Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Harte

Obamacare likely to defund itself

29 posts in this topic

Obamacare legislation, as written, will provide insurance subsidies only in state-created insurance exchanges, and not in the Federal exchanges nor in the State-Federal partnership exchanges. With only 16 states agreeing to create their own exchanges, this leaves most people without subsidies.

The law also allows people to completely opt out of the mandate to buy insurance if the cost is more than 8% of their income. Hence, in 34 states, most people can opt out because they won't get the subsidy.

It appears that Obama plans to circumvent his own law and provide the subsidies anyway. The State of Oklahoma is suing the feds to prevent this illegal maneuver.

The liberals writing the law assumed the vast majority of states would create their own exchange. But just to make sure, they included a “carrot” that clearly says that the federal subsidies are available ONLY in the state-created exchanges, not in the federal-state partnerships or the federally created exchanges.

However, 34 states have decided not to play the ObamaCare game and opted for a federally created exchange or the partnership, which means the federal subsidies will not be available to millions of middle- and lower-income workers in those states.

And without the subsidies, insurance would become “unaffordable” under ObamaCare for the vast majority of those families. They would thus be exempted from the mandate to have coverage, and their employers would be exempted from the penalty for not providing it.

In other words, the most draconian part of ObamaCare would essentially be defunded. Bingo!

Oklahoma is suing the feds to establish this point.

Forbes

More states should be joining this lawsuit.

Harte

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obamacare legislation, as written, will provide insurance subsidies only in state-created insurance exchanges, and not in the Federal exchanges nor in the State-Federal partnership exchanges. With only 16 states agreeing to create their own exchanges, this leaves most people without subsidies.

The law also allows people to completely opt out of the mandate to buy insurance if the cost is more than 8% of their income. Hence, in 34 states, most people can opt out because they won't get the subsidy.

It appears that Obama plans to circumvent his own law and provide the subsidies anyway. The State of Oklahoma is suing the feds to prevent this illegal maneuver.

Forbes

More states should be joining this lawsuit.

Harte

Yep, they should....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With only 16 states agreeing to create their own exchanges, this leaves most people without subsidies.

which begs the question, Why would some states cut off their own noses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

which begs the question, Why would some states cut off their own noses?

'cause people don't matter. Why else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'cause people don't matter. Why else?

No, because it requires the states to provide progressively more money. The Feds only cover a large chunk for three years. After that, states are on the hook.

Harte

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, because it requires the states to provide progressively more money. The Feds only cover a large chunk for three years. After that, states are on the hook.

Harte

And unlike Washington, DC the states have to balance their budget every year.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, because it requires the states to provide progressively more money. The Feds only cover a large chunk for three years. After that, states are on the hook.

Harte

You're confusing exchange subsidies with Medicaid. States don't pay anything for the exchange subsidies, ever. That's a federal expense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're confusing exchange subsidies with Medicaid. States don't pay anything for the exchange subsidies, ever. That's a federal expense.

You're right. My mistake.

There are also several states not expanding Medicaid as part of Obamacare.

Harte

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're confusing exchange subsidies with Medicaid. States don't pay anything for the exchange subsidies, ever. That's a federal expense.

If you realy thing the Federal government has a surplus of money left over from taxes that they have more than enough to pay the increased cost of medicaid plus subsidies without any new tax income... Well okay if thats what you believe. After all its not like Medicaid is underfunded right now.

Then theres the constant increase in Medical cost.

The whole Idea that you can offset the cost of Medical care by requiring everyone to invest in a for profit community chest (lets call this medical insurance) by redistributing the wealth is laughable. If Capitalism has taught us anything is that when there is a high demand, price will increase. If you think taxes are high now just wait.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If you realy thing the Federal government has a surplus of money left over from taxes that they have more than enough to pay the increased cost of medicaid plus subsidies without any new tax income... Well okay if thats what you believe. After all its not like Medicaid is underfunded right now.

Then theres the constant increase in Medical cost.

I didn't say there isn't new tax revenue in Obamacare, it's pretty well known that there is. The thought Congress had back in '09-'10 was that half of the first decade of its coverage expansions would be paid for with new revenue and half would be paid for with offsets from lower spending in Medicare.

As it turns out, health care spending nationally is slowing down to unprecedented levels. To the extent that the Medicare savings alone could offset most of those costs. Who knew?

Edited by Startraveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I have my own opinion on this and most people do not see eye to eye with me....some do, most do not.

This was crony capitalism at it's finest....the GOV is going to force you to buy a product from a private source?....How great is that if you are the provider?

If Obama was really all that concerned with healthcare for the masses, he should have went with a single payer source...aka....socialized medicine.....he did not...Instead, he chose to prop up an industry by mandatory participation....

This is and never has been about the "good of the people"....this is about profit....like nearly everything else in our lives.

Edited by Jeremiah65
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was a political calculation.

Single payer will eventually be the result of this train wreck.

Harte

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was crony capitalism at it's finest....the GOV is going to force you to buy a product from a private source?....How great is that if you are the provider?

I'm sure you stood up to be counted when state car insurance laws were passed. And a hundred other laws that force you to buy something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure you stood up to be counted when state car insurance laws were passed. And a hundred other laws that force you to buy something.

Not simply for being alive though. Everything else is a cost attached to some other material or monetary possession. That ninja is the difference.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have my own opinion on this and most people do not see eye to eye with me....some do, most do not.

This was crony capitalism at it's finest....the GOV is going to force you to buy a product from a private source?....How great is that if you are the provider?

If Obama was really all that concerned with healthcare for the masses, he should have went with a single payer source...aka....socialized medicine.....he did not...Instead, he chose to prop up an industry by mandatory participation....

This is and never has been about the "good of the people"....this is about profit....like nearly everything else in our lives.

I think you will find that was never something he could have gotten past congress. It was a horrible messy compromise which failed to do the right thing and gave into vested interests - but that was the inevitable outcome.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it entertaining to watch how the very people who concocted this byzantine plan are excempting themselves from it:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/07/us-usa-health-congress-idUSBRE9760YL20130807?

One would think that, seeing how they tell everybody how wonderful it is, they would be the first to join it?

In fact, a law that states that law-makers can not excempt themselves from what they legislate for others seems like a good idea...

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not simply for being alive though. Everything else is a cost attached to some other material or monetary possession. That ninja is the difference.

I suppose you could choose to note have a job or income and therefore off the radar of the IRS...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose you could choose to note have a job or income and therefore off the radar of the IRS...

Or just work under the table. Make money, avoid taxes and sleep with one eye open waiting to get busted.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure you stood up to be counted when state car insurance laws were passed. And a hundred other laws that force you to buy something.

Actually I have a major boner for anything the GOV says I have to buy. I Do not like being told what I have to spend my liquid capital on. The GOV taxes me...I have no say in that....but how can they turn around and say you "have' to buy this or that? I mean if this is where we are going...just throw another percentage or two of taxes on...provide the service and be done with it.

Do not tell me how to spend my money.

I disagree with mandatory auto insurance....not because insurance is a bad thing but because crony capitalism is a very bad thing. If the GOV demands everyone has insurance...then they need to provide a source for it that is not purely profit based....do you get what I am saying here ND?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with mandatory auto insurance....not because insurance is a bad thing but because crony capitalism is a very bad thing. If the GOV demands everyone has insurance...then they need to provide a source for it that is not purely profit based....do you get what I am saying here ND?

Speaking about that.... how about taking Obamas brilliant idea of no discrimination about "pre-existing condition" and applying it to Auto insurance?

Then you could buy your insurance AFTER the accident (aka the pre-existing condition). Et voila, everybody is insured when they need it.

Your government knows best.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking about that.... how about taking Obamas brilliant idea of no discrimination about "pre-existing condition" and applying it to Auto insurance?

Then you could buy your insurance AFTER the accident (aka the pre-existing condition). Et voila, everybody is insured when they need it.

Your government knows best.

It's crazy.

I don't think most people realize this is all about money....it is and they don't 'get it".

All insurance companies are backed up by securities....you know....those wonder folks on Wall Street. Every time that you pay an insurance payment, you are sending money into the stock market....this is what this is all about...and most folks just don't get it....

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get it and I agree, it's about the money, follow the money and you will find who is really behind it at the end of the trail.

If it wasn't about the money, there are many ways to actually get more people insured and to drop the payments. Let insurance companies fight for your business, don't make it illegal to not have insurance, just make it more expensive to not have insurance. Open it up between states, make it harder to file medical law suits and harder to claim disability. Make it more difficult to get free insurance, like people that use emergency rooms as their care provider instead of making an appointment with a GP. Make more Urgent Care facilities to care for people that don't need an emergency room but need care sooner than an appointment will allow for. Loosen up rules on payment or type of payment. If the doctor is willing to take two chickens and a pie, let him!! Then pay the hospital with work in trade, it's a win win. No one wants to not pay for what they get and if they do, they are a sorry person. It maybe a novel idea but it's an old one. It may not be popular to most but for all those that haven't had enough money, it might work and save a life.

This Obama care thing isn't about saving lives or insuring more people, it's about money and power. Maybe even about breaking the bank so they can rebuild it their way too. Any which way you slice this puppy, it's not going to work and when people figure out what's really in it, they are going to flip!! I've read some of it and if you can get threw the legalize talk and refer back to this law and that law, well, my eyes pretty much fell out of my head with some of the stuff they stuck in there. One more thing... why do you think the IRS is suppose to be in charge of it? Doesn't that say it all???

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I urge all not to comply. If you're getting insured through work, fine. All others do what you want. By that I mean all who pay their own taxes quarterly. If you're employed and get a W-2 form you won't be able to escape the fines if you are uninsured. They'll just take it out of your tax return, if you have one. All others who pay on their own, do not comply. I pay on my own and never get a return. You will have to write a separate check for the fine. Do not write that check. I have been informed from our resident ACA expert, Startraveller, that failure to pay will not result in liens or jail time. IOW, they can't force you to pay. He provided a link for me on a similar thread months ago and it was legit. Even if I pay too much in a year all I get is credit towards next years taxes and never a return. So the only way they can seemingly force people like me to pay is if you pay too much and they'll confiscate your credit. So simply pay exactly or less and never more. So given that info, screw em, what are they going to do? I suspect a spiteful audit perhaps. So let's flood the system, or not, but you know what I'm saying. Make it unbearable to keep up with. It's going to be an unbearable train wreck anyways but let's make it tougher. October's coming fast and that's when we all have to start getting insured, except for congress that is.

EDIT: I did my own research and it turns out the above is correct. I'm starting a new thread about this...

Edited by F3SS
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Good article here:

Link: http://www.foxnews.c...t-bad-politics/

When members of Congress started to complain about the exorbitant premiums they and their employees would face under ObamaCare plans, the president personally intervened to make sure the federal government would cover the tab.

Meanwhile, Americans on the private rolls get no such special treatment; they remain on their own to figure out how to pay the higher costs brought on by the law’s mandates, regulations, and price controls.

But the administration’s delays and its crumbling coalition were only the early signs of impending doom for the program.

The second gained steam last Tuesday, when Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) took to the Senate floor to call on their Republican colleagues to defund ObamaCare altogether through the next must-pass continuing resolution.

They are predictably being accused of threatening a dreaded government shutdown, when what they are actually demanding is an ObamaCare shutdown.

Importantly, the small band of senators have set the stage for an August recess and a national debate that will once again show the power of the people.

Establishment Republicans like Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), and Richard Burr (R-N.C.), who oppose correcting this mistake before more damage is done, will have to answer for themselves at county fairs, town halls and constituent meetings across their states and districts this month.

By throwing in the towel before the debate, they are making the calculation that fighting ObamaCare is bad politics.

That’s surprising if you look at public opinion.

On July 24 a CBS News/New York Times poll showed 54 percent of Americans oppose ObamaCare, despite four full years of Democratic salesmanship. The Morning Consult July tracking poll finds that 77% of independents, 78% of 18-29 year olds, 75% of women, 73% of blacks, and 80% of Hispanics think the individual mandate should be repealed or delayed. So do 65% of Democrats.

The establishment politicians will have to answer to grassroots activists and explain why they will vote for a budget that funds ObamaCare. And around the country, they will see college students burning their “ObamaCare cards” in a symbolic show of civil disobedience toward reforms that force young adults in their twenties and thirties to pay for overpriced coverage that doesn’t meet their individual needs.

Remember how the sky was going to fall if the sequestration took effect? Criminals would roam the streets, grandma would be kicked out of the nursing home, and planes would collide in the sky?

This time the establishment will hide behind the elderly, the military, veterans, and national security. We’ll hear “respected” insiders swear that they support defunding, just not on a must-pass bill — for “tactical” reasons. But a government shutdown, in addition to be undesired and unnecessary, would not in fact harm national security or the rest of the litany of vulnerable people.

Edited by Kowalski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.