| Healthcare Bill Part III; Obamacare | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 3 2014, 02:20 PM (48,620 Views) | |
| chatham | Nov 16 2014, 05:18 PM Post #1276 |
|
http://weaselzippers.us/205527-ny-dem-senator-admits-we-all-knew-obama-was-lying-about-obamacare/ abc news this am |
 |
 
|
| Baldo | Nov 17 2014, 12:04 AM Post #1277 |
|
Massachusetts: CUE GOP OUTCRY: ONLY 3.5% HAVE PAID!! http://acasignups.net/14/11/16/massachusetts-cue-gop-outcry-only-35-have-paid |
|
|
|
| Baldo | Nov 17 2014, 12:08 AM Post #1278 |
|
From his book Health Care Reform: What It Is, Why It's Necessary, How It Works December 20, 2011 by Jonathan Gruber  Lucy, somebody is lying! |
|
|
|
| Baldo | Nov 17 2014, 01:13 AM Post #1279 |
|
WSJ Opinion Another ObamaCare Deception As Jonathan Gruber knows, the health-care law is a tax machine. The ‘Cadillac’ levy will hit the middle class. http://online.wsj.com/articles/tevi-troy-another-obamacare-deception-1416179540 |
|
|
|
| Baldo | Nov 17 2014, 01:20 AM Post #1280 |
|
Obamacare’s State of Crisis Halbig, but King bigger In their final push to enact Obamacare, Nancy Pelosi urged her fellow Democrats to “pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” They probably should have found out first. Now they need the Supreme Court to “find” once again in their favor. Last week, the Court announced that it will hear King v. Burwell, one of several challenges to the administration’s interpretation of a key Obamacare provision regarding health insurance markets. Unlike the plaintiffs in the Court’s last Obamacare case, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012), the King plaintiffs do not claim that the Constitution nullifies Obamacare. Rather, they claim that the Obama administration itself is nullifying one of Obamacare’s key provisions. They ask the Court to require the administration to enforce the act’s plain terms as written—and this, the law’s critics hope, may cause Obamacare to collapse under its own weight. The case arises from Obamacare’s provision for health insurance “exchanges”—statewide markets for health insurance designed to enable people to obtain health insurance from a source other than employers. While the House’s version of health care legislation provided for a single nationwide exchange, the version of Obamacare that was enacted provides for the creation of an exchange for each state and the District of Columbia. But the law does not require the states themselves to set up the exchanges—in fact, the Constitution prohibits the federal government from forcing states to administer a federal program. Instead, each state had the opportunity to set up its own exchange; and if it declined to do so, the federal Department of Health and Human Services would “establish and operate such [an] Exchange within the State.” President Obama long had urged that the federal government needed to subsidize health insurance purchased on exchanges to make it sufficiently attractive to poor and middle-class consumers. But the version of Obamacare signed by the president after a flurry of legislative gamesmanship was not written in such generous terms. The act does provide expressly for federal tax subsidies, called “premium assistance,” for health insurance purchased “through an Exchange established by the State.” But that subsidy—and related penalties, for in Obamacare as in life there is no free lunch—finds no corresponding provision for health insurance purchased “through an Exchange established by the Federal Government.” Absent such a provision, the federal government is left to argue that this provision must be construed broadly to cover all exchanges, not just state-created ones. Or, as the administration argues, the courts should treat federally created exchanges as actually state-created exchanges, with the secretary of health and human services “stand[ing] in the shoes of” the states. Perhaps the act’s differential treatment of state and federal exchanges was simply a case of shoddy legislative draftsmanship—the sort of thing that happens when Congress passes a law first and reads it later. Or perhaps it serves as an incentive for states to set up their own exchanges. The latter is the view of Jonathan Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist widely credited as an “architect” of Obamacare (or, as the New York Times called him, “Health Care’s Mr. Mandate”). At least it was Gruber’s stated view until the moment that this interpretation became a legal and political threat to the act’s own viability. As the New Republic reported in its congratulatory account of Obamacare’s enactment, “Gruber, one of the plan’s architects, led a group of center-left intellectuals who hyped the [Massachusetts] experiment’s success and touted it as a model for national action in articles, speeches, and consultation with prominent Democratic Party politicians.” Gruber certainly has a way with words: In a video uncovered last week, he crowed that Obamacare’s “lack of transparency” was “a huge political advantage,” as was “the stupidity of the American voter,” which “was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”...snipped http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/obama-care-s-state-crisis_819011.html Maybe Pelosi should have read the bill first... Naw she was only th Speaker of the House. Maybe the House should have had hearings on the bill.. Naw they knew it wouldn't have passed Let's see if SCOTUS has any balls? |
|
|
|
| Baldo | Nov 17 2014, 09:43 AM Post #1281 |
|
Gallup: 'New numerical low' for Obamacare Support for Obamacare continues to decline, with the law hitting a new low in approval, and a new high in disapproval, as the second enrollment period has opened for Americans, according to Gallup. Just 37 percent approve of the Affordable Care Act, 1 percentage point less than the previous low recorded in January, Gallup found in a new survey released Monday. The pollster notes the approval results are a “new numerical low” for Obamacare. The second enrollment season kicked off on Saturday, with minor snagsl however, enthusiasm for the law remains underwhelming. A majority of Americans disapprove of Obamacare, at 56 percent — a new high, Gallup said. “The law’s new low in approval — and new high in disapproval (56%) — could potentially have an impact on its future,” the pollster notes, but adds that repeal is still unlikely...snipped http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/poll-obamacare-approval-112948.html |
|
|
|
| Baldo | Nov 17 2014, 10:42 AM Post #1282 |
|
CNBC Told Journalist to Quit Negative Obamacare Reports – She Was “Disrespecting Office of President” (Video) CNBC told reporter Melissa Francis that negative Obamacare reports were disrespectful of president. Francis told FOX: “I’m trained in economics. I went to Harvard. This is what I do. You know, I looked at the math of Obamacare and it didn’t make sense. You said you can’t add millions of people and have it not cost everyone. You can’t add people with pre-existing conditions and not charge more. And, maybe folks would still be in favor of it if they knew the facts. But they needed to know the facts. So, I would pursue that line of questioning and after the show one day I was called up to my manager’s office and was told that I needed to stop. And I said< “Why? This is math not politics?” They said that I was disrespecting the office of the president.“...snipped http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/11/cnbc-told-journalist-to-quit-negative-obamacare-reports-she-was-disrespecting-office-of-president-video/ |
|
|
|
| kbp | Nov 17 2014, 11:05 AM Post #1283 |
|
It's good they admit to the MSM they knew individuals would lose policies. The CBO reports showed the data. The enrollment would include customers stolen from a pre-existing market. |
|
|
|
| Baldo | Nov 17 2014, 11:08 AM Post #1284 |
|
Obamacare Bait and Switch If you like your Obamacare plan, you can keep it. But you’ll have to pay up to 20 percent more. That was the news dumped out by the White House on a Friday, so hopefully few would see it, just hours before the 2015 marketplace opened. According to the New York Times, those who bought plans last year face stiff price increases unless they shop around and switch. And even some who shop for better deals won’t help their situation much: An analysis of the data by The New York Times suggests that although consumers will often be able to find new health plans with prices comparable to those they now pay, the situation varies greatly from state to state and even among counties in the same state. “Consumers should shop around,” said Marilyn B. Tavenner, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which runs the federal insurance exchange serving three dozen states. “With new options available this year, they’re likely to find a better deal.” She asserted that the data showed that “the Affordable Care Act is working.” Only an elitist denizen of Washington’s ruling class could blithely assert that consumers should simply “shop around.” Changing health insurance after just a year is a serious inconvenience, and even a danger as patients lose good doctors they’ve learned to trust. The Times outlines the obvious problem: The new data means that many of the seven million people who have bought insurance through federal and state exchanges will have to change to different health plans if they want to avoid paying more — an inconvenience for consumers just becoming accustomed to their coverage In employer-sponsored health plans, employees tend to stay with the same insurer from year to year. But for consumers in the public insurance exchanges, that will often be a mistake, experts said. Different health plans often have different networks of doctors and hospitals and cover different drugs, meaning that consumers who change plans may have to pay more for the same medicines. Another problem for consumers is that if the price for a low-cost benchmark plan in the area has dropped, the amount of federal subsidies provided by the law could be less, meaning that consumers may have to pay more unless they switch plans. The Affordable Care Act seems to become less affordable for people every year. But then, when it comes to Obamacare, we’re used to false promises, delivered by leaders who figured we were stupid http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2014/11/15/obamacare-bait-switch/ |
|
|
|
| kbp | Nov 17 2014, 11:17 AM Post #1285 |
|
If Gruber is so much smarter than the voters, I wonder why he did not select better phrasing to tell how he helped screw over the public? |
|
|
|
| kbp | Nov 17 2014, 11:32 AM Post #1286 |
|
Recall I had posted a link to policy changes of a single insurance company. It too had policies going up, going down, and new policies. It's my guess there is a lot of strategy in determining what to do to premium prices of various policies offered and when the 3-R's end it may expose those strategies. I'd love to see the data from company actuaries on how they factor in people dumping coverage as a result of the out-of-pocket expense. It just doesn't make sense to call this an affordable plan for po' folks knowing full well that most can't or will not keep coverage after their pocketbooks take a hit. |
|
|
|
| LTC8K6 | Nov 17 2014, 06:16 PM Post #1287 |
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
Looks like the two employees I have info on have similar premium increases to mine. |
|
|
|
| LTC8K6 | Nov 17 2014, 06:20 PM Post #1288 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrmNWL3Tt-E |
|
|
|
| LTC8K6 | Nov 17 2014, 06:22 PM Post #1289 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6yoHcOhF0U "You have already drawn some of the brightest minds from academia and policy circles, many of them I have stolen ideas from liberally, people ranging from Robert Gordon to Austan Goolsbee; Jon Gruber; my dear friend, Jim Wallis here, who can inform what are sometimes dry policy debates with a prophetic voice." http://freebeacon.com/politics/obama-flashback-ive-stolen-ideas-from-jonathan-gruber/ During a Brookings Institution panel in April 2006, then-Sen. Barack Obama claimed he had “stolen” ideas from a gang of liberal economists and academics, including the now-infamous Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber. “You have already drawn some of the brightest minds from academia and policy circles, many of them I have stolen ideas from liberally,” Obama said. “People ranging from Robert Gordon to Austan Goolsbee; Jon Gruber; my dear friend, Jim Wallis here, who can inform what are sometimes dry policy debates with a prophetic voice.” Despite Obama’s attempt to distance himself and his unpopular signature health care legislation from Gruber, it is clear that 2006 Obama never anticipated videos of his once-trusted adviser calling American voters ‘stupid’ would surface in 2014. Edited by LTC8K6, Nov 17 2014, 06:32 PM.
|
|
|
|
| kbp | Nov 17 2014, 09:17 PM Post #1290 |
|
I have to admit that it is difficult to decipher WTH the small employer program is doing. A big question is if all employees getting subsidies must go with the same plan. With subsidies involved, I can only guess it is covered by the 3-R's. There has to be a financial reason last years policies are going up often and the new policies are cheaper. |
|
|
|
| 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