Will these four words kill Obamacare?

I found this opinion piece interesting - when is federal law not the law? When an error (or more likely short-sightedness) becomes inconvenient? How much power does the IRS really have to subjectively interpret law set forth by the Congress and signed by the President? This country is indeed on a slippery slope when actions by duly elected representatives can be overturned or ignored by a "federal" agency.

"Because under the ACA, insurance companies cannot refuse coverage because of an individual’s preexisting condition. Because many people might therefore wait to purchase insurance after they become sick, the ACA requires a mandate to compel people to buy insurance. And because many people cannot afford the insurance that satisfies the ACA’s criteria, the ACA mandate makes it necessary to provide subsidies for those people.

The four words that threaten disaster for the ACA say the subsidies shall be available to persons who purchase health insurance in an exchange “established by the state.” But 34 states have chosen not to establish exchanges."

The full article is not long but worth reading.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-four-words-in-the-aca-could-spell-its-doom/2014/01/29/e26a33cc-884a-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html?hpid=z2

nochain wrote:

I found this opinion piece interesting - when is federal law not the law? When an error (or more likely short-sightedness) becomes inconvenient? How much power does the IRS really have to subjectively interpret law set forth by the Congress and signed by the President? This country is indeed on a slippery slope when actions by duly elected representatives can be overturned or ignored by a "federal" agency.

"Because under the ACA, insurance companies cannot refuse coverage because of an individual’s preexisting condition. Because many people might therefore wait to purchase insurance after they become sick, the ACA requires a mandate to compel people to buy insurance. And because many people cannot afford the insurance that satisfies the ACA’s criteria, the ACA mandate makes it necessary to provide subsidies for those people.

The four words that threaten disaster for the ACA say the subsidies shall be available to persons who purchase health insurance in an exchange “established by the state.” But 34 states have chosen not to establish exchanges."

The full article is not long but worth reading.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-four-words-in-the-aca-could-spell-its-doom/2014/01/29/e26a33cc-884a-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html?hpid=z2

The way some always atempt the same logic to separation of church and state...can you imagine a religion that used that wording...."established by the state"...there would be outrage (rightly so) and yet they can appply the same to healthcare or anything the government may want to take over and it's acceptable?...

And yet another "architect" of Obamacare calls it quits - Henry Waxman. I wonder why the folks responsible for this fiasco are bailing out? Don't they have confidence in the program and want to bask in the glow of its success? Or are they more interested in running away from it before it totally self-destructs so they won't get splattered?

nochain wrote:

And yet another "architect" of Obamacare calls it quits - Henry Waxman. I wonder why the folks responsible for this fiasco are bailing out? Don't they have confidence in the program and want to bask in the glow of its success? Or are they more interested in running away from it before it totally self-destructs so they won't get splattered?

Rep Waxman is in a very safe district and another co-author Bacus(?) from Montana is not seeking re-election and has called the current healthcare legislation a 'trainwreck'....If you were a politician would you want to face citizens at a town hall type meeting?...Did you support?...Are you enrolled and covered by this law of the land?...If not why are you and others exempted?....Do you believe in making/supporting laws that you and a selected few don't have to live by?...This isn't a republican/democrat partisian issue there's approx 66% that are against this law and how would those that supported this and rammed through answer questions?...

I agree it's not partison, it's BOTH parties elected politicians who are exempt from the coverage.. It's illegal for them to be under different laws than the voters who elected them..

Jake92 wrote:

I agree it's not partison, it's BOTH parties elected politicians who are exempt from the coverage..  It's illegal for them to be under different laws than the voters who elected them..

There were several pieces of legislation that was to be introduced to make sure those exempted were made to go under this law...Sen Harry Reid blocked it from being brought to the floor of the Senate...and of course Harry just got re-elected for another term and this may be his last term so he doesn't care...

Reid is the cause of most of the partison BS along with Pelosi.. Everything for the illegals and screw the legal citizens..

Jake92 wrote:

Reid is the cause of most of the partison BS along with Pelosi..  Everything for the illegals and screw the legal citizens..  

Their goal is "voting rights" - increase their voting base of entitlement hounds.

nochain wrote:

Jake92 wrote:

Reid is the cause of most of the partison BS along with Pelosi..  Everything for the illegals and screw the legal citizens..  

Their goal is "voting rights" - increase their voting base of entitlement hounds.

And sadly Speaker Boehner and Rep Ryan seem to be losing what's left of their spine and are going to cave...There's a huge problem when people ignore 'illegal' and and those that circumvent the laws are rewarded for breaking the laws...and expanding their base and creating even more entitlements...As one citizen wrote a congressman asking how to apply for illegal status as he and his family would receive more as being illegal rather than their born citizenships....

Wow - the good news just keeps piling up;

"ObamaCare could lead to loss of nearly 2.3 million US jobs, report says"

"In 2010, the CBO projected ObamaCare would lead to about 650,000 fewer jobs. Tuesday’s new 2.3 million estimate is significantly higher.

The report states ObamaCare will also lead to a reduction of the net number of total hours worked by as much as 2 percent in the period from 2017 to 2024. It states that “lower-wage workers” will see the biggest reduction in the number of hours worked."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/04/obamacare-expected-to-lead-to-loss-nearly-25-million-american-jobs-report-says/?intcmp=latestnews

nochain wrote:

Wow - the good news just keeps piling up;

"ObamaCare could lead to loss of nearly 2.3 million US jobs, report says"

"In 2010, the CBO projected ObamaCare would lead to about 650,000 fewer jobs. Tuesday’s new 2.3 million estimate is significantly higher.

The report states ObamaCare will also lead to a reduction of the net number of total hours worked by as much as 2 percent in the period from 2017 to 2024. It states that “lower-wage workers” will see the biggest reduction in the number of hours worked."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/04/obamacare-expected-to-lead-to-loss-nearly-25-million-american-jobs-report-says/?intcmp=latestnews

The 66% against will certainly get larger.....For all the complaints...comdemnation...and low polling of Congress....givem credit they wanted no part in registering and/or signing up for this crap from the very beginning...too bad the democrats weren't looking out for everyone when they passed this without knowing what was inside and the effects on the working [shrinking/dried up] middle class...

More waste:

"Despite receiving $160 million in taxpayer money, Oregon's ObamaCare website has yet to properly sign up a single person for health care."

"DENVER – A director with Colorado's health-care exchange is on paid leave after it was discovered she has been accused of stealing from a nonprofit housing organization she oversaw in Montana."

Signing up is not the same as paying and being covered:

"The Obama administration’s latest rosy scenario about 3.3 million consumers signing up for health care plans is facing skepticism from top insurance industry officials, who estimate that somewhere in the range of 10 to 25 percent of those “enrollees” actually have not yet paid their premiums and are not fully enrolled.

“The numbers are not as high as 3.3 million -- it’s lower,” one senior insurance industry source told Fox News. “Those numbers are inflated. The question is how much.”

nochain wrote:

More waste:

"Despite receiving $160 million in taxpayer money, Oregon's ObamaCare website has yet to properly sign up a single person for health care."

"DENVER –  A director with Colorado's health-care exchange is on paid leave after it was discovered she has been accused of stealing from a nonprofit housing organization she oversaw in Montana."

Signing up is not the same as paying and being covered:

"The Obama administration’s latest rosy scenario about 3.3 million consumers signing up for health care plans is facing skepticism from top insurance industry officials, who estimate that somewhere in the range of 10 to 25 percent of those “enrollees” actually have not yet paid their premiums and are not fully enrolled.

“The numbers are not as high as 3.3 million -- it’s lower,” one senior insurance industry source told Fox News. “Those numbers are inflated. The question is how much.”

IF this is such a great piece of legislation....why the delays?....why the exemptions?....why have costs gone up when promised wouldn't cost 'one thin dime'...