Hey, Guess What is In Obamacare? A “Screw Up” That Will Send Us Even Deeper Into Debt!
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
Gee, it’s almost like as if they should have found out what was in it before they passed it:
President Barack Obama’s health care law would let several million middle-class people get nearly free insurance meant for the poor, a twist government number crunchers say they discovered only after the complex bill was signed.
The change would affect early retirees: A married couple could have an annual income of about $64,000 and still get Medicaid, said officials who make long-range cost estimates for the Health and Human Services department.
Up to 3 million more people could qualify for Medicaid in 2014 as a result of the anomaly. That’s because, in a major change from today, most of their Social Security benefits would no longer be counted as income for determining eligibility. It might be compared to allowing middle-class people to qualify for food stamps.
Medicare chief actuary Richard Foster says the situation keeps him up at night.
Read the whole thing, and then pray the Supreme Court saves us from this monstrosity, especially because some Democrats think this is a good thing–hence why the term “screw up” is in quotes.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
At some point, everyone is just going to throw up their hands in frustration, cry out “Why Not!”, and sign-up for all the “freebies” while quitting their jobs.
AD-RtR/OS! (999ead) — 6/21/2011 @ 12:06 pmWhen that happens, just who in Hell is going to pay for this mess?
Even the Chinese are not that stupid.
Will be interesting to see what happens in the next year now that all of the Friends of Obarcky no longer get the waivers they were never entitled to in the first place.
Features and bugs, people.
JD (b98cae) — 6/21/2011 @ 12:13 pmSomeone wrote it this way. What took them so long to figure this out?
We should tie all entitlements to debt levels. Just sunset them all according to what the debt is. Let the democrats and Republicans work together on solving the debt bomb after we’ve established what the stakes are if we run out of money.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/21/2011 @ 12:16 pmdustin
> We should tie all entitlements to debt levels.
We should do something similar to congressional pay.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/21/2011 @ 12:21 pmHey man Nancy Pelosi said we gotta pass the bill to find out what’s in it.
Don’t you remember? We were warned, and stuff.
deepelemblue (ea26b9) — 6/21/2011 @ 12:31 pmNo problem, really. They’re going to make up for it with the 3.6% tax you’ll have to pay the feds when you sell your home- starting 2013. Just one more surprise in the Obamacare package.
west1890 (b7982e) — 6/21/2011 @ 12:39 pmRe: #4 Congressional pay (including benefits) should be capped at median income of the country. (In my opinion, their health benefits should also be administered at a level equal to Medicaid, and no more.) That might encourage them to spend more time on building the country’s economy instead of trying to take it over.
Sue (24e46b) — 6/21/2011 @ 12:42 pmThat’s going to make 2012 a Buyers Market, and prices are going to crater.
AD-RtR/OS! (999ead) — 6/21/2011 @ 12:43 pm3.8 I thought
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 6/21/2011 @ 12:44 pmRemember, the most elitist congressmen do not care what their compensation is. They are multimillionaires. I’ve heard this argument for local politics too, where many governments don’t pay their councilmen at all, but the job requires a significant time investment. The only people who can afford that are wealthy and sometimes use the job for wealth via their choices of contractors and under the table dealings.
We should pay congressmen and federal judges a professional’s salary. The John Kerrys of the world would love it if you had to be a millionaire to afford being a congressman.
However, Glenn Reynolds has that proposal to tax the post government salary (much of the amount above what they made in office, I believe). That’s actually a pretty reasonable idea.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/21/2011 @ 12:52 pmI’m not seeing how the supreme court can fix an apparent mistake about medicaid eligibility. But it shouldn’t be too hard to pass a bill to fix this. If people really want to pass a bill to fix this, that is.
“Will be interesting to see what happens in the next year now that all of the Friends of Obarcky no longer get the waivers they were never entitled to in the first place. ”
I’m really shocked how much people have bought into this waiver nonsene. Did you read the GAO report on this?
stone (6fa251) — 6/21/2011 @ 1:15 pm“We should pay congressmen and federal judges a professional’s salary. ”
The problem isn’t their salaries, it’s their wealth from not being a legislator. I remember reading once that Joe Biden, long serving senator, was actually the poorest senator. He had since his early 30’s only had his senate salary.
Capping congressional pay seems to me a good way to make it so that only the already wealthy, or those with other sources of income, are able to be in congress.
stone (6fa251) — 6/21/2011 @ 1:18 pmI’m not seeing how anyone said they can, for that reason. It’s just an additional benefit if they rule that Obamacare is illegal (which it is).
LOL. Democrats are corrupt and the main reason is that hacks at every level, from the NYT all the way down to IMDW trolls, will cover for them.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/21/2011 @ 1:18 pmOops….happyfeet is right, it’s 3.8%, and here’s a place to get some of the details in plain English, as opposed to the federalspeak in the Obamacare law
west1890 (b7982e) — 6/21/2011 @ 1:19 pmhttp://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2010/09/17/obamacare-real-estate-tax-final-nail-in-the-re-market-coffin/
stone
> I’m not seeing how the supreme court can fix an apparent mistake about medicaid eligibility. But it shouldn’t be too hard to pass a bill to fix this. If people really want to pass a bill to fix this, that is.
If they uphold the Florida Dist. Court’s decision, it fixes this.
> I’m really shocked how much people have bought into this waiver nonsene. Did you read the GAO report on this?
fell for what? the fact that they were granting thousands of illegal waivers?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/21/2011 @ 1:20 pmStone/imdw – how many names have you commented under? Please list them. Thank you, in advance, for your anticipated mendoucheity. BUNNIES!
JD (b98cae) — 6/21/2011 @ 1:24 pmimdw will be especially shocked in 2012 when Americans ‘fall for’ the idea Obama is a failed president from a corrupt political party that is taking us in the wrong direction.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/21/2011 @ 1:26 pmJD, why do banned people under new names keep posting? What is the pathology involved?
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 6/21/2011 @ 1:28 pm“If they uphold the Florida Dist. Court’s decision, it fixes this.”
That’s true, but that thing was so incoherent that it wasn’t even clear whether it needed to be stayed. But do you really think a change to medicaid eligibility is tied to the subject of the mandate lawsuits such that a court will strike it down too? Perhaps a court will be so lazy that it won’t want to determine what is severable and what is not. Do you remember how they tied the passage to student loan reform? Will that be struck down too?
“fell for what? the fact that they were granting thousands of illegal waivers?”
That there was a scandal here at all. Even a basic look at this could tell you that it was an agency looking for a way to implement several congressional directives at once. And now we have a GAO Report on it to tell us there was no problem.
stone (397249) — 6/21/2011 @ 1:33 pmSimon – I am not well versed in abnormal psych, so aLl I could offer would be guesses.
JD (306f5d) — 6/21/2011 @ 1:36 pm“If they uphold the Florida Dist. Court’s decision, it fixes this.”
That’s true, but that thing was so incoherent that it wasn’t even clear whether it needed to be stayed. But do you really think a change to medicaid eligibility is tied to the subject of the mandate lawsuits such that a court will strike it down too? Perhaps a court will be so lazy that it won’t want to determine what is severable and what is not. Do you remember how they tied the passage to student loan reform? Will that be struck down too?
“fell for what? the fact that they were granting thousands of illegal waivers?”
That there was a scandal here at all. Even a basic look at this could tell you that it was an agency looking for a way to implement congresses directive to set an annual limit with minimal impact on benefit levels and premiums. Standard admin law stuff. And now we have a GAO Report on it to tell us there was no problem.
stone (8306aa) — 6/21/2011 @ 1:38 pmSo, stone/imdw, how many names haves you used to comment under? What does your psychiatrist think of your continuing to troll a place where you have been repeatedly banned, and are obviously unwelcome?
JD (85b089) — 6/21/2011 @ 1:45 pmAs they say in the world of bad software development, what you call a “bug” we call a “feature.”
JVW (229568) — 6/21/2011 @ 2:13 pmSo this has been pointed out to the CBO, right? Not just to underline how spectacularly wrong their original cost estimate was, but also because when we go to repeal this monstrosity the D’s will be screaming that PPACA ‘saves’ money, and the R’s aren’t offsetting the ‘cost’ of repealing it. More importantly, the rules on Reconciliation REQUIRE that the bill in question be neutral or reduce the deficit. So, unless we get to 60+ Senators for repeal (not likely), we’ll be repealing under Reconciliation Rules and the CBO score on PPACA will be what matters.
Their original score was, what, about $800 billion? This one provision is estimated to cost $450 Billion in the first ten years. I understand that CBO is required to accept the assumptions Congress writes into bills, no matter how unlikely, but this is not one of those cases. This is an enormous failure to properly score the cost of a bill.
Callawyn (bab74a) — 6/21/2011 @ 2:29 pmCallywyn – the original scoring was a farce. Just like the bill itself.
JD (306f5d) — 6/21/2011 @ 3:18 pmwhy didn’t the dirty socialist obamawhore media crowdsource this legislative assrape like they did Sarah’s email?
I think that’s a very good question.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 6/21/2011 @ 3:30 pmIt’s ‘a feature, not a bug,’ they designed it that way to make it more palatable to the middle class
ian cormac (72470d) — 6/21/2011 @ 3:54 pmSomeone should check happyfeet to see if he has a fever. 😉
JD (b98cae) — 6/21/2011 @ 4:12 pmI might could be running a little hot.
hey here is a cheering article about a bunch of losers getting their health cares cut off
that’s all I got
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 6/21/2011 @ 4:30 pmWith the election of a GOP President and Senate in 2012, how many days into the 113th Congress will it take to get a bill repealing ObamaCare, in its entirety, to the new President’s desk?
I’m betting on Jan 22nd, 2013, a Tuesday!
AD-RtR/OS! (287cb9) — 6/21/2011 @ 5:13 pmWhat the **** are you talking about? The decision was perfectly clear, to anyone who can read English. It didn’t need to be stayed, it needed to be complied with. But 0bama thumbed his nose at the court and deliberately disobeyed its decision. If I were the next Republican president I’d hang on to that decision, in case I needed to use it. If some district court came up with a decision I couldn’t live with, I’d just trot out the old “0bama precedent” and ignore it, and any Democrat who dared to say a word would immediately be asked where he was when 0bama did it.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 6/21/2011 @ 5:33 pmReagan: Trickle Down Economics
malclave (4f3ec1) — 6/21/2011 @ 5:53 pmObama: Screw Up Economics
Nationalizing 15% of the economy by passing an incomprehensible 2000 page bill that nobody even read: What could possibly go wrong?
lamchops (a91fe8) — 6/21/2011 @ 6:22 pmImagine the effect of this on Medi-Cal (California’s version of Medicaid) — and the state’s budget.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0a5b9b) — 6/21/2011 @ 7:20 pm“It didn’t need to be stayed, it needed to be complied with.”
That was the thing, it was a declaratory ruling. How do you “comply” with that? If you’re appealing, you need to know whether there’s even anything to stay there.
I wonder if the plaintiff states did anything to stop their implementation of the PPACA.
stone (df0dab) — 6/21/2011 @ 7:36 pm“It didn’t need to be stayed, it needed to be complied with.”
That was the thing, it was a declaratory ruling. How do you “comply” with that? If you’re appealing, you need to know whether there’s even a need to request a stay.
I wonder if the plaintiff states did anything to stop their implementation of the PPACA.
stone (df0dab) — 6/21/2011 @ 7:38 pm“It didn’t need to be stayed, it needed to be complied with.”
That was the thing, it was a declaratory ruling. How do you “comply” with that? If you’re appealing, you need to know whether there’s even a need to request a stay.
Did the plaintiff states even do anything to stop their implementation of the PPACA?
stone (df0dab) — 6/21/2011 @ 7:39 pm“It didn’t need to be stayed, it needed to be complied with.”
That was the thing, it was a declaratory ruling. How do you “comply” with that? If you’re appealing, you need to know whether there’s even a need to request a stay.
Did the plaintiff states even do anything to stop their implementation of the PPACA? That would be interesting to know.
stone (1d53d8) — 6/21/2011 @ 7:40 pm“It didn’t need to be stayed, it needed to be complied with.”
It was a declaratory ruling. How do you “comply” with that? There was no injunction, no direction of what steps to take. If you’re appealing, you need to know whether there’s even a need to request a stay. And then there’s when the judge tried to override the rules of appellate procedure to dictate the timing of the appeal.
Did the plaintiff states even do anything to stop their implementation of the PPACA? It would be amusing if they didn’t.
stone (75c38c) — 6/21/2011 @ 7:44 pmStone/imdw is obsessed.
JD (318f81) — 6/21/2011 @ 7:45 pmBy ceasing to act on the purported law that the court has declared invalid. Duh.
Why would you think an injunction necessary? Are you under the impression that most court decisions include injunctions?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 6/21/2011 @ 7:50 pmMilhouse – don’t, not even for a moment, think that you will get anything other than sophistry and mendoucheity from stone/imdw.
JD (318f81) — 6/21/2011 @ 7:56 pmCome back soon, imdw. Come back hundreds of times to remind us how toxic you find our point of view. Try to convey that in a way that makes it pretty easy to see your tears (you’re doing pretty well so far).
Thanks in advance, to steal from JD.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/21/2011 @ 7:56 pmI doubt Milhouse is under any illusions about that. Sometimes it’s fun to see a very smart person debate a very stupid person, though.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/21/2011 @ 7:57 pmThe whole Obama health-care law is nothing more than an over-reaching cluster-fark that will take generations to unfurl.
Passing laws is really important.
Passing laws at the behest of some sort of Demi-God is stupid. Especially when the Demi-God’s followers think it’s leader is omniscient.
Ag80 (391f9a) — 6/21/2011 @ 8:03 pm_______________________________________
several million middle-class people get nearly free insurance
Some Americans may have such a sleazy, greedy, self-entitled mentality, they may actually see that as a good thing. I can see them gleefully rubbing their hands together, proclaiming “that’s why I love voting for Democrats, for liberals, on election day!”
The type of person I’m describing was among those in that district in New York who several weeks ago selected a Democrat to be their representative in Congress.
Mark (411533) — 6/21/2011 @ 8:28 pm“By ceasing to act on the purported law that the court has declared invalid. Duh”
But the court didn’t order that they cease to act. The court pointed to case law that says that after appeals are exhausted a declaratory ruling is like an injunction, but that doesn’t help you, and it’s not really a good fit for this case.
Did you read the DOJ’s motion for clarification? That should explain the problems with Vinson’s decision. Orin Kerr at the Volokh conspiracy also explained these issues.
“Are you under the impression that most court decisions include injunctions?”
When you want to order someone to do something, you have to order them to do something. And you also have to be specific. Did the judge mean that the plaintiff states couldn’t continue to implement the PPACA? Would they be in contempt if they did? Because it appears as if they did. He didn’t order them to stop. He just “declared.” What about non-plaintiff states?
Then the judge finally got the idea that he needed to upend the rules of appellate procedure and dictate the timing of the appeals. Oh and then issued a “stay” though none had been requested.
stone (c5dc71) — 6/21/2011 @ 8:38 pmIt didn’t need to. The law was invalid, so what authority did they have to act on it?
It said nothing about appeals being exhausted. All it said was that the application for an injunction was moot, because the law was invalid in the first place.
It was patently dishonest. The decision was perfectly clear, so the request for “clarification” was purely a ruse to avoid having to comply with the law, by pretending to be confused. The lawyers who drew it up were liars, who should be disbarred.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 6/21/2011 @ 11:01 pm“It said nothing about appeals being exhausted.”
The court didn’t. But the case law does.
What’s fascinating is that the judge states that an injunction would be extreme, and declines to give one. But yet people expect this ruling to act like one.
It’s almost like you don’t understand what a declaratory ruling is about.
“The decision was perfectly clear, so the request for “clarification” was purely a ruse to avoid having to comply with the law, by pretending to be confused”
It did raise several questions. Like, what where plaintiff states supposed to do? They were busy implementing the PPACA too, yet the court only talked about a presumption that federal officials would take a declaratory ruling as an injunction. Bizarrely, one plaintiff state even had a federal court within its state say the law was fine. What was that state supposed to do?
There’s even the problem of how one goes about appealing this. There’s no order, so nothing to stay. There’s no injunction, so nothing to be in contempt of. How does one “stay” a declaration? Can one even be in contempt of a declaration?
stone (2afffb) — 6/22/2011 @ 4:43 amHow long are you going to let imdw continue its dishonest mendoucheous passive/aggressive act, AW?
Stone/imdw – what does your therapist say about you contunually going nack to a place where you have been banned repeatedly, and and clearly unwelcome?
JD (85b089) — 6/22/2011 @ 5:08 amDo you plan on posting links to the host’s home again, imdw? What other names have you commented under?
JD (85b089) — 6/22/2011 @ 5:09 amWhere’s the IMP when you need some comic relief from the depression cast by IMaStonedDickWad?
AD-RtR/OS! (8df2e8) — 6/22/2011 @ 8:19 am“The Congressional Budget Office just released the latest edition of its long-term budget outlook (pdf), and it shows the same thing as always: If Congress lets the Bush tax cuts expire or offsets their extension, implements the Affordable Care Act as scheduled and makes or offset the Medicare cuts prescribed by the 1997 Balanced Budget Act — which CBO calls the “extended baseline scenario” — the national debt will be totally manageable. If Congress passes laws extending the Bush tax cuts without offsetting the cost, repealing the Affordable Care Act and its cost controls and protecting doctors from Medicare cuts without making up the savings elsewhere — the “alternative fiscal scenario” — the national debt will be totally out of control”
Fools Russian (d80b5a) — 6/22/2011 @ 8:39 amThe National Debt is currently out-of-control, or haven’t you paid any attention to the many warnings by Bill Gross of PIMCO, and noticed the current investment moves by China?
AD-RtR/OS! (8df2e8) — 6/22/2011 @ 8:46 amWhen the Fed stops buying Treasuries with the end of QE-II, the fit is going to hit the shan.
“The National Debt is currently out-of-control, or haven’t you paid any attention to the many warnings by Bill Gross of PIMCO,”
I’ve paid attention and you haven’t.
Bill Gross:
Gross recommends a swift, deficit-financed investment in infrastructure. “[G]overnment must take a leading role in job creation,” Gross said.
“Solutions from policymakers on the right or left, however, seem focused almost exclusively on rectifying or reducing our budget deficit as a panacea,” Gross writes. “While Democrats favor tax increases and mild adjustments to entitlements, Republicans pound the table for trillions of dollars of spending cuts and an axing of Obamacare. Both, however, somewhat mystifyingly, believe that balancing the budget will magically produce 20 million jobs over the next 10 years. President Obama’s long-term budget makes just such a claim and Republican alternatives go many steps further. Former Governor Pawlenty of Minnesota might be the Republicans’ extreme example, but his claim of 5% real growth based on tax cuts and entitlement reductions comes out of left field or perhaps the field of dreams. The United States has not had a sustained period of 5% real growth for nearly 60 years.”
Fools Russian (d80b5a) — 6/22/2011 @ 10:04 amstone 1:38 Number 20: do you really think a change to medicaid eligibility is tied to the subject of the mandate lawsuits such that a court will strike it down too?
It depends on how they rule on the severability question. This law, unlike many other laws, did not contain a severability clause, saying that if one provision is ruled unconstitutional, the rest remains. The argument for that was that the whole thing won’t work without the individual mandate. (it won’t work with it either, since the penalty/tax is so much smaller than the mandate, and you can still buy insurance after contracting an expensive disease, but that’s another question)
If the court rules against the individual mandate and also that no parts of the bill can be separated from the other, then the real estate tax and the expanded Medicaid eligibility rules go down with it.
By the way, Medicaid money is potentially recoverable and can thus maybe turn into a loan. This would happen if anyone gets a windfall. (Regular income isn’t taken away but assets may be. This isn’t widely known.)
Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 6/22/2011 @ 11:33 amComment by FoolsComment by Fools Russian — 6/22/2011 @ 10:04 am
If Gross thinks deficit spending is so good for the future of the country, why is PIMCO divested/divesting U.S.Treasuries?
AD-RtR/OS! (8df2e8) — 6/22/2011 @ 1:44 pmOr, is he making a hedge move on our dime?
AD, you and the rest here are idiots
Go back to the Weiner File. And say high to Senator Vitter for me.
Fools Russian (d80b5a) — 6/22/2011 @ 10:01 pmRemember: Palin 2012!
Or is it Gingrich?
Fools, that’s some hard core optimism entirely built around the idea the Fed won’t be buying bonds as much in a few weeks. Which could be due to a variety of reasons. Some of them are pretty obvious to anyone who has been paying attention, and I don’t think you can really claim we’re idiots because we lack confidence in this economy.
I don’t want to bash your source, who, after all, wrote that great piece on why the Stimulus was an abject failure. Did you know it doubled our debt ratio? DOUBLED. And accomplished nothing.
Oh, I see you tossed Palin’s name into this. Is that some kind of nervous tick?
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/22/2011 @ 10:10 pmAh, we have been suitably chastised by our better.
Well, Tovarich, don’t let the door hit you in the a$$ on your way out; and,
AD-RtR/OS! (d0a08c) — 6/22/2011 @ 10:12 pmdon’t leave disgusted, but please leave.
CBO-Congressional Budget Office:
If Congress lets the Bush tax expire end and does not repeal Obambicare [meaning:if Congress does NOTHING] the deficit will BE GONE in a few years.
The chart is here.
Now go back to your Weiners.
Fools Russian (d80b5a) — 6/24/2011 @ 11:19 am