from their employers are not eligible to reject it and instead buy insurance on the Obamacare state exchanges using government subsidies in the form of tax credits. Those credits are available to households whose incomes fall below 400 percent of federal poverty levels, which for a family of four is $94,200.

But HHS has ruled that the affordability test will consider only the cost to workers of buying insurance from their company's plan for themselves—not that of insuring their entire family.

In other words, even if the cost of obtaining coverage for a worker's entire family exceeds 9.5 percent of household income, that family cannot potentially save money by buying subsidized insurance on the state health exchanges.

Some people might say, " 'I got a raw deal for doing absolutely nothing,' " Wu said.

"Where it really hurts is where the company subsidizes only the employee and not the rest of the family," he added.

The potential financial hit to families is becoming more apparent with the approach of Oct. 1—the date when all federal and state-run Obamacare exchanges are scheduled to begin enrolling people in plans—and as exchanges release data about the premiums their plans charge.

(Read more: Red states could beat blues in Obamacare rollout)


Wu demonstrated the phenomenon with data from New York state's health insurance exchange and the hypothetical example of a family of four earning $50,000 per year. He assumed they were being offered, in the employer plan, insurance costing $13,646 annually for the entire family, and $4,788 annually for coverage for just the employee.



In his scenario, the company paid 50 percent of the employee's premium for coverage, but nothing for the premiums for the rest of the family.

In that scenario, the employee's premium cost would be $2,394 per year—well under the 9.5 percent affordability test level. Thus, the entire family would be disqualified from using federal subsidies to buy insurance on the Obamacare exchanges.

The family then would have two options.

Option one would be for the entire family to get insured under the employer plan at a net cost of $11,252—an amount that takes into account the company's subsidy to the employee.

Option two would be for the employee to buy insurance from his company's plan, at an out-of-pocket cost of $2,394. The three other members of his family would then buy insurance on the New York exchange at a cost of of $7,120—for a total of $9,514.

But Wu pointed out that if the company didn't pay any part of the employee's premium for the company-offered insurance, the entire family would significantly benefit financially under the Obamacare rule.

In that situation, a worker would be on the hook for all of the $4,788 annual premium cost for the company plan. That's more than the 9.5 percent income affordability test—and his family would thus be eligible for government subsidies on the New York state health exchange.

By using those subsidies, the entire family's total cost after purchasing the second cheapest "Silver" plan on that exchange would be just $3,365 a year.

That's nearly $6,000 less than the cheapest scenario available to the same family if the worker was offered employer-subsidized insurance, Wu noted.

"The employee could simply ask the employer to keep the $2,400 [subsidy] so that the insurance would not qualify as affordable," the ValuePenguin report said.

ValuePenguin also pointed out that even if the employer paid half of the premiums for the family in the company-offered plan, the total cost to the family would be $6,823 annually. That's nearly $3,500 more than a plan that would be available to them on the New York exchange if they hadn't received the company's subsidies in the first place.

In that situation, Wu said, "You would rather say, 'Don't give me that coverage.' "

—By CNBC's Dan Mangan. Follow him on Twitter @_DanMangan.

And again I say...
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
*cough sputter*
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

which translates roughly to "so all of the things the supporters of this bill said would not happen... are now happening..."

Just need a death panel set up and it is complete.

In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin