| Healthcare Bill Part III; Obamacare | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 3 2014, 02:20 PM (48,618 Views) | |
| kbp | Nov 20 2014, 06:57 PM Post #1306 |
|
https://cei.org/sites/default/files/Scot%20Vorse%20-%20Beyond%20Gruber%20-%20How%20HHS%20Flip%20Flopped%20on%20Federal%20Exchange%20Subsidies_0.pdf "How HHS Flip-Flopped on Federal Exchange Subsidies" It is 9 pages that will leave you falling to the floor. |
 |
 
|
| Baldo | Nov 20 2014, 07:34 PM Post #1307 |
|
Powerful Piece with documentation Conclusion . As the above timeline clearly demonstrates, the Obama administration and the Department of Health and Human Services required states establishing their own exchange to build a tax credit calculator. However, for two years after passage of the law, they did not require the same for the federal exchange. These actions provide additional support that the Obama administration and HHS understood that only states that established their own exchanges were entitled to tax credits—the exact opposite of what they have been arguing in federal court. Of course who knows what Chief Justice "Carnac the Magnificent" Roberts can come up with?. Edited by Baldo, Nov 20 2014, 07:37 PM.
|
|
|
|
| kbp | Nov 21 2014, 10:15 AM Post #1308 |
|
We've been "Gruberized"....
Saved the best for last... The message is that the HHS does NOT have a backend to the system setup to track WTH is going on and they conceal what they do know. The number needed for the system to be "sustainable" is somewhat of a mystery. We've seen the 'more than 8 million' drop to 7.3 million and now 6'7 million. The deciding factor relates to how the 3-R's will work in bailouts. Just going off CBO, we were supposed see 7 million in 2014 and then jump to 13M/2015, 22M/2016 and 24M/2017. Now they'll lowering the number for 2015 to only 9 Million. After this latest data, that's only an increase of 2.3 million. I suspect we'll surpass the 9 million early in 2015 and see the dropouts take it closer to that 9 million before the year is done. This relates to the future year counts also. That 3-R's ending in 2016 is looking bigger every day! I'll touch on that in another post. Just FYI... In almost every article linked above, Gruber was mentioned!!!! Barry would rather talk about his compassionate efforts to help the poor immigrants, you know, those ILLEGALS! |
|
|
|
| kbp | Nov 21 2014, 10:57 AM Post #1309 |
|
The 3-R's.... The previous post shows how this topic could become a HUGE issue in the near future. On top of all the twisting and spinning to hide numbers and those they probably do not have because of their failure to complete the enrollment system, it appears the enrollment estimates are sinking down the drain. It's a given fact that it will be the healthy uninsured, most younger, the system can't get onboard the HHS ship running a course charted with the Gruber numbers game (what I call his $6 million program!). The Obamacare exchanges were certain to get the economically challenged sick and older, so they had to have that MANDATE (Gruber again!) to spread the healthcare wealth from the young and healthy stupid voters. Knowing not all would immediately jump on and that the sick would certainly jump on, they added the 3-R's to help cushion the "transition" in store for the system. Evidently they had convinced themselves that their tweaked numbers were accurate enough to end that "transition" period in 2016 (an election year!!!!). The 3-R's is near impossible for me to fully understand, as much of the Obamacare law is. The basics of it is for the profitable pools to share their profits with the unprofitable pools, and for what appears to be the 'just in case we F'd up big time,' an unfunded bailout by the federal government. By the end of 2016, if the new rate of increased enrollment holds true and the dropouts increase like they appear they will, they may have too many problems to solve ...unless we all grow "compassionate" and convince Congress to keep bailing them out. Add a SCOTUS ruling that only State exchanges can give away tax credits and charge "penalties" for the mandate, you'll see a real nightmare for Barry's staff (however he defines "staff"). Anyway, while looking up issues about the 3-R's I happened across this bit of information... Recall that many insurance companies would not participate in the exchanges BECAUSE the same rules applying to policies offered there would also apply to policies they offered off the Marketplace. I've not been able to figure out if the losses covered by the 3-R's are to be determined by the numbers from a specific policy pool, pools setup for an entire state under the company offering them, or some sort of national pool of a company offering policies on and maybe off the exchange (marketplace). Does the 3-R's cover losses off the Marketplace. Next I wonder when and how the HHS will share any loss data and how it was covered so we can get a clearer picture of WTH is going on. . Edited by kbp, Nov 21 2014, 10:58 AM.
|
|
|
|
| chatham | Nov 21 2014, 07:29 PM Post #1310 |
|
it was all a mistake http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/white-house-over-reported-obamacare-enrollment-numbers-article-1.2018064?utm_content=buffer5351c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw White House over-reported Obamacare enrollment numbers The administration admitted to mistakenly double-counting 400,000 enrollees who had signed up for both dental and medical coverage under the Affordable Care Act. |
|
|
|
| MikeZPU | Nov 21 2014, 10:08 PM Post #1311 |
|
SOB's It's just like the deportation numbers. Breaking with precedent, in order to inflate the numbers, Obama's thugs count as a deportation when a person trying to enter the country illegally is turned back, right at the border. I am dead serious -- this is how they keep claiming that deportations under Obama are higher than any other President. |
|
|
|
| kbp | Nov 22 2014, 10:54 AM Post #1312 |
|
Numbers. numbers, numbers.... The basic concept of Obamacare is to provide expanded Medicaid and subsidize premiums, collect taxes to pay for such, and get enough healthy people involved so they may redistribute the medical costs involved. What the count must be to keep the program sustainable is rather important. Truthfully, 6.7 million is much better than I anticipated and is very close to the 7 million goal the CBO numbers used to determine costs. The 2014 enrollment numbers were budgeted for about a $50 billion cost. In addition to the direct taxes that have yet to kick in (mandate penalty, premium tax...), they added other taxes to budget for the costs. If fewer people enroll, the outcome is fewer tax dollars spent on subsidies to insure them. Now that they revised the enrollment numbers from 13 to 9 million for 2015, we'll spend less on subsidies. They had guesstimated about $50 billion in subsidies for 2015. There are other costs involved, but just going with 9/13 as the change, the cost reduces to $34 billion (Barry will translate that numbers failure into how he saved us money!). Another issue is they reported a 25% increase in insurance companies participating in the exchanges this year (after HHS wrote to tell them they could immediately cancel all policies if they lose in the King/Halbig cases!), as if that was great news. It was not clear if it was actually more companies, more policies and/or both. Anyway, that looks to be splitting the enrollment pie they share in to smaller slices ...which means the pools will have fewer people to redistribute the cost through ...which also means the people enrolled are likely to be less healthy ...which means there are likely to be more dollars paid out per person for healthcare ...which means losses are more likely ...which means the premiums will go up if the 3-R's is not there to guarantee companies a profit ...and all of that comes with more companies serving fewer enrollees than anticipated! That's where the "sustainable" appears to apply, whether or not the insurance companies can sustain reasonable premiums at the exchanges. I have not seen any recent reporting on the results of the 3-R's, any projected losses since the news a few months ago that they were anticipated to be huge early on. I guess the policy effective date must expire before any actual loss may be determined. Edited by kbp, Nov 22 2014, 10:58 AM.
|
|
|
|
| kbp | Nov 22 2014, 11:18 AM Post #1313 |
|
Any following this much should have learned that there are not many out there that know more about Obamacare than Michael Cannon. I had tweeted Cannon a question:
He answered "yep." Recall the companies offering plans on the Health Insurance Exchange (HIX) and in the private market must meet certain guidelines in both markets. I'm not sure how the pooling is structured. It must require that the pool of the both the private and exchange markets be mixed to redistribute private premium payers to subsidized premiums paid. So the 3-R's bailout would cover (some?) private policy pools of companies participating in the HIX. ADD: This question came about from me reading the what was called a WH fact sheet put out when Barry was bragging about the "greater than 8 million" enrollees. That fact sheet stated: "insurers set premiums...are required to look at [pools] that meet ACA standards...on & off the [HIX]." That should lead to the conclusion that pools for private market policies MUST be mixed in with pools for exchange policy pools to stretch the head count for redistribution. Edited by kbp, Nov 22 2014, 11:24 AM.
|
|
|
|
| kbp | Nov 22 2014, 11:42 AM Post #1314 |
|
This might explain why some premiums went up and others are cheaper... http://healthpolicyandmarket.blogspot.com/2014/11/how-many-people-have-enrolled-so-far-in.html?spref=tw How Many People Have Enrolled So Far in Obamacare's Second Open Enrollment? Undoubtedly I will hear that question many times in the coming weeks. The answer is that this enrollment process is so screwed up we will have no earthly idea how many new people have enrolled and how many 2014 enrollees remained on the program until at least April 2015. Let me try to illustrate. Let's say George is now enrolled in Obamacare. He is happy to have subsidized and guaranteed health insurance for the first time. He was even been happier to read in the media that the second year Obamacare rate increases would be small. He was also happy to get a letter just before the Election Day telling him he will be automatically renewed in his current plan. Then on December 6th George gets his January premium statement. He is paying a lot more! What happened? His insurance company phone lines are suddenly jammed. Seems like a lot of other people got a surprise. Turns out all of those expert analysts and reporters writing stories about "average rate increases" never heard of the term loaded average––that's when the plan that got 70% market share increased their rates 15% and the rest cut their rates or gave tiny increases. That is happening a lot in Obamacare this renewal season. Here is a sample list of the rate increases the biggest market share carriers are asking for:  This is all compounded by something called the baseline Silver Plan's effect on subsidies. The second lowest cost Silver plan in any market determines what a person's subsidy will be. Last year, that plan was probably the plan that got the biggest enrollment and also the plan with the biggest rate increase this year. So, it's probably the plan George has. In fact, you might recall a recent briefing paper by actuarial firm Milliman in which they pointed out that even a modest increase in premium by market leaders of 5% could lead to net after subsidy cost increases of 30% to near 100% for subsidized enrollees. But because George's plan is no longer the baseline plan, even though George is on subsidy and he is supposed to be shielded from any rate increase by the taxpayer, his premium is going up unless he changes to the insurance company that now holds the honors as having the second lowest cost Silver Plan. So, George scrambles, in the very few days between his getting his January premium invoice (likely about December 6th) and the January 1 cut-off for open enrollment on December 15, to sign-up for that lower cost plan and save his full subsidy. But then George's friend Mary tells him that the new second lowest cost Silver Plan is one of those terrible narrow network plans that restricts providers in order to be able to charge the lowest rate and suggests he sign up for a third plan that costs a little more but has his doctor in the network. So, how many enrollments will the Obama administration and the insurance companies be counting here on their far from finished Obamacare backroom system? George's first carrier will count him because it was too much bother for George to figure out whom to call to cancel his coverage––he will just not pay the bill. But his carrier, by regulation, can't knock him off the rolls for three months––not until April 1. George enrolled in his second choice but never bothered to pay that bill but the carrier will count him likely into February as the health plans give people plenty of time to pay their bill in what will be a very confusing situation. And, of course, George's third carrier will count him. So, that is one person being counted three times and we won't have just George's status cleared up until George's 2014 carrier can delete him from its rolls in April. So, how many people have enrolled in Obamacare say, by December 1, or December 15, or January 1, or February 1? I will have no frickin idea, don't even ask. So much for Healthcare.Gov working really well. But I am sure the Obama administration will be telling us the website, call centers, and carriers are very busy with people all excited about Obamacare. They just won't be defining excitement. Posted by ROBERT LASZEWSKI Edited by kbp, Nov 22 2014, 11:43 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Baldo | Nov 22 2014, 03:36 PM Post #1315 |
|
Four words that could deep-six Obamacare http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/11/22/supreme-court-obama-health-care/19271273/ |
|
|
|
| kbp | Nov 23 2014, 10:58 AM Post #1316 |
|
I like that "context" argument. The law specifically states tax credits go through an exchange "established by the State." There is nothing that says the federal exchange may provide tax credits. That's a piece of the context. ...law clearly intended to make health insurance more widely available and affordable. The claim was that the proposed law would make AVAILABILITY and AFFORDABILITY a benefit from a central marketplace that created more COMPETITIVE pricing... the tool to help provide $2500/year savings! How do we know this?
Back to context, to form an understanding of the context meaning all exchanges give tax credits, you must somehow UNREAD the plain text of 1311:
Going the "context" route, they try to combine the provisions (a load of almost!) to create the impression that the entirety of the law, reading the provisions their way, is the best argument to show the intent (cart before the horse). Somehow the idea that to ignore plain text and allow the IRS to change the rules requires that a reading of the various provisions in a manner that supports the plain text MUST be "absurd" got lost. (Recall the pro-Ocare process is identify ambiguity that allows IRS to redefine what the intent was, not determine a possible intent and use it to define possibly ambiguous provisions.) They're still left with the UNREAD plain text problem (absent any explanation why it was included), so they ignore definitions and partially classify requirements as definitions. To accomplish this, they must select a sentence and declare that only a portion of the sentence helps to define what "established by the State" means, ignoring the balance of the sentence. The Fourth Circuit told us:
“(d) REQUIREMENTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—An Exchange shall be a governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a State." Skip the fact this is plainly a requirement and go with it as some defining note for the law. If the :established by the State" is not definition, then so too is the case for "nonprofit." If we go with the Fourth's idea of fed = State, then go further ignoring "nonprofit" and insert Walmart or Gruber. The Fourth unread plain text and selectively prevented any other parts of 1311 from being a definition in their interpretation of what the requirement is to be... partially a requirement and partially a definition. That plants ignorance on Congress's part through the language used. A reader must add language and meaning to the law to reach this fed=State conclusion, while ignoring the many provisions noting requirements of where the tax credits come from. Something that gets me on the "context" matter is how if they need to plant intent ahead of finding ambiguity, why have they NOT gone further in to a reading of the HELP and Finance bills the language was borrowed from? . |
|
|
|
| chatham | Nov 23 2014, 11:22 AM Post #1317 |
|
The way the ACA was written is not the meaning Gruber was talking about it. So intentions are off the table because gruber's vocalization gruberized his own document. |
|
|
|
| kbp | Nov 23 2014, 11:36 AM Post #1318 |
|
Depends on which time Gruber opened his mouth! |
|
|
|
| kbp | Nov 23 2014, 12:03 PM Post #1319 |
|
Directed a couple posts back to "Four words that could deep-six Obamacare" http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1146_4g18.pdf [from a part of Justice Scalia’s opinion on the "context" and words of plain meaning...]
Another... http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-515_jq2i.pdf [from Justice Kagan...]
Context v. Text If the general definition the Fourth relied on was to be taken as what rules all of the law by UNREADING parts of it, there would not have been any need to add a specific requirement provision to direct tax credits "established by the State." |
|
|
|
| kbp | Nov 23 2014, 01:26 PM Post #1320 |
|
More on the definition issue.. The ACA is divided into Title, Subtitle, Section, Subsection and includes:
An "Exchange" means one established by State or Federal authorities. An "Exchange" identified in 1311 "specifically provided for" tax credit to come the an Exchange "established by a State." (I'm reading too many parts of this hard to follow law!) Edited by kbp, Nov 23 2014, 01:27 PM.
|
|
|
|
| 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