| Healthcare Bill Part III; Obamacare | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 3 2014, 02:20 PM (48,654 Views) | |
| Baldo | Jul 12 2014, 05:29 PM Post #766 |
|
U.S. Medicaid enrollment nears 7 million since Obamacare rollout http://news.yahoo.com/u-medicaid-enrollment-nears-7-million-since-obamacare-205443980.html So who is going to pay for those 7 million? And who is going to actually provide a standard of Healthcare for those extra 7 million? That's the 7 million question Oh I know, the same competent & caring people that work for the VA Edited by Baldo, Jul 12 2014, 05:30 PM.
|
 |
 
|
| kbp | Jul 12 2014, 11:31 PM Post #767 |
|
A large portion of the Medicaid enrollment was by people qualified prior to the expansion. That does NOT fall under the Obamacare budget, so it is an additional increase in spending they'll have to address somehow. |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jul 14 2014, 11:40 AM Post #768 |
|
I was just reading up some on the Halbig case. The basics of the case are that the IRS decided to include subsidies and taxes in states under a federal exchange that the plaintiffs claim can only be used in states that established an exchange. The IRS decision was an effort to reconcile what they felt was a contradiction within the law. The newest information I ran across today is that the plaintiffs point out that the law (Obamacare) did NOT authorize the IRS to make such rules. I'm not sure this is that major. I'm thinking the ruling(s) deal with how the law reads or maybe what the intent of Congress was. I guess one could argue that the text was plain, so the IRS went beyond their authority. Over my head! |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jul 14 2014, 02:30 PM Post #769 |
|
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/07/14/boehner-pulls-a-bachmann-ctd-3/ How Good A Case Does Boehner Have Against Obama? (a list of various links and excerpts on the topic) The excuse I've seen most often is that "prosecutorial discretion" thingy. It seems odd that the POTUS has so many days to either sign a law or veto it, not sign it and ignore it. I guess there is some discretion involved always when enforcing a law, but to just openly refuse to enforce goes a little too far. The Employer Mandate (most don't want) has a start date in the law. Barry just said he'd change that date, or IOW, change the law. Imagine Congress passing a tax law that was to start 3 years from now and Barry deciding he wanted the revenue now so he moved the date up. Not much difference there, it's changing the law. A good point made at the link is that the lawsuit is mostly political. Nothing happens fast, so my guess is that it's prime for occasional leaks to hit headlines. |
|
|
|
| Mason | Jul 14 2014, 02:44 PM Post #770 |
Parts unknown
|
. Some believe (including some Dems) that they will never employ the Employer Mandate. It was used for accounting. Obama could care less about the debt - or would like to fatten it. . |
|
|
| kbp | Jul 14 2014, 03:01 PM Post #771 |
|
That "appropriations" thingy will hit before he is out of office and 2016 is a prime year to debate the additional costs of Obamacare! |
|
|
|
| Baldo | Jul 14 2014, 03:13 PM Post #772 |
|
I am more agreeable to Boehner's lawsuit, basically it is over standing. Congress has the purse power but as we have seen the House cannot employ it effectively because of the MSM protecting Obama. Republicans are portrayed as meanies shutting down the govt. They lose the PR battle every time. The lawsuit is aimed to give the House standing in order to sue the Executive Branch for not enforcing laws as written. It really is the failure of the Obama Administration to stand for the rule of law. It is quite dangerous. We now have reached the point where the CBO admits it cannot follow the actual costs of Obama-care. Who in the right mind would ever buy that in a Fortune 100 company? |
|
|
|
| Baldo | Jul 14 2014, 11:15 PM Post #773 |
|
This looks like another California Democratic Party "Winner" Dems back Prop. 45 medical insurance price controls The Democratic Party just backed Proposition 45, which would give the state insurance commissioner vast new powers to regulate medical insurance rates. According to the Bee, the initiative pits “trial lawyers and consumer groups against doctors and hospital groups.” According to R Street, “Such a system already exists in the property and casualty market as a result of the infamous and lamentable Proposition 103.” The endorsement makes sense. If it passed, Prop. 14 will chase some health-insurance companies out of California because the price controls will make them unable to make a profit. That will cause many people to rush into Obamacare/Covered California, making it finally seem to be a “success.” And the state will take one more step toward the single-payer, socialized medicine, Soviet-North Korean-style scheme Democrats have backed for decades. http://calwatchdog.com/2014/07/14/dems-back-prop-45-medical-insurance-price-controls/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter |
|
|
|
| Baldo | Jul 14 2014, 11:22 PM Post #774 |
|
Viewpoint from those supporting Prop 45 Policyholders Supporting Prop 45 Detail Health Insurance Price-Gouging, says Consumer Watchdog Campaign Data Shows 1 Million Californians Faced Unreasonable Rates Totaling $253 Million http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/policyholders-supporting-prop-45-detail-health-insurance-price-gouging-says-consumer-watchdog-campaign-265571131.html I thought Obama-care was supposed to lower rates? |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jul 15 2014, 08:59 AM Post #775 |
|
It did set a maximum margin of 10% each for Profit and Overhead. |
|
|
|
| Baldo | Jul 15 2014, 09:22 AM Post #776 |
|
We know where this train is headed. Increase the demand yet lower the compensation. The Supply & Demand Bridge  Edited by Baldo, Jul 15 2014, 09:23 AM.
|
|
|
|
| kbp | Jul 15 2014, 12:37 PM Post #777 |
|
Dick morris on the Halbig case: http://www.dickmorris.com/case-destroy-obamacare-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/ With the 3+ minute video being so short, I must excuse the limited comments he made. However, he gives too much credit to Nelson here. Nelson's ideas came late in the process, and many previous writings of laws related or which resembled Obamacare specifically noted the need for incentives to push the states to cooperate (you know, the FREE MONEY thingy that is the bipartisan crutch used against the liberty we thought the "people" had!). ADD: Besides, if it was a known fact that the Senate changed the law to please Nelson, there would not be any room for the proponents of Obamacare to argue what the Congressional intent for subsidies was, as the intent would CLEARLY have been to ONLY provide subsidies for an exchange 'established by the State.' . Edited by kbp, Jul 15 2014, 12:42 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Baldo | Jul 15 2014, 03:05 PM Post #778 |
|
Obamacare Misses Its Target on the Uninsured by Half In March 2010, Obamacare was about to be voted upon by the House of Representatives, and the Democrats were in the process of deciding whether to ignore public opinion at their peril. At that time, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that Obamacare would cost $938 billion over a decade and would reduce the number of uninsured people by 19 million as of 2014 (with a reduction of 1 million prior to 2014 and 18 million in 2014 alone). Unimpressed, the American people overwhelmingly opposed the intrusive overhaul — with 20 of 21 polls taken that month showing it to be unpopular, most of them by double digits. The Democrats willfully passed Obamacare anyway and lost 63 House seats that November. Two years later, the Supreme Court declared Obamacare’s coercive Medicaid expansion to be unconstitutional as written, and the CBO adjusted its projection for the number of uninsured accordingly. It projected that Obamacare would reduce the number of uninsured by 14 million as of 2014 (2 million before 2014 and 12 million in 2014 alone), at a 10-year cost of $1.677 trillion — or $739 billion more than the 2010 projection. (This February, the CBO projected that Obamacare’s 10-year cost would eclipse $2 trillion.) In February of this year, the CBO projected that Obamacare would reduce the number of uninsured by 13 million as of 2014. In April, the CBO had seen enough of the Obama administration’s skillful rollout of Obamacare to reduce that estimate to 12 million. Now the Urban Institute finds that Obamacare has actually reduced the number of uninsured adults by 8 million since the rollout began last fall. (Gallup shows a similar number.) That’s far short of the number of newly insured that the CBO projected in April of this year, in February of this year, or in 2012 — and it’s less than half the tally the American people were told Obamacare would hit when they opposed it in 2010. Yet Paul Krugman says that “health reform is — gasp! — working.” Only in Washington could something that fails to hit even half of its original target be considered a gasp-inducing success. No wonder Obamacare is every bit as unpopular now as it was before the party that passed it took its initial Obamacare-induced “shellacking” four years ago....snipped http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-misses-its-target-uninsured-half_796636.html Still Having a Govt Healthcare Card does not equal Healthcare Service as witness our wonderful VA system |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jul 15 2014, 03:16 PM Post #779 |
|
...it could have been worse! |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jul 15 2014, 05:20 PM Post #780 |
|
http:///2014/07/15/jindal-gives-conservatives-ammo-to-attack-higher-premiums-under-obamacare/?advD=1248,153371 Jindal Gives Conservatives Ammo To Attack Higher Premiums Under Obamacare Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, mulling a run for president as a Republican in 2016, is giving ammo to conservative leaders and congressional candidates to battle Democrats on how health-care premiums have gone up under Obamacare. Jindal’s memo — the details of which were first reported Tuesday by The Daily Caller — is titled “Over 1.2 Trillion Reasons to Repeal Obamacare.” The memo is being sent out to conservatives on Tuesday by Jindal in his capacity as honorary chairman of the group America Next. It takes issue with how President Obama Obama, during his first campaign for president in 2008, promised that his health-care plan would reduce premium costs for the average family by $2,500 per year. “Contrary to candidate Obama’s promise,” Jindal’s memo states, “health insurance premiums have continued to rise every year President Obama has been in office.” “Compared to a baseline year of 2008 — the year Barack Obama was elected — the average family premium for employer-sponsored coverage rose by more than $2,500 — $3,671, to be precise.” Jindal’s study argues that Americans have faced a cumulative $6,388 per individual, and $18,610 per family, in higher premium costs. “Individually, ever-rising insurance premiums place a tremendous squeeze on a hollowed-out American middle class — but collectively, these costs amount to a massive weight on an American economy struggling to grow,” the memo states. “All told, the American people have faced $1.2 trillion in higher health insurance premiums due to Obamacare’s failure to deliver.” [...] |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic » |
11:54 AM Jul 13