Mason

Mar 19 2014, 07:41 AM

.
North Carolina Legislators met on the Affordable Care Act - and the DEMS blamed the North Carolina GOP for the Roll Out because they did not create their own Insurance Exchange, instead depending on the Federal Obamacare site.

So - per Democrats - the Republicans are at fault for using the Federal exchange they created and advertised as so great!

YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS S*IT UP!

.

Baldo

Mar 19 2014, 08:40 AM

March 19, 2014, 06:00 am
O-Care premiums to skyrocket

...The hikes are expected to vary substantially by region, state and carrier.

Areas of the country with older, sicker or smaller populations are likely to be hit hardest, while others might not see substantial increases at all.

Several major companies have been bullish on the healthcare law as a growth opportunity. With investors, especially, the firms downplay the consequences of more older, sicker enrollees in the risk pool.

Much will depend on how firms are coping with the healthcare law’s raft of new fees and regulatory restrictions, according to another industry official.

Some insurers initially underpriced their policies to begin with, expecting to raise rates in the second year.

Others, especially in larger states, will continue to hold rates low in order to remain competitive....

Baldo

 

...Insurers will begin the process this spring by filing their rate proposals with state officials.

Insurance commissioners will then release the rates sometime this summer, usually when they’re approved. Insurers could also leak their rates earlier as a political statement.

In some states, commissioners have the authority to deny certain rate increases, which could help prevent the most drastic hikes.

Either way, there will be a slew of bad headlines for the Obama administration just months before the election.

Quote:

 

https://www.healthcare.gov/help/immigration-status-questions/

Immigration status questions

[...]

If you’re status isn’t listed above, you may still be able to get help paying for emergency services, including for labor and delivery of a baby. In some states, pregnant women may also be able to get health coverage.

[...]

Quote:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/03/19/halbig-v-sebelius-amicus-brief-of-public-health-scholars/

Halbig v. Sebelius: Amicus Brief Of Public-Health Scholars

On March 25, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear an expedited appeal in Halbig v. Sebelius, one of four lawsuits described as “the most significant existential threat” to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and which “go[es] to the heart of the ACA.” (The other three lawsuits are Pruitt v. Sebelius, King v. Sebelius, and Indiana v. Sebelius.) Dozens of public-health scholars have filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the Internal Revenue Service’s attempt to rewrite ObamaCare and tax millions of Americans without permission from Congress.

This is the first in a series of posts responding to amicus briefs filed by the IRS’s defenders in Halbig v. Sebelius. For a brief introduction to Halbig and similar lawsuits, see below. This post then responds to the main points made by the public-health-scholar amici. Responses to amicus briefs filed by the PPACA’s authors & state legislators, the American Hospital Association, America’s Health Insurance Plans, AARP & the National Health Law Program, various economic scholars, and Families USA will appear in subsequent posts. A complete list of reference materials for related to the Halbig cases can be found here.

A Brief Introduction to the Halbig Cases
The Halbig cases are actually quite simple.

Congress authorized the IRS to offer health-insurance subsidies, and penalize certain employers and individuals, only “through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” The language of the statute is abundantly clear, as is Congress’ intent: as with countless federal programs and other bills the Senate was considering at the time, the PPACA’s authors offered the subsidies as an inducement for states to establish Exchanges, which Congress cannot force states to do.

The IRS is violating the law by implementing those subsidies and penalties in the 34 states that opted instead for an Exchange established by the federal government.

[...]

Amicus Brief of Public-Health Scholars
The public-health scholars defend the IRS by attacking the idea that Exchange subsidies are similar to Medicaid subsidies, which are also conditioned on state cooperation. They argue that the Exchange subsidies, which are nominally tax credits, “bear no resemblance to a state grant-in-aid program such as Medicaid, in which states have considerable discretion over the reach of the intervention.” This is a distinction without a difference. In both cases, the federal government sends a payment to someone other than the intended beneficiaries. In both cases, it is the benefit provided to individual state residents that Congress hopes will motivate the state to act. Moreover, Congress has previously offered health-care-related tax benefits only in states that enact or repeal certain laws.

Amici also argue, “a ruling rendering residents of [federally facilitated Exchange] states ineligible for premium subsidies would be catastrophic for nearly 1 million people in FFE states who already have relied on this subsidy to purchase coverage.” One could likewise argue it would be catastrophic for many low-income residents when states refuse to expand their Medicaid programs, as 25 states have. But even amici would agree that Congress does not allow those residents to receive subsidies. The IRS will bear full responsibility for the suffering of those 1 million people, because it was the IRS that lured them into relying on subsidies it clearly has no authority to offer.

These amici consider it “absurd” to assume that “Congress would leave access to Premium Tax Credits to the happenstance of state policy and politics,” or to interpret the PPACA “in a manner that would essentially eliminate access to affordable health insurance for low income residents.” By their logic, it would be even more absurd to allow state politics to eliminate access to health insurance for even lower-income residents – but that is exactly what the PPACA’s Medicaid expansion did and does.

Finally, “the ACA was intended to achieve near-universal health insurance coverage in all states.” True, but that does not negate the conditional nature of either the Act’s Medicaid or Exchange subsidies.

Quote:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/03/19/halbig-v-sebelius-amicus-brief-of-baucus-harkin-pelosi-reid-et-alia-ignores-their-roles-in-the-aca-debate-gets-congressional-intent-completely-backward/

Halbig v. Sebelius: Amicus Brief Of Baucus, Harkin, Pelosi, Reid Et Alia Ignores Their Roles In The ACA Debate & Gets Congressional Intent Completely Backward

Seven current and former members of Congress who played important roles in the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – former Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus (D-MT), Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA), then-House Ways & Means Committee chairman Sander Levin (D-MI), then-House Education & Workforce Committee chairman George Miller (D-CA), then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), and then-House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) – along with dozens of state legislators who were present for debates over whether their states should establish one of the law’s health insurance “exchanges,” have submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service in Halbig v. Sebelius. Defenders of the IRS have described Halbig as “the most significant existential threat” to ObamaCare.

This is the second in a series of posts responding to amicus briefs filed by the IRS’s defenders in Halbig v. Sebelius. For a brief introduction to Halbig and similar lawsuits, visit the first post in this series. Then peruse responses to amicus briefs filed by various public health scholars, the American Hospital Association, America’s Health Insurance Plans, AARP & the National Health Law Program, various economic scholars, and Families USA. A complete list of reference materials for the Halbig cases can be found here.

Amici begin by asserting that the Halbig plaintiffs’ interpretation of the PPACA would undercut the statute’s “single goal of widespread, affordable health care.” On the contrary, the law serves multiple, competing goals, as evidenced by its title. If the PPACA’s sole purpose were to expand coverage, it would not have allowed states to frustrate its Medicaid expansion by refusing to participate, or allowed religious or other exemptions to the individual mandate. Congress itself subordinated the goal of expanded coverage to other goals, such as political expedience.

Amici make the oft-repeated claim that the Halbig plaintiffs “isolate a four-word phrase in one provision [of the law] rather than considering the statute as a whole.” In fact, the provision “through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” contains 18 words. It is then repeated throughout the law’s tax-credit eligibility rules, explicitly or by cross-reference and without deviation, nine times. This restriction is tightly worded and deliberate, and there is no language anywhere in the statute that conflicts with its plain meaning.

Even if amici were correct, Congress explicitly stated the purpose of the CLASS Act – the PPACA’s long-term care entitlement program – was to expand access to quality, affordable long-term care. Yet a single statutory phrase requiring premiums to “ensure[] solvency throughout [a] 75-year period” forced the Obama administration to shutter the program.

Amici repeat the canard that Congress “hid[] this condition in the formula” for calculating the amount of the tax credit. On the contrary, the IRS cannot use the formula at all unless a taxpayer is enrolled in “an Exchange established by the State.” This condition comes before the formula. A state-established Exchange is a precondition for calculating the amount of the subsidy.

We are told that “amici can attest” that using Exchange subsidies to induce states to act “was never the purpose of the tax-credit provision.” The senator-amici have a dim recollection of their legislative records. Harkin sponsored the bill approved by the HELP Committee, which amici admit withheld premium credits in states that didn’t establish Exchanges or implement the bill’s employer mandate. Baucus, whether he is aware of it or not, has a history of sponsoring bills that offer health-insurance tax credits only in states that enacted specified health insurance regulations. He and other senators sponsored such bills in the debate leading up to the PPACA. Baucus introduced the PPACA’s tax-credit eligibility rules in the Finance Committee, which approved them as part of its health care bill. Reid then retained and strengthened the Finance language conditioning tax credits on states establishing Exchanges while merging the HELP and Finance bills into the PPACA.

Amici write, “during the debates over the ACA, no one suggested, let alone explicitly stated, that a State’s citizens would lose access to the tax credits if the State failed to establish its own Exchange.” They have it backward. The statute does not authorize subsidies in federal Exchanges – indeed, it explicitly precludes them – and there is no record of anyone saying it does authorize such. Amici are also incorrect. In January 2010, eleven House Democrats from Texas likened the Senate-passed PPACA’s Exchange provisions to another conditional-grant program (SCHIP) and warned that uncooperative states could block their residents from receiving “any benefit.” Their warning came in a letter to then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) – also one of the amici –who appears to have forgotten it.

Amici assert that the plaintiffs “do not—and cannot—explain how the tax credits could have ‘encourage[d]’ States to establish Exchanges if state officials were never told that availability of the credits turned on whether or not a State created its own Exchange.” The state-legislator amici argue states did not receive clear notice that subsidies would depend on states establishing Exchanges, as evidenced by the fact that they and organizations like the National Governors Association “never understood the statute to operate in that way.” Amici are correct that the subsidies could not serve their purpose if the states were misinformed. But responsibility for that lies not with the statute but with the IRS for misrepresenting the statute and misleading state officials.

Amici repeatedly claim “the only criterion” for the tax-credit eligibility is income level. The statute clearly requires that tax-credit recipients also be lawfully present in the United States, not have an offer of creditable coverage from an employer, and purchase coverage “through an Exchange established by the State.”

Amici cite many contemporaneous statements about subsidies being available in all states, yet none of these statements speak to the relevant question, which is whether the PPACA authorizes subsidies in federal Exchanges. They merely reflect the assumption that all states would establish Exchanges.

Amici cite two PPACA opponents when making the claim, “everyone recognized that many States would likely decline to set up their own Exchanges.” This flies in the face of numerous statements showing near-unanimity among PPACA supporters that all states would establish Exchanges.

Amici claim that amicus Max Baucus’ 2009 comments about whether the Finance Committee has jurisdiction to direct states to establish Exchanges are irrelevant, because the Committee “has jurisdiction over all issues related to taxes and thus would have jurisdiction whether or not the credits were available on both federal and State Exchanges.” That is beside the point. Baucus was responding to a question about how the Finance Committee could consider a bill directing states to establish Exchanges when such matters are not within its jurisdiction. Baucus responded that the committee has jurisdiction because the bill imposes “conditions” on the tax credits available through Exchanges.

Amici assert that the IRS rule reflects congressional intent because Congress has not expressed a contrary intent since the agency issued it. Even if Congress’ intent were in doubt, the Supreme Court has held, “The relationship between the actions and inactions of [one] Congress and the intent of [a prior] Congress [is] considerably attenuated.”

Amici argue they “and the other architects of the ACA wanted to avoid” giving their political opponents in the states the ability to veto parts of the legislation. This is no doubt true. Nevertheless, amici gave their opponents the ability to veto parts of the PPACA, because that was the only way they could pass a health care bill following Scott Brown’s election. The language restricting tax credits to state-established Exchanges therefore reflects amici’s intent, no matter what they might say today.

One last factor suggests we should take with a grain of salt amici’s assurances about what the law says and what Congress intended. Every member of Congress joining this brief – Baucus, Harkin, Levin, Miller, Pelosi, Reid, and Waxman – also claimed that if you like your health plan, you can keep it.

Baldo

Mar 19 2014, 01:04 PM

CBO Director: Important to Give Advance Warning About Coming Changes to Social Security

(CNSNews.com) - The United States faces "fundamental fiscal challenges" stemming from the growth in spending for Social Security and major health care programs," CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told a gathering in Washington on Tuesday.

The rising cost of those programs leaves Americans with "unpleasant" choices to make, but the sooner they're made, the better, he said:

"So we have a choice as a society to either scale back those programs relative to what is promised under current law; or to raise tax revenue above its historical average to pay for the expansion of those programs; or to cut back on all other spending even more sharply than we already are," Elmendorf said.

"And we haven't actually decided as a society...what we're going to do. But some combination of those three choices will be needed."

Elmendorf said there are various ways to proceed: "But they tend to be unpleasant in one way or another, and we have not, as a society, decided how much of that sort of unpleasantness to inflict on whom."

He noted that many Americans have paid Social Security taxes for decades, expecting to get benefits in retirement. But the money people paid years ago was used to fund other government activities...snipped

....Elmendorf said Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and Obamacare will be much more expensive relative to GDP in future years because health care costs are rising, subsidized health insurance is expanding, and the population is aging: "There will be a third more people receiving Social Security Medicare benefits a decade from now than there are today," he noted...snipped

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/cbo-director-important-give-advance-warning-about-coming-changes-social

My IPO for Dunking Chairs is back on the burner

Folks this President & Congress all deserve a good dunking in the Potomac River