| Healthcare Bill Part III; Obamacare | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 3 2014, 02:20 PM (48,650 Views) | |
| kbp | Jul 22 2014, 09:06 PM Post #826 |
|
King v. Burwell (Sebelius): http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141158.P.pdf |
 |
 
|
| kbp | Jul 22 2014, 09:25 PM Post #827 |
|
Skip the exact text, move on to the entire law and find that confusion, which justifies the IRS interpreting it as they like. If the entirety of the law makes the exact text calling for subsidies only in exchanges established by States ambiguous, so they can go shopping for Congressional intent, how in the world do they explain the INTENT behind the portions of the law copied from the HELP and Finance bills? |
|
|
|
| mike in houston | Jul 22 2014, 11:02 PM Post #828 |
|
http://news.msn.com/us/undercover-probe-finds-health-law-failings WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional investigators using fake identities were able to obtain taxpayer-subsidized health insurance under President Barack Obama's law, according to testimony to be delivered Wednesday The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office says its undercover investigators were able to get subsidized health care under fake names in 11 out of 18 attempts. The GAO is still paying premiums for the policies, even as the Obama administration attempts to verify phony documentation. The agency's findings are contained in testimony to be delivered at a House Ways and Means Committee hearing Wednesday. An advance copy was provided to The Associated Press. Seto Bagdoyan, head of GAO audits and investigations, will also testify that there's still a huge backlog of applications with data discrepancies, even though the administration has resolved some 600,000 cases. snip- |
|
|
| Mason | Jul 23 2014, 12:41 AM Post #829 |
Parts unknown
|
. That's just not convenient at all. . |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jul 23 2014, 07:16 AM Post #830 |
|
Just to consider, if this is the general trend of the insurance carriers for the exchanges....Start by recognizing that Florida is an older population overall, so it should be an exaggerated look at what might be expected in the average numbers. In theory, those with grandfathered plans switching over to exchange plans would make the pool of policy holders healthier or less costly to the insurer. At the same time, Barry playing with the mandates and grandfathered plan deadlines has disrupted the transition plan in place with the 3-R's. The insurers are pricing premiums for this year with the 3-R's still available. Come mid-year 2016, that safety net is gone in the premiums coming out then and the bigger mandates hit ...subject to Barry not changing the law again! . |
|
|
|
| chatham | Jul 23 2014, 07:41 AM Post #831 |
|
I disagree Florida is an older population overall. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12000.html Persons under 18 years, percent definition and source infoPersons under 18 years, percent, 201320.6% Persons 65 years and over, percent definition and source infoPersons 65 years and over, percent, 201318.7% +++++++++++++++++ Interestingly, Florida also has two places among the 10 cities with the lowest median age: Gainesville (24.9 years) and http://money.usnews.com/money/retirement/articles/2011/06/06/10-places-with-the-oldest-population Tallahassee (26.1 years). "Florida has characteristics that can attract people at both ends of the age spectrum," says Howden. "It has planned retirement communities for people at older ages and things like prominent universities that attract people at younger ages." Cities with the youngest median ages tend to have a major college or military base, while places with the oldest citizens often have retirement communities, pleasant weather, and other amenities that appeal to seniors. Here are the 10 cities with the oldest median ages: 1. Scottsdale, Ariz.; 45.4 years 2. Clearwater, Fla.; 43.8 years 3. Cape Coral, Fla.; 42.4 years 4. Fort Lauderdale, Fla.; 42.2 years 5. Hialeah, Fla.; 42.2 years 6. St. Petersburg, Fla.; 41.6 years. 7. Thousand Oaks, Calif.; 41.5 years 8. Honolulu, Hawaii; 41.3 years 9. Torrance, Calif.; 41.3 years 10. Centennial, Colo.; 41.1 years Source: Census Bureau, 2010. =========================== Note, the above table is the media age which means that 50% of the population is older and 50% of the population is younger. Those data are not average age. ============================= The oldest medain aged state is Maine. See http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/26/real_estate/americas_oldest_states/ Maine, Vermont, West Virgina, New Hampshire Florida does have the highest percentage of people 65 and older. But these people are on Mediacare.  Edited by chatham, Jul 23 2014, 07:43 AM.
|
|
|
|
| chatham | Jul 23 2014, 07:50 AM Post #832 |
|
Theoretical: If one takes out the 65 and older population who are medicare people then the average age of the state decrease quite significantly since 18% of the Florida population is in that category. One may want to consider the population of poor people and those signingup for medicaid being the cause of insurance companies raising prices. As indicated above, florida essentially has two populations of people. Thise who are retired and comfortable living the good life in the good weather and those who are more red neck, poorer and warkinghard to make ends meet. The tourist tows, university cities and miitary bases most liely have a more stable middle class. |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jul 23 2014, 08:10 AM Post #833 |
|
Thanks Chatham! They seem to have more of both young and old than the national average. To me that means the premiums are not quite as "exaggerated" as I thought. Also a good point on the Medicaid, since Florida did go with the expansion. If a large percentage of the healthier young population goes with Medicaid, they're not available to help in the exchange pools. That adds to the "exaggeration." Now I'm not sure where Florida would line up with the national average! Still, I believe the rates will be going up overall and probably experiencing a bigger increase when the 3-R's end. |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jul 23 2014, 07:24 PM Post #834 |
|
I'm seeing lots of articles about fake applicants getting subsidies and nobody checking on them ...well, some say they check later! |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jul 23 2014, 11:44 PM Post #835 |
|
Thought to consider... The argument of the Obamacare proponents is that Congress wrote the subsidies could go to those where the exchange was established by the State, though their unwritten intent was for it to include those in States with a federal exchange because there is no way it was an incentive for States to establish an exchange ...Congress would never have had that incentive plan in their minds. And that was ruled on that way by a few judges in courts across our nation... so what would SCOTUS rule? When SCOTUS ruled Obamacare to be a tax, they also ruled on Medicaid Expansion. It's kind of a Constitutional type thingy when the federal government runs into things they can't do in States. Barry's crew wrote that Medicaid Expansion part of the law to provide FREE MONEY to States that went with the program and would take away all Medicaid in States that didn't expand the program. It appears Congress had the intent of making it an incentive to not upset their plan, but SCOTUS saw through that incentive. Will SCOTUS think Congress was playing with incentives when they wrote the law allowing subsidies only in States that cooperated and provided an exchange "established by the State" in this case? |
|
|
|
| MikeZPU | Jul 24 2014, 09:43 AM Post #836 |
|
Many thanks to kbp for all the information and attendant analysis and explanation, and to chatham too. It will be very interesting to see how the Supreme Court will decide. |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jul 24 2014, 01:26 PM Post #837 |
|
My layman's take on it.... I keep reading and hearing about that "intent" thingy. The Administration's legal crew argue mostly that there is something, somehow written into the entirety of the law that would transform a federal exchange into a State exchange and/or make it ambiguous, so the IRS can then re-legislate the meaning of the law. The former is confusing as he!! trying to understand their reasoning, as the text is just near being clear and nobody can really quote the exact text that provides that authority. It's like them saying that S is clear, but if you also select parts from B, C & D to mix with it, you could conclude that F is also S. I suspect this theory was part of a strategy to plant an idea of the law being ambiguous if it is not clear, so they're probably reaching out to confuse the plain text in place (State) and move to the next step to reach their goal. The latter relies on some ruling called "Chevron," which, in this case, would allow the IRS as an agency to stretch the law because that is their interpretation of the intent of Congress and is necessary to adhere to or enforce the law. This is where "intent" of Congress can be used. I'm lost in how they can argue that the intent of Congress could NEVER have been to NOT provide subsidies in a federal exchange, for the goal of the law was to reduce the number of uninsured and create a Marketplace to reduce the cost of insurance thru increased competition (they need the #'s for the pool). Therefore, Congress would not have used the subsidies as an incentive for cooperation by the States. They say that while we all know that the Medicaid Expansion of the same exact law had an incentive in the way of avoiding the federal government taking away Medicaid if the States did not cooperate. That would be like Congress having had an intent to reduce the number of the uninsured in all States in one part of the law and in another part clearly had an intent that could increase that number of uninsured in some States. I've not seen any making this point, so I must have missed it, am misunderstanding something, or there is a reason they did not argue this I am not aware of. The sad part is that what comes of the case in the end will probably have some new reasoning I'll have to study again and again to understand, if possible! Edited by kbp, Jul 24 2014, 01:27 PM.
|
|
|
|
| kbp | Jul 24 2014, 04:26 PM Post #838 |
|
 The cheerleaders are out!
They do not have a firm number to determine how many gained coverage under Obamacare or on their own, and...
they plain do not have a firm number! . |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jul 24 2014, 05:07 PM Post #839 |
|
The attorneys representing the Administration/IRS did not go with the drafting error idea, but this post is still great to read, as it uncovers many other things. http://thefederalist.com/2014/07/23/no-halbig-did-not-gut-obamacare-because-of-a-drafting-error/ No, Halbig Did Not Gut Obamacare Because Of A “Drafting Error” Reading is fundamental, unless you're a liberal blogger. That’s right: a drafting error. That was the message delivered by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in yesterday’s Halbig opinion. At issue was whether Obamacare required federal health insurance subsidies to be limited only to plans purchased via a state-based health exchange. To date, only 14 states (plus Washington, DC) have established state exchanges; the federal government established and is operating the exchange used by residents of the other 36 states. In May of 2012, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a rule stating that the subsidies would be available even if they would be applied to a plan purchased via the federal health exchange. The panel that issued yesterday’s Halbig decision ruled that the text of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, was unambiguous: subsidies in the form of tax credits could only be provided to offset the costs of plans purchased via a state exchange. Obamacare’s supporters immediately reacted with outrage, but they couldn’t quite settle on what, exactly, was outrageous. Some argued that the text of the law clearly permitted subsidies to flow to those who purchased plans on the federal exchange—this was the argument offered by the government in court. Others argued that while the text didn’t technically permit those subsidies, that was clearly the intent of the the law, and any textual omission was surely due to a “drafting error.” Let’s take a step back to see how plausible that explanation is. There are two types of exchanges: state-established, and federally established. The statutory authority for state-based exchanges comes in section 1311 of Obamacare. The statutory authority for a federal exchange in the event that a state chose not to establish one comes from section 1321(c) of Obamacare. Right off the bat, we have two discrete sections pertaining to two discrete types of health exchange. Was that a “drafting error”? Then we have the specific construction of section 1321(c), which allows for the creation of a federal exchange. Nowhere does this section say that an exchange created under its authority will have the same treatment as a state-based exchange created under section 1311. At no point does it say that section 1321 plans are equivalent. Why, it’s almost as though the exchanges and the plans offered by them were not intended to receive the same treatment. Was that another “drafting error”? Most important, we have the sections of the law providing for tax credits to help offset the cost of Obamacare’s health care plans: sections 1401, 1402, 1411, 1412, 1413, 1414, and 1415. And how do those sections establish authority to provide those tax credits? Why, they specifically state ten separate times that tax credits are available to offset the costs of state health exchange plans authorized by section 1311. And how many times are section 1321 federal exchange plans mentioned? Zero. Was that yet another “drafting error”? The specific phrase “established by the State under section 1311″ can be found twice in the tax credit title of Obamacare. The first instances relates to the size and the second to the scope of the tax credit subsidy. How many times is the phrase “established by the Federal government/Secretary under section 1321″ found? Zero. Was that also a “drafting error”? When I worked in the Senate, I spent countless hours reading through various appropriation and spending bills. I also drafted hundreds of amendments, as well as a standalone public law. During the years I spent reading through proposed legislation, it was not uncommon to find obvious errors in bills and amendments. Sometimes you would see a date written as 3015 instead of 2015. Sometimes a non-existent section would be referenced, or a section number in a table of contents might be wrong. Other times, you might see a dollar figure that had too few or too many zeroes (seriously, that happened). You might even find a misspelled word or an incorrect line number every now and again. Those were true “drafting errors,” the typos of the legislative world. The deliberate creation of a separate section to authorize a separate federal entity is not a drafting error. The repeated and deliberate reference to one section but not another is not a drafting error. The refusal to grant equal authority to two programs authorized by two separate sections is not a drafting error. The decision to specifically reference section X but not section Y in a portion of a law that grants spending or tax authority is not a drafting error. The clear text of the law repeatedly demonstrates that plans purchased via federal exchanges were never meant to be treated the same as plans purchased by state-based exchanges. Despite its assertions, the IRS was never granted the statutory authority to hand out tax credits related to plans purchased via a federal health exchange. All of that of course begs the question: if the law’s authors originally intended to constrain subsidies to state plans, what was the rationale for the IRS about-face in 2011? That’s actually an easy one to answer: the administration never imagined that so many states would refuse to establish Obamacare exchanges. The subsidies for state exchange plans were meant to be pot sweeteners—incentives for states to set up their own exchanges. If fines for mandate non-compliance were Obamacare’s stick, the subsidies for state exchange health plans were the carrot. To the law’s backers, that plan made sense: the White House didn’t really want to have to manage 51 separate exchanges. They wanted the states to do all the heavy lifting. Unfortunately, several dozen legislatures and governors had different plans. When I witnessed drafting errors that went uncorrected and ended up being codified in law, I saw the same behavior over and over again: recognition of the error, followed by an immediate attempt to correct it. Usually the corrections were done via an uncontroversial “technical corrections” bill. They were almost always drafted and passed within a couple of days or weeks of the original law’s passage. But that’s not what we saw with this alleged “drafting error.” No attempt was made to rectify the alleged “error.” The timeline tells it all. Obamacare was signed into law in March of 2010. It wasn’t until August of 2011 that the IRS decided to make tax credit subsidies available to plans purchased on federal exchanges. That’s a span of 16 months—an awfully long time to recognize and address a “drafting error.” Furthermore, actual “drafting errors” have to be corrected by new laws, not by executive fiat. Even when they are plainly obvious to everyone who sees them, that 3015 that should’ve been 2015 still has to be amended via a new law: passed by both Houses, and signed by the president. Yet, that’s not what this administration did. In its May 2012 announcement of its official new rule which suddenly allowed subsidies to flow to federal exchange plans, the IRS never claimed it was a drafting error. It claimed the opposite: that the text clearly endorsed the IRS interpretation:
So why did the IRS wait nearly 16 months to spring this new interpretation on the public? That’s also an easy one. As of August 17, 2011, when its rule was first proposed, only ten states had passed laws establishing their own exchanges. Seventeen had outright rejected the Obamacare exchanges. All told, 40 states had by that point failed to do the administration’s bidding and set up state-based Obamacare exchanges. Without exchanges in every state, Obamacare would surely fail as a policy matter. And without massive subsidies to offset the costs of Obamacare’s health plans, Obamacare would fail as a political matter. The IRS maneuver was a last-ditch attempt to paper over the law’s serious structural flaws. The Halbig case changed all that and ripped off the facade to expose a structure ready to collapse under its own weight. And it wasn’t due to a “drafting error,” the uninformed opinions of know-nothing bloviators who’ve spent exactly zero time drafting federal legislation notwithstanding. In 2010, Nancy Pelosi famously claimed that Congress needed to pass Obamacare in order to find out what’s in it. Well, a federal court just read Obamacare and found out what wasn’t in it: tax credit subsidies for federal exchange health plans. Edited by kbp, Jul 24 2014, 05:09 PM.
|
|
|
|
| LTC8K6 | Jul 24 2014, 10:53 PM Post #840 |
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
Maximum Obamacare fine — or tax, whatever — set at $2448 per person http://twitchy.com/2014/07/24/maximum-obamacare-fine-or-tax-whatever-set-at-2448-per-person/ http://bigstory.ap.org/article/feds-cap-fines-not-buying-health-insurance MIAMI (AP) — Federal officials have capped the amount of money scofflaws will be forced to pay if they don't buy insurance this year under the new health care law. The caps are $2,448 per person and $12,240 for a family of five. The amount is equal to the national average annual premium for a bronze-level health plan. The penalty for the first year starts at $95 per person and can rise to as much as 1 percent of annual income. The latest figure limits what the government can charge people using the personal income computation. The penalty is due when people file their 2014 taxes. Conservative lawmakers and groups that are critical of the Affordable Care Act encouraged consumers to skip buying insurance, arguing it would be cheaper to pay the $95 penalty, but often failed to mention the 1 percent clause. |
|
|
|
| 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