| Healthcare Bill Part III; Obamacare | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 3 2014, 02:20 PM (48,694 Views) | |
| chatham | Mar 20 2014, 02:32 PM Post #166 |
|
For all your friends that say they should not have voted for Obama just remind them that Hillary will be worse. And keep reminding them. Edited by chatham, Mar 20 2014, 02:33 PM.
|
 |
 
|
| kbp | Mar 20 2014, 05:14 PM Post #167 |
|
It makes sense to attract customers through prices, as the overhead cost of advertising probably will not beat price in this market. Then bump your prices after the first year or two while the 3-R's bailout is in place. A sad fact is this program never even projected the market to be larger than 2% of our population. |
|
|
|
| Baldo | Mar 20 2014, 05:40 PM Post #168 |
|
The passage of Obama-care & the subsequent promises would be subjected to individual lawsuits & criminal prosecution if it was a private business. The CEO lied to get it passed. Promised services & a standard of care they won't deliver. Deliberately undercharged to bring customers in a bait & switch, and promised families would save money. They gave special discounts to certain groups who donated to them. It really is a criminal enterprise when you consider all of the above & the money they passed to contractors at our expense. 600 million for a POS web site that didn't work! |
|
|
|
| kbp | Mar 20 2014, 06:14 PM Post #169 |
|
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/03/19/halbig-v-sebelius-the-ahas-amicus-brief-calls-the-constitution-a-technicality-that-could-hurt-hospitals/ Halbig v. Sebelius: The AHA's Amicus Brief Calls The Constitution A 'Technicality' That Could Hurt Hospitals The American Hospital Association, a leading lobbying group for hospitals, submitted an amicus brief in support of the Internal Revenue Service in Halbig v. Sebelius. Supporters of the IRS have called Halbig “the most significant existential threat” to ObamaCare. A critique of the AHA’s main arguments follows. This is the third in a series of posts responding to amicus briefs filed by the IRS’s defenders in Halbig v. Sebelius. [...] The AHA begins by declaring that the plaintiffs are challenging an IRS rule “based on a technicality.” Quite the contrary: under the U.S. Constitution, the IRS has no power to tax the plaintiffs unless Congress grants the agency that power. The Constitution is not a technicality. Nor are the latter two thirds of “taxation without representation.” Amici assert that Congress did not mean to withhold as much as $21 billion in Exchange subsidies from uncooperative states because that would hurt hospitals. Amici simultaneously assert, without irony, that “hospitals los[e] a total of $29.8 billion providing care to Medicare and Medicaid patients” annually. Amici claim that the plaintiffs’ interpretation would lead to “unreasonable results” and “unjust and absurd consequences,” and certainly Congress would never enact such bad policy. The question before the court, however, is not whether the relevant language is bad policy. The Supreme Court has explained (internal punctuation omitted), “these always-fascinating policy discussions are beside the point. The role of this Court is to apply the statute as it is written—even if we think some other approach might accord with good policy.” Amici argue that the Supreme Court has previously held that “Congress had not made statutory eligibility for an entitlement turn on a factual distinction that anyone with common sense would have viewed as irrelevant to the entitlement at issue.” This assumes that Congress had only one purpose (expanding coverage) in offering Exchange subsidies, when in fact it had at least one other (inducing states to implement the law). Thus the eligibility rules for this entitlement are highly relevant to Congress’ purpose, which went beyond the creation of entitlements. Finally, like the legislator-amici, the AHA claims it is just “a single phrase” – a “statutory snippet[]” – that restricts subsidies to state-established Exchanges. That’s not accurate, for reasons discussed in a previous post. Even if it were, it would still be the law. The Obama administration aborted another PPACA entitlement – the “CLASS Act” – because a single statutory phrase forbade its implementation unless the program could be actuarially solvent. |
|
|
|
| kbp | Mar 20 2014, 06:30 PM Post #170 |
|
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/03/19/halbig-v-sebelius-ahips-amicus-brief-explains-the-health-insurer-lobby-supports-the-irss-unauthorized-subsidies-to-health-insurers/ Halbig v. Sebelius: AHIP's Amicus Brief Supports The IRS's Unauthorized Subsidies To Health Insurers The nation’s leading lobbying shop for private health insurance companies, America’s Health Insurance Plans, submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service in Halbig v. Sebelius. Supporters of the IRS have called Halbig “the most significant existential threat” to ObamaCare. A critique of AHIP’s main assertions follows. This is the fourth in a series responding to amicus briefs filed by the IRS’s defenders in Halbig v. Sebelius. [...] AHIP argues that imposing the PPACA’s community-rating price controls without subsidies in the 34 states with federal Exchanges would be bad policy, lead to adverse selection, and result in “ever-shrinking” and “unstable” health insurance markets, much as states like Washington experienced in the 1990s. Three things about that. First, there is no reason to think it is beyond Congress to legislate such an outcome. Under the Halbig plaintiffs’ interpretation of the statute, federal Exchanges would be no more unstable than the CLASS Act (the PPACA’s long-term care entitlement program) or the markets for child-only health insurance, where the PPACA imposed pure community rating with neither an individual mandate nor the other protections against adverse selection present in federal Exchanges. (The CLASS Act collapsed, as did the child-only markets in more than a dozen states.) Second, as mentioned in a previous post, while the tax-credit eligibility rules may be bad policy, the Supreme Court has explained (internal punctuation omitted), “these always-fascinating policy discussions are beside the point. The role of this Court is to apply the statute as it is written—even if we think some other approach might accord with good policy.” Third, amici do not show why the IRS’s position is correct so much as illustrate why the IRS is defending the incorrect position: “Washington repealed the market reforms,” just as Congress repealed the CLASS Act. Amici inadvertently demonstrate why the IRS rewrote the PPACA: to strip states of their power to force Congress to reopen and possibly repeal the statute. Finally, amici argue that conditioning subsidies on states establishing an Exchange would result in “grossly inequitable treatment of consumers in States with [federal Exchanges].” If so, then Medicaid’s conditional subsidies are also inequitable. In no way does that call into question whether the condition exists. |
|
|
|
| kbp | Mar 20 2014, 06:51 PM Post #171 |
|
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/03/20/halbig-v-sebelius-amicus-brief-of-aarp-the-national-health-law-program-concedes-conditional-exchange-subsidies-were-part-of-the-aca-debate/ Halbig v. Sebelius: AARP's Amicus Brief Concedes Conditional Exchange Subsidies Were Part Of The ACA Debate AARP, the nation’s leading lobby for near-elderly and senior citizens, along with the National Health Law Program, have submitted an amicus brief in support of the Internal Revenue Service in Halbig v. Sebelius. The IRS’s supporters call Halbig “the most significant existential threat” to ObamaCare. A critique of AARP’s and NHeLP’s main arguments follows. This is the fifth in a series responding to amicus briefs filed by the IRS’s defenders in Halbig v. Sebelius. [...] Amici ignore the PPACA’s legislative history and its relevance when they assert , “Appellants cite no authority for their proposition that premium tax credits were intended to ‘induce states to act’ to establish Exchanges beyond a proposed draft bill” – i.e., the bill approved by the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee in 2009 – “that did not pass, and was never considered outside of one Committee.” Contrary to amici, the HELP bill is quite relevant. In another amicus brief, the HELP bill’s chief sponsor (Committee chair Tom Harkin, D-IA) acknowledges the bill conditioned premium credits on states establishing Exchanges. That makes the HELP bill one of numerous legislative proposals advanced by PPACA supporters (and even some Republicans) that would have conditioned such subsidies on states establishing Exchanges. Those proposals refute the notion that this part of the PPACA was a drafting error or somehow fails to reflect Congress’ intent. Nor is it accurate to say the HELP bill “was never considered outside of one Committee.” Senate leaders merged the HELP and Finance bills to create the PPACA, adopting – and strengthening – the Finance bill’s language restricting subsidies to state-established Exchanges. The PPACA’s authors knew exactly what they were doing. Amici also repeat the arguments, discussed in other briefs, that the tax-credit eligibility rules constitute “a single phrase in one provision of the Act, which is only used to calculate the amount of the premium tax credit”; that the PPACA has one purpose that trumps any language that might conflict with that purpose; and that Medicaid and SCHIP are not analogous to Exchanges. Finally, even as they admit that Congress allowed states to frustrate completely Medicaid’s underlying purpose, amici still assert, without irony, “It is implausible, to say the least, that Congress intended to allow the entire Act to be cannibalized by a state’s choice not to establish its own Exchange.” |
|
|
|
| kbp | Mar 20 2014, 06:57 PM Post #172 |
|
That's the good thing as President, I can do whatever I want Obama Edited by kbp, Mar 20 2014, 06:59 PM.
|
|
|
|
| LTC8K6 | Mar 21 2014, 12:33 AM Post #173 |
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
Nancy Pelosi uses word ‘affordable’ 15 times in 2 minutes in desperate attempt to lower cost of Obamacare http://michellemalkin.com/?p=154597 Apparently no one cared to see her speech... |
|
|
|
| kbp | Mar 21 2014, 12:49 PM Post #174 |
|
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/03/21/halbig-v-sebelius-economic-scholars-probably-unaware-how-much-their-amicus-brief-undercuts-the-irss-case/ Halbig v. Sebelius: Economic Scholars Probably Unaware How Much Their Amicus Brief Undercuts The IRS's Case An A-list of economic scholars – including the Brookings Institution’s Henry Aaron, MIT’s Jonathan Gruber, Harvard’s David Cutler and Joseph Newhouse, and U.Penn’s Mark Pauly – have submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service in Halbig v. Sebelius. Defenders of the IRS describe Halbig as “the most significant existential threat” to ObamaCare. A critique of amici’s main arguments follows. This is the sixth in a series responding to amicus briefs filed by the IRS’s defenders in Halbig v. Sebelius. [...] Amici describe for the court the “sensible” approach to interpreting the PPACA – and dismiss the plaintiffs’ approach as “absurd,” “implausible,” and “inconceivable” – without ever mentioning, much less analyzing, the actual words of the statute. Like the health-insurers lobby, amici assert that “Congress…could not have intended” the plain meaning of the statute because the plain meaning would trigger an adverse-selection “death spiral”; that would be really bad policy; and Congress would never intentionally enact really bad policy. It’s a pretty silly argument for anyone to make, but it’s even sillier when made by economists. Well-intentioned but harmful policies are what economists study for a living. By these economists’ own definition of bad policy, however, Congress enacted even worse policy (community-rating price controls with zero protections against adverse selection) in both the CLASS Act and the markets for child-only health insurance, and enacted similarly bad policy (community rating with weak protections against adverse selection) in the non-Exchange individual market and in U.S. territories. Moreover, the potential adverse-selection effects amici describe are not out of character for a Congress that was trying to put “a gun to the head” of uncooperative states, which is what the Supreme Court found this Congress was trying to do. So their assertion that Congress would-n0t/could-not do such a thing does not fit with the available evidence. Amici even provide some of that evidence that undercuts their rose-colored inferences about congressional intent. They admit the PPACA’s lack of adequate premium subsidies has triggered an adverse-selection death spiral in the U.S. Virgin Islands – to say nothing of the CLASS Act and more than a dozen markets for child-only health insurance, which likewise collapsed. In fact, amici contradict themselves over and over again. They argue that premiums would double in federal Exchanges if the court adopts the plain meaning of the statute and “it is implausible to construe the ACA as condemning [consumers] to massive premium increases,” even though the amicus responsible for this brief’s economic projections (Jonathan Gruber) has projected that even under the IRS’s (re)interpretation of the statute, some consumers would see their premiums double (see note 7). Amici admit that Congress would allow states to exacerbate health disparities by refusing to expand Medicaid — yet they claim, without evidence or irony, that Congress would not allow states to exacerbate such disparities by blocking Exchange subsidies. Amici again inadvertently strengthen the case that the plain meaning of the statute reflects Congress’ intent. If the consequences of no subsidies in federal Exchanges are as dire as amici predict, then they will last at most one year. When the people suffering in non-establishing states see how affordable health insurance is in establishing states, those initially recalcitrant states will repent and establish Exchanges. Once again mimicking the health-insurers lobby, amici’s dire predictions do not show that the IRS’s position is correct so much as illustrate why the IRS is taking the incorrect position. The economists also flub statutory interpretation. Amici argue, “Appellants offer no plausible explanation for why Congress would have established a backup federal Exchange doomed to failure.” Amici have it backward. The court does not need to look for a rationale underlying the statute if the statute is clear. But since amici are curious, there are plenty of plausible explanations. First, PPACA supporters expected Exchanges, apart from the effect of subsidies, to reduce premiums through competition and choice. Second, it is precisely because of the problems amici highlight that Congress didn’t expect there to be any federal Exchanges; the purpose of this restriction was to ensure there wouldn’t. Third, even if plaintiffs couldn’t explain this restriction, PPACA enthusiasts repeatedly supported and enacted similar “doomed” schemes elsewhere: in the HELP bill, the CLASS Act, the child-only market, the non-Exchange individual market, and U.S. territories. Federal Exchanges without premium subsidies are no more absurd than any of PPACA supporters’ other master strokes. Finally, amici assert that “initial versions” of the PPACA – i.e., the bill approved by House Democrats in 2009 – authorized subsidies through any and all types of Exchanges. The House bill is not an “initial version” of the PPACA. It became a dead letter the moment Massachusetts voters sent Scott Brown (R) to the Senate – an event that made passage of even a compromise between the House and Senate bills impossible. The language of the House bill is of no value in interpreting the language of the PPACA or Congress’ intent in enacting that language. The PPACA is the product of the HELP and Finance bills; those are the “initial versions” of the final law. The only changes made by the House appeared in a reconciliation bill that did nothing to alter the language restricting subsidies to state-established Exchanges, and indeed contradicts the IRS’s claims about Congress’ intent. The economists who wrote and lent their names to this amicus brief are probably unaware of how much this brief undercuts the IRS’s case. |
|
|
|
| Concerned | Mar 22 2014, 12:39 AM Post #175 |
|
My 27 year old son was paying $150 a month for himself on a private policy. He just added his wife and new baby as his wife had been on her mother's policy. He now will be paying $750 a month for the three of them (with a $3000 a year deductible). Blue Cross also told him that the "grandfathered" policies will expire in two years. Then what? Nobody wants Obamacare with their limited doctors and hospitals. $750 a month is affordable for a young couple? All these 20-somethings who are on their parents plans are in for a rude awakening when they turn 27. |
|
|
| Mason | Mar 22 2014, 03:00 AM Post #176 |
Parts unknown
|
. What's really incredible is the media sold this. Young people can not afford it. . |
|
|
|
| chatham | Mar 22 2014, 06:54 AM Post #177 |
|
That was the plan. Gets us to single payer. |
|
|
|
| kbp | Mar 22 2014, 10:14 AM Post #178 |
|
I just lose it when the talking heads have their mouths open. For the past few months they all act like the magic number will be reaching only 30 million uninsured left standing after Obamacare does the best it can. That's idiotic to work for that as if it's success in the first place, but even more idiotic is the fact that number is unrealistic anyway. The count for the uninsured has been around 46 million in most studies. The CBO bumped it to 55 million by adding illegal immigrants. The most hopeful outcome Barry's crew announced would be 12 million Medicaid and 13 million Obamacare Exchange enrollees coming off the uninsured count. Dropping the illegals, that's 25 million off 46 million, for 21 million left uninsured. 46 -25 21 The 30 million will never happen as projected. But, that 30 million could be a good number for false hope. The CBO #'s had deducted the 25 million newly covered to get to 30 million. Go back to working with the original 46 million and they only need 16 million enrollees with first time coverage. That 30 million will be the flexible gospel that helps spell out near success with Obamacare ....it could have been worse. |
|
|
|
| kbp | Mar 22 2014, 10:16 AM Post #179 |
|
Is it more affordable if you eliminate spouse and child? YES See where we're going? |
|
|
|
| kbp | Mar 22 2014, 11:03 AM Post #180 |
|
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/03/21/halbig-v-sebelius-even-if-families-usas-interpretation-of-the-aca-were-correct-the-irs-would-still-lose/ Halbig v. Sebelius: Even If Families USA's Interpretation Of The ACA Were Correct, The IRS Would Still Lose The left-wing organization Families USA has filed an amicus brief, authored by former Obama Justice Department official Robert Weiner, on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service in Halbig v. Sebelius. The organization’s executive director Ron Pollack has described Halbig as “the most significant existential threat” to ObamaCare. A critique of Families USA’s main arguments follows below. This is the seventh and final post in a series responding to amicus briefs filed by the IRS’s defenders in Halbig v. Sebelius. [...] Amici build their argument around the erroneous conclusion that three provisions of the PPACA define all health insurance Exchanges, even those that have clearly been established by the federal government, as having been “established by the State” in which they operate. The first two provisions aren’t definitions at all, and draw rather than erase distinctions about who established an Exchange. They appear in Section 1311, the section of the Act that directs states to establish American Health Benefits Exchanges. (As Section 1304 helpfully explains, “In this title [of the PPACA], the term ‘State’ means each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia.” Notice that this actual definition does not equate the federal government with states or encompass the federal government within the Act’s definition of “State.”) The first supposed definition identified by amici is merely a parenthetical that offers “Exchange” as shorthand for “American Health Benefits Exchange.” The second supposed definition reads, “An Exchange shall be a governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a State.” In other words, Congress was telling states that they must establish an Exchange themselves. An Exchange established by a municipality or a private entity would not do. Note that this language draws distinctions based on who established the Exchange. On the ohther hand, amici claim this language somehow erases such distinctions by deeming Exchanges to have been “established by the State” no matter who actually established them. Yet Section 1311 labels the above clause a “requirement” (i.e., an Exchange must be established by a state), not a definition (e.g., an Exchange is hereby defined as having been established by a state). Amici‘s interpretation therefore turns this provision on its head. The third provision amici cite is indeed an actual definition, yet they still manage to misinterpret it. Here are the relevant provisions. The PPACA amended the Public Health Service Act to say, “The term ‘Exchange’ means an American Health Benefit Exchange established under section 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” Another section of the PPACA then applied that definition to the rest of the PPACA: “Unless specifically provided for otherwise, the definitions contained in [that section of the Public Health Service Act] shall apply with respect to this title.” Amici look at these and provisions and conclude that when the federal government establishes an Exchange, it was actually “established by the State.” That’s a convenient argument for the IRS and its defenders. If true, it would allow those who purchase coverage through federal Exchanges to receive tax credits. Unfortunately for the IRS, Congress expressly precluded such an absurd interpretation. Here’s what Congress actually said. Every time the PPACA uses the term “Exchange,” it means “an Exchange established under section 1311.” When Section 1321 says that if a state “fail[s) to establish…any required Exchange…the Secretary…shall establish and operate such Exchange within the State,” Congress therefore was telling the Secretary of Health and Human Services that federal Exchanges should operate, in all material respects, like the Exchanges that states are establishing. Here’s why that matters. Recall that the PPACA offers premium subsidies (nominally, “tax credits”) only to those who obtain coverage “through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311.” The definition discussed above means that a federal Exchange is ”established under Section 1311.” But a federal Exchange is not ”established by the State.” There is nothing in the provisions amici cite, nor in any other provision of the PPACA, that calls on the IRS or anyone else to ignore who establishes federal Exchanges. Nor is there any provision that defines or deems federal Exchanges as having been “established by the State.” Indeed, at least three features of the law preclude that interpretation. First, Section 1321 clearly says it is the Secretary who establishes federal Exchanges. Second, the PPACA explicitly defines “State” to mean “each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia” — a definition that is binding on the IRS. So while Congress defined a federal Exchange to be “an Exchange established…under section 1311,” it expressly defined a federal Exchange not to be “an Exchange established by the State.” Third, even if amici were correct that the language discussed above defined federal Exchanges as having been “established by the State,” that definition would not apply to the tax-credit eligibility rules. The language on which amici rely clearly states that the definitions in the Public Health Service Act apply to the tax-credit eligibility rules “unless specifically provided for otherwise.” And Congress clearly provided otherwise. Congress specifically limited eligibility for tax credits to those who obtain coverage through an Exchange “established by the State,” and thereby specifically precluded from eligibility for anyone who obtains health insurance through an Exchange that was not “established by the State.” Thus even if amici‘s unsupported statutory interpretation were correct, the IRS’s actions would still be unlawful. Families USA is right about one thing. Congress could have enacted language deeming federal Exchanges to be established by the state in which they operate. But. Congress. Didn’t. Thus the subsidies and penalties the IRS is implementing in the 34 states with federal Exchanges are illegal. Edited by kbp, Mar 22 2014, 11:03 AM.
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
 Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today. |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic » |
11:55 AM Jul 13