Patterico's Pontifications

12/19/2013

We Don’t Need Congress – ObamaCare Fiascos

Filed under: General — JD @ 6:39 pm

[guest post by JD]

Edicts from on high

There is no limit to their lawlessness. And if they thought they had a bad mix of not-really-enrollees before, imagine what this will do to the mix.

Just like their “suggestions” of retroactive coverage, and accepting premiums up to the night before coverage is to begin, and covering not covered drugs, and paying in network rates for out of network providers, etc ….

I wonder if the MFM will call them out on the BE 500,000 not yet insured number. Nah.

—JD

81 Comments

  1. If they are throwing this out there, it is going way worse than they are letting on.

    Comment by JD (4e327f) — 12/19/2013 @ 6:50 pm

  2. it’s kind of disorienting to realize that they must think John Roberts is an even bigger joke than I do

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 12/19/2013 @ 6:52 pm

  3. There is very little difference in premiums between the catastrophic plans and the bronze plans, and some of the bronze plans allow HSAs, so I’m not sure what this does except stir the pot a bit.

    Note: to read the WSJ article, google the headline and google will give you a link past the paywall.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/19/2013 @ 6:57 pm

  4. Kevin – the insurance industry spokesperson was far less sanguine about this.

    Comment by JD (4e327f) — 12/19/2013 @ 6:59 pm

  5. this is kinda icky

    if you want just a catastrophic plan cause of you make the rational decision that such a plan is suited to your circumstances – you

    are

    a

    LOSER

    For reals! You have to fill out an affidavit attesting to the fact that you are a stupid loser:

    In official guidance published late Thursday, HHS said the exemption would be available to people who completed an application for a hardship exemption on the grounds that it would be more expensive for them to buy the other plans on sale in their area, and submitted proof their policy had been canceled. The agency also said it was setting up a hotline for people who wanted to take advantage of the option.

    That’s even more awkward than pajama boy.

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 12/19/2013 @ 7:02 pm

  6. Judging by the prices of the bronze plans, a 60 year-old who does not qualify for a subsidy would pay $480/month for a Anthem BlueCross Bronze 60 HSA plan, and $410/month for a catastrophic plan that does not qualify for HSA.

    People who DO qualify for subsidy cannot use the catastrophic plan unless they are willing to forgo the subsidy. In almost all cases these folks would be better off with a platinum enhanced silver plan. None would find the catastrophic plan cheapest.

    This isn’t a serious proposal, it’s just out there to confuse the rubes.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/19/2013 @ 7:06 pm

  7. I am assuming that someone who has a stake in the insurance industry has standing to sue the govt. to stop demanding things that put them at a financial risk.
    I assume at least some insurance companies are organized as for profit corporations and have either owners or stockholders who are at risk if they are forced by the govt. to do things that put them at risk, especially if they are not specified written law.

    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/19/2013 @ 7:12 pm

  8. Kevin – the insurance industry spokesperson was far less sanguine about this.

    Maybe it’s different in other states, but that’s how the numbers play out in California, which has a website that actually gives hard numbers plan by plan, with all the variables working.

    I think the insurance industry is more concerned about the continuous rule churning and the impossibility of dealing with this at such a late date. Even if healthy affluent people all move to these plans (which they won’t, the bronze HSA plan is a far better catastrophic plan), they will save at most 20%.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/19/2013 @ 7:12 pm

  9. fascism involves a LOT of uncodified collusion between industry and government Mr. Dr.

    it’s a thing

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 12/19/2013 @ 7:13 pm

  10. MD – standing appears to apply to nobody.

    Comment by JD (4e327f) — 12/19/2013 @ 7:19 pm

  11. Is it possibly time for a federalism showdown between Obama and a GOP governor who decrees that O-Care will not be implemented in his state unless done to the letter of the law as passed by Congress, which cannot be done since that is not the law being implemented. Governor Jindal? Perry?

    Comment by GrgTex (2c0dac) — 12/19/2013 @ 7:22 pm

  12. In what part am I wrong, JD?
    If I owned stock in a health care enterprise (insurance or care provider) that was being ordered by the HHS (not legislated law) to do things that were of harm to the company, why wouldn’t I have standing?
    (Please pardon the legal naivete’.)

    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/19/2013 @ 7:37 pm

  13. Got my eyes wide shut ..Tretiak..or Vladimir[if thats your real name]\
    I’m coming put them goalies buns in the oven..what time is it in commie town… because i got my donny rumsfield shoes…what’s the Russian word for unknown?

    Comment by pdbuttons (741f08) — 12/19/2013 @ 7:41 pm

  14. If a Republican is ever elected to the Presidency again, the howls will be interesting.

    Comment by Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 12/19/2013 @ 7:48 pm

  15. MD – I was just being insouciant. It just seems like standing is as elusive as the Yeti when it comes to Obama making up new laws, and waivers to existing laws.

    Comment by JD (5c1832) — 12/19/2013 @ 8:01 pm

  16. MD,

    First, I think JD is making the general point that its hard to establish standing to sue in cases involving government agencies.

    Second, individual shareholders can sue the corporation for various claims but they can’t sue other entities on the corporation’s behalf. Only the corporation (through its authorized representative) can do things like filing lawsuits. This isn’t a matter of standing, however. This is an issue of who is authorized to act on the corporation’s behalf.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/19/2013 @ 8:01 pm

  17. Off topic but I figure patterico readers would enjoy learning about what’s going on in the Kimberlin v. everyone in the universe lawsuit, including against Patterico.

    Patrick might feel confined in commenting and that is fine. I totally understand where he is coming from because I have been there. But we can link to court filings and let them speak for us.

    So go here, follow the links and enjoy.

    Comment by Aaron "Worthing" Walker (23789b) — 12/19/2013 @ 8:04 pm

  18. first it’s “anodyne”,
    now it’s insouciant.
    Thanks for (trying to) explain it to me.

    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/19/2013 @ 8:19 pm

  19. Well Brooks clearly doesn’t understand what he rights, he is everything but anodyne,

    that link reminds of the SNL sketch, where Lyndon Larouche, says my enemies try to make me seem insane, and then proceeds to prove it,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/19/2013 @ 8:27 pm

  20. MD, what DRJ said. Think of it this way. If you own stock in Nissan, can I bring my car to you for warranty work, and conversely, can you repossess it if I don’t make my payments?

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 12/19/2013 @ 8:49 pm

  21. Ah, but the insurance dare not go to court.

    They are in a regulated industry and they have been told that if they don’t follow these lawless edicts, that this will be ‘taken into account’ when their licensing is considered next year.

    So it’s ‘do as I say or no license for you!’ For no reason. Oh, the insurance company could go to court for like five years to get their license to do business back, with the government dragging its heels and using every little nonsense complaint; but the company will be destroyed. The regulations of the industry have them over a barrel.

    Comment by luagha (1de9ec) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:33 pm

  22. “White House Will Allow Some To Buy Catastrophic Health Plans”

    How very f…ing White of them!

    Comment by askeptic (2bb434) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:56 pm

  23. Turn the standing argument around. The penalty for not buying insurance of a certain kind (the fool’s gold, etc. plans) was ruled a “tax”. Now they’re proposing offering a hardship exemption from the tax only to those who got cancelled, to buy something at lower cost that doesn’t meet those minimum rules.

    Doesn’t any individual who buys one of the ‘actual’ plans at higher cost, or pays the penalty from a refund for not doing so, now have standing to claim unequal coverage under the law, as a constitutionality argument? Kind of a back door to saying the implementation of the law has been unconstitutional, if not the law itself…

    Engineer here, not a lawyer. But this is indeed getting beyond appalling. Even Pajama Boy isn’t funny anymore. Someone somewhere else posted that the only difference between our administration and that of a banana republic is that the U.S. doesn’t export bananas, and I’m unfortunately starting to really agree. :(

    Comment by rtrski (8a249b) — 12/20/2013 @ 6:01 am

  24. Thanks all for the comments of explanation.
    I was trying to think along the lines of rtrski, that “standing” has to do with who gets (directly?) injured, not just someone who thinks something is wrong. Hence, looking for someone who was at risk of being “injured” by the insurance company being jerked around, other than the insurance company execs themselves, who have the concerns that laugha pointed out.

    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/20/2013 @ 6:06 am

  25. Since when can Obama re-write tax law? Only congress has taxing power.

    I heard he has justified it via loophole language, declaring implementation of Ocare a man-made disaster.

    Comment by Sarahw (b0e533) — 12/20/2013 @ 7:08 am

  26. 25. Comment by Sarahw (b0e533) — 12/20/2013 @ 7:08 am

    Since when can Obama re-write tax law? Only congress has taxing power.

    The law allowed anyone under (or up to?) age 30 to buy catastrophic health care, and anyone from a hardship to exempt from the penalty. It sees like Obama has now redefined hardship to mean anyone who had a policy that was cancelled, and for whom a new one would be expensive, who hadn’t yet signed up for another.

    Now they have 4 days (including a weekend) to get ther hardship application approved and not spend any time uninsured. Or maybe not. Because you could also buy the catastrophic (anyone with hardship can)

    And there may be more changes coming:

    Last paragraph of linked Wall Street Journal article:

    The administration said last week it might further delay the sign-up deadline for Jan. 1 coverage should “exceptional circumstances” arise. The enrollment period continues until the end of March, but coverage for people signing up then begins later.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (9fe80b) — 12/20/2013 @ 7:44 am

  27. Now the problem for insurance companies:

    Medical insurance is now a lot less risk based.

    That does not mean, however, that insurance companies cannot project (and gamble on) who will sign up for various policies!

    If something changes the odds on who will buy (the choice is entirely up to the customer; insurance companies can only target or not target people, but they cannot refuse to take bad bets)
    the profit or loss changes.

    The catastrophic policies on the exchange were priced and approved by state regulators on the assumption that almost all purchasers would be age 30 or below.

    Now you are going to get older people, some with medical conditions where the probability of exceeding the deductible is very real.

    It’s like changing the rules in Las Vegas to the detriment of the house, without changing the payout. To say, for instance, that from now on, the dealer must no longer stand at 17 or 18 at blackjack. Seventeen or 18 will now be the highest value where the dealer must hit, instead of 16 being the dividing point – and adding a card at 16 is already a bad bet for the dealer..

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (9fe80b) — 12/20/2013 @ 7:59 am

  28. Comment by Sarahw (b0e533) — 12/20/2013 @ 7:08 am
    Shorter answer, he’s the president-emperor, he will do what he wants until someone stops him.

    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/20/2013 @ 8:35 am

  29. Well, he is the king, isn’t he?

    Comment by Patricia (be0117) — 12/20/2013 @ 8:41 am

  30. To bomb Syria, he goes to Congress, where the current understanding of law is he does not need to for something limited.

    To change a piece of legislation, he does not, but writes to six Senators he likes whom he wants to keep, or keep on the reservation.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (3bb3ae) — 12/20/2013 @ 10:51 am

  31. New (dated yesterday) White House argument against repealing Obamacare:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/national_cost_of_repeal_report.pdf

    Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, across the country:

    • 71 million Americans on private insurance have gained coverage for at least one free preventive health care service such as a mammogram, birth control, or an immunization in 2011 and 2012. In the first eleven months of 2013 alone, an additional 25 million people with traditional Medicare have received at least one preventive
    service at no out of pocket cost.

    • Up to 129 million Americans with pre-existing conditions – including up to 17 million children –will no longer have to worry about being denied health coverage or charged higher premiums because of their health status.

    • Approximately 60 million Americans have gained expanded mental health and substance use disorder benefits and/or federal parity protections.

    • 41 million uninsured Americans will have new health insurance options through Medicaid or private health plans in the Marketplace. Nearly 6 in 10 of these individuals could pay less than $100 per month for coverage.

    • Consumers have saved $5 billion over the past two years due to a new requirement that insurance companies have to spend at least 80% of premium dollars on care for patients (at least 85% for large group insurers). If they don’t, they must send consumers a rebate. In 2013, 8.5 million enrollees will receive rebates averaging
    $100 per family.

    • Insurance companies must submit premium increases of 10% or more for review by experts. In 2012, 6.8 million Americans saved an estimated $1.2 billion on health insurance premiums after their insurers cut back on planned increases as a result of this process.

    • Since the health care law was enacted, more than 7 million seniors and people with disabilities have saved an average of $1,200 per person on prescription drugs as the health care law closes Medicare’s “donut hole.”

    • Over three million young adults have gained health insurance because they can now stay on their parents’ health plans until age 26.

    • Individuals no longer have to worry about having their health benefits cut off after they reach a lifetime limit on benefits. Starting in January, 105 million Americans will no longer have to worry about annual limits, either.

    • Using funds available through the Affordable Care Act, health centers are expanding access to care by building new sites and renovating existing sites. Health centers served approximately 21 million patients in 2012.

    Moving forward, the President and Democrats in Congress are committed to improving the health care law and fixing it when the need arises. Every day more uninsured Americans are…

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (3bb3ae) — 12/20/2013 @ 10:57 am

  32. It would not be too difficult to write good refustations of each one of these arguments.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (3bb3ae) — 12/20/2013 @ 10:58 am

  33. Even the Los Angeles Times argues with that:

    http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-obamacare-benefits-arent-free-20131219,0,5956812.story#axzz2o2fXp1wI

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (3bb3ae) — 12/20/2013 @ 11:00 am

  34. http://relevantmatters.wordpress.com/2012/05/21/obamacare-will-make-a-bad-situation-worse/

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (3bb3ae) — 12/20/2013 @ 11:04 am

  35. Obama to go to Hawaii, but before taht hold a press conference.

    Right now.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (3bb3ae) — 12/20/2013 @ 11:11 am

  36. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/12/20/live-blog-obamas-end-of-year-press-conference-at-2-p-m/

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (3bb3ae) — 12/20/2013 @ 11:12 am

  37. My brother e-mailed to me the following court decision:
    Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) (Supreme Court trumps everything else ) )Murdock v Penn clearly established that no state could convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it .

    Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 1969. The premise of this case is clearly established; NO STATE MAY CONVERT A SECURED LIBERTY INTO A PRIVILEGE ISSUE A LICENSE AND FEE FOR IT, AND REQUIRE YOU TO HAVE THAT: OTHERWISE YOU COMMITTED A CRIME.
    Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821) that this book, The Federalist Papers, was the exact record of the intent of the framers of the constitution…Madison, Hamilton, and Jay. So obviously being able to read their published thoughts as they were doing this constitution is very forceful in terms of constitutional interpretation
    Obviously the right of the people to keep and carry arms shall not be infringed. And that right shall not be infringed. You must claim your right if you want to have it. You have to be willing to do that. And if they are going to take your right, then you have to be willing to challenge them whatever the cost. The bottom line is that any law that comes in conflict with that, what do we talk about in Article 6 paragraph 2? If any law should come in conflict with the supreme law it‟s null and void of law, it bears no power to enforce, no obligation to obey, and it purports to settle as if it never existed. The unconstitutionality dates from the enactment of such law. If any portion of a bill is unconstitutional the entire bill is unconstitutional.

    Comment by Judy Eaton (aee826) — 12/20/2013 @ 11:14 am

  38. “Medical insurance is now a lot less risk based.”

    Sammy – I have no clue what you mean by this. Individual policies are no loner underwritten based on risk, but an insurer’s decision to participate in a market in which they must accept all comers regardless of health without knowing the composition of the pool of insureds, which the government keeps influencing by last minute, unanticipated rule changes on eligibility and also changes in benefit standards which were not anticipated in pricing policies adds more risk than the insurers had when they made to participate in the exchanges. That is obvious.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/20/2013 @ 11:16 am

  39. I wonder what relative strangers think when they read the comments on this blog, especially Sammy’s comments.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/20/2013 @ 11:21 am

  40. Performance art.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/20/2013 @ 11:26 am

  41. medical insurance is still risk based, but Sam the Sham’s faultless hero man-child increased the total risk in the pool, without necessarily increasing the population of it, nor the revenue stream it generates.

    this means, as we’ve already seen, higher prices and/or fewer choices for participants. any honest person with even a bit of understanding about how supply & demand w*rks saw this problem before Obamacare was passed, but, unfortunately, that population didn’t include Ear Leader, his minions, the MFM or the scum in Congress who passed this abortion, nor the mouth breathing, window licking sub-morons who re-elected the First Failure last year.

    Comment by redc1c4 (abd49e) — 12/20/2013 @ 11:26 am

  42. Obama leaves us with another Me-tivity Scene…

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (2add70) — 12/20/2013 @ 11:27 am

  43. It would not be too difficult to write good refustations of each one of these arguments.

    and *finally* the problem becomes clear:
    you write great “refustations” Sam the Sham, but you can’t refute an argument worth a damn.

    Comment by redc1c4 (abd49e) — 12/20/2013 @ 11:28 am

  44. “American families… have more opportunitay… more securitay… blah-blah, blah-blah, yada yada…”

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (2add70) — 12/20/2013 @ 11:29 am

  45. Col Haiku wins teh Intarwebz for the morning with #42.

    Comment by redc1c4 (abd49e) — 12/20/2013 @ 11:29 am

  46. Obama says “1 to 2 million more people have healthcare… and that’s why I ran for president.”

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (2add70) — 12/20/2013 @ 11:34 am

  47. and Ed Henry with teh takedown…

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (2add70) — 12/20/2013 @ 11:41 am

  48. On 2012, my wife had a catastrophic plan that paid nothing until a high deductible was reached, then it paid everything. It also included an HSA account. Since my wife makes excessive frequent use of, um, non-Western practitioners, the HSA/catastrophic plan worked really well for her. (My own coverage is more traditional.)

    The HSA law has been changed so that true catastrophic plans do not qualify, at least not in my state. This may well be because they weren’t supposed to be available. You have to have a “Bronze” plan to keep your HSA qualification. So, for us this exemption does not really help any, the 15% savings on premiums does not add up to the tax savings on the HSA contributions.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/20/2013 @ 12:13 pm

  49. 41. Comment by redc1c4 (abd49e) — 12/20/2013 @ 11:26 am

    medical insurance is still risk based,

    Much less, as you can see with insurance companies being afraid of getting the wrong customers, or failing to get the right ones.

    They can’t discriminate according to pre-existing conditions, but they can still tilt things , or hope to.

    but Sam the Sham’s faultless hero man-child

    What are you talking about??

    increased the total risk in the pool, without necessarily increasing the population of it, nor the revenue stream it generates.

    The law increased the risk an unknown amount (it depends who signs up)

    But price and other things may reduce the percentage of low risk customers.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (3bb3ae) — 12/20/2013 @ 12:15 pm

  50. BTW, since subsidies are not available for the catastrophic plans, how does this really help anyone?

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/20/2013 @ 12:16 pm

  51. Much less, as you can see with insurance companies being afraid of getting the wrong customers

    Sammy, that’s not what risk-based means.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/20/2013 @ 12:17 pm

  52. SF: “Medical insurance is now a lot less risk based.”

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/20/2013 @ 11:16 am

    Sammy – I have no clue what you mean by this.

    Insurers can’t adjust prices and cpverage according to medical risk.

    Individual policies are no longer underwritten based on risk, but an insurer’s decision to participate in a market in which they must accept all comers regardless of health without knowing the composition of the pool of insureds, which the government keeps influencing by last minute, unanticipated rule changes on eligibility and also changes in benefit standards which were not anticipated in pricing policies adds more risk than the insurers had when they made to participate in the exchanges. That is obvious.

    Oh, the insurance companies have risk. But that’s gambling. They can’t adjust prices according to risk. The cost to the person insured is much less related to risk of filing claims.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (3bb3ae) — 12/20/2013 @ 12:20 pm

  53. I am assuming that someone who has a stake in the insurance industry has standing to sue the govt. to stop demanding things that put them at a financial risk.
    I assume at least some insurance companies are organized as for profit corporations and have either owners or stockholders who are at risk if they are forced by the govt. to do things that put them at risk, especially if they are not specified written law.
    http://graphicsmystictoolkitvolume3.com/
    http://twitterbusinessinaboxreview.com/

    Comment by Tim (15965b) — 12/22/2013 @ 7:05 pm

  54. Hey! ONE MORE DAY!

    Pathetic.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/23/2013 @ 1:05 pm

  55. Obama signed up for a bronze ObamaCare plan … sort of. He actually had to send his aides to file it in paper because the online signup didn’t work. In addition, he won’t actually use the plan. His healthcare will come from U.S. Navy physicians. Other than that, way to go, Barry!

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/23/2013 @ 8:11 pm

  56. This will work out;

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/12/the-new-dodd-frank-regulations-modern-liberalism-in-a-nutshell.php

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/23/2013 @ 8:49 pm

  57. Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/23/2013 @ 8:11 pm

    He actually had to send his aides to file it in paper because the online signup didn’t work.

    He belongs to the 10% or so whose identity couldn’t be verified.

    The Daily Mail says:

    The Secret Service, the aide explained, typically scrubs personal records of U.S. presidents from credit, financial and historical databases when they take office, as part of a range of security precautions meant to protect the occupant of the Oval Office.

    I am not sure they could legally do all of that, but I assume private companies would do this as a courtesy, and some things could be done at anyone’s request.

    He may be treated like people going into the Witness Protection program or something. I am not sure all of that would be related to protection, but it kind of makes sense – otherwise somebody or some country could try to mess up his life, or his finances.

    In his case, to enroll him, they probably overrode the system.

    In addition, he won’t actually use the plan. His healthcare will come from U.S. Navy physicians.

    Which means, actually, he shouldn’t have been allowed to enroll.

    In fact, in the end, his enrollment may be rejected. All he did was file a paper application, which means it hasn’t been processed.

    I suppose he or they chose the bronze plan because it is the cheapest.

    Is he actually going to pay the premium? If he does, it it might be pretty stupid, or a pointless gesture, although he probably won’t miss the money. Of course he might consult some outside non-Navy doctor, but any doctor he might want to consult, or his docors would like to consult or recommend, say, for surgery, will 1) probably be provided for him courtesy of the U.S. government and 2) not be in the network.

    He didn’t sign up his family, which, if this was a normal circumstance, he would..

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (dbe090) — 12/23/2013 @ 10:53 pm

  58. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/12/04/remarks-president-economic-mobility

    When millions lived in poverty, FDR fought for Social Security, and insurance for the unemployed, and a minimum wage.

    When millions died without health insurance, LBJ fought for Medicare and Medicaid.

    since FDR was before LBJ, I suppose that wpuld mean, FDR took care of poverty, but didn’t do anyything about people dying from lack of health insurance.

    Now, in reality, millions were not dying from lack of health insurance in 1964.

    He also says:

    …during the post-World War II years….a blue-collar job would let you buy a home, and a car, maybe a vacation once in a while, health care, a reliable pension.

    It’s the really poor people I suppose that he means, or elderly, who he thinks couldn’t possibly afford to see doctors, but the thing is, it didn’t really work that way.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (dbe090) — 12/23/2013 @ 11:07 pm

  59. You know that ObamaCare signup deadline that was extended to December 23rd and then against to December 24th? Now it’s January 1.

    It’s the Do-It-Yourself Presidency.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/25/2013 @ 6:27 am

  60. Dates, deadlines, and laws are about as worthless as any words that pass over Obama’s lips.

    Comment by JD (5c1832) — 12/25/2013 @ 6:38 am

  61. So someone can “enroll”, get coverage, and pay at some yet to be determined date in the future. I can’t see anything that could go wrong.

    Comment by JD (5c1832) — 12/25/2013 @ 6:41 am

  62. 59 Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/25/2013 @ 6:27 am

    You know that ObamaCare signup deadline that was extended to December 23rd and then against to December 24th? Now it’s January 1.

    It’s not supposed to be an actual extension of he deadline, but they compare it to someone standing in line to vote when the polls close (or you cold compare it to people in a bank when the bank closes.)

    A big question is how would they determine that someone had tied to do this before the deadline. You logged in once? Nobody seems to know.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (117043) — 12/25/2013 @ 6:46 am

  63. A big question is how would they determine that someone had tried[sic] to do this before the deadline. You logged in once? Nobody seems to know.

    It’s a feature, not a bug. Foodstamp knows he can blameshift to the EBIL insurance companies, and with the make believe media’s help, convince the LIVs of his good intentions. If he can claim to find out his administration’s problems via newspaper articles(just like everyone else), what’s to stop him from claiming ignorance with regard to anything?

    As Eddie Murphy once said, “if they have pictures, deny it…” It’s the “wouldn’t me” defense.

    Comment by Huitzilincuatec (f7d5ba) — 12/25/2013 @ 7:07 am

  64. A big question is how would they determine that someone had tried[sic] to do this before the deadline. You logged in once? Nobody seems to know.

    The answer is made rather clear in the New York Times story today:

    It’ll be done on a case-by-case basis. Probably in every case that makes it through to ask. (just like with a credit card company when you paid late by one or two days)

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/25/us/politics/white-house-again-stretches-health-care-sign-up-deadline.html?_r=0&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1387990526-ZLM64Pu/44qQhxN9ez+/nQ&pagewanted=all

    Tara McGuinness, a White House spokeswoman, said the administration was not providing “a blanket extension,” but was offering to provide “assistance to individuals on a case-by-case basis.”

    The article also quoted healthcare.gov and you can read it for yourself at:

    https://www.healthcare.gov/blog/couldnt-enroll-by-december-23-we-can-still-help-you-get-covered/

    Where it says:

    Contact the Marketplace call center at 1-800-318-2596 (available 24/7; closed December 25). TTY: 1-855-889-4325.

    Tell our customer service representative that you’ve been trying to enroll and explain why you couldn’t finish by the deadline. They can tell you what you can do to finish your enrollment and still get covered for 2014.

    Translation: They will be empowered, and instructed, to waive the deadline for everyone – even past January 1- as long as somebody calls up and asks for it, and claims issues with the system prevented them from finishing the process on time.

    And if they can’t find the proper words to claim problems with the system caused it, the customer service represenatives will help them.

    The number may be busy tomorrow.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (117043) — 12/25/2013 @ 9:05 am

  65. In this case, who they’re really lying to is the insurance companies, and also trying to make people feel there is a deadline, even though there may not be any hard deadline at all.

    If somebody created an account by midnight December 23, even an old account they had to delete, maybe even if they claim they tried to create an account, and then calls that number, they’ll be able to enroll effective January 1, as late as maybe perhaps January 10, 2014.

    That’s of course only for people living in the states covered by healthcare.gov.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (117043) — 12/25/2013 @ 9:10 am

  66. You know that ObamaCare signup deadline that was extended to December 23rd and then against to December 24th? Now it’s January 1.

    I heard it was indefinite. Of course, if you keep extending something, it IS indefinite, by definition. Or something.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/25/2013 @ 9:43 am

  67. Translation: They will be empowered, and instructed, to waive the deadline for everyone – even past January 1- as long as somebody calls up and asks for it, and claims issues with the system prevented them from finishing the process on time.

    So, you’re a provider and someone comes in wanting an expensive procedure, but their insurance is “pending review”. What do you do?

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/25/2013 @ 9:46 am

  68. Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/25/2013 @ 9:46 am

    So, you’re a provider and someone comes in wanting an expensive procedure, but their insurance is “pending review”. What do you do?

    There’ll be a lot of cases like that, including people who say they enrolled and you don’t know.

    Call up the insurance company, and try to get a quick ruling, otherwise, if it is not an emergency and it wouldn’t be malpractice, postpone it till it is determined or till February 1, otherwise do it.

    These are mostly narrow networks.

    Insurance companies may pay and try to collect from the government.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (117043) — 12/25/2013 @ 9:56 am

  69. An idea is forming in this guy’s head of just what we’re up against.

    http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-left-is-too-smart-to-fail.html

    It’s not the fall that kills. It’s the sudden stop at the bottom.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 12/25/2013 @ 10:41 am

  70. 56. Perhaps claiming to Denisovan ancestry would help one obtain a home loan?

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 12/25/2013 @ 11:14 am

  71. The secret to enrolling using healthcare.gov is:

    Call at 7:00 am EST

    http://business-news.thestreet.com/philly/story/healthcaregov-the-secret-700-am/1

    ….there is an added question which made the whole application at least one hour easier to fill out: “Will your income be similar or the same as that filed on your 2012 income taxes?” Since mine will be, I checked the box — and that’s all I had to do, as 2012 income can be immediately verified through the IRS.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (117043) — 12/25/2013 @ 12:48 pm

  72. One problem is Barack Obama thinks 2% is equal to nobody.

    When he said, “if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan” and “if you lke your doctor, you can keep your doctor” he thought only 2% of the people or so would both lose their health care plan and want to keep it, or care who their doctor was, because he doesn’t.

    (And anyway as Zeke Emanual has pointed out, you can always keep your doctor if you are willing to pay enough.)

    To Barack Obama 2% or 3% = 0% and that’s why he said it. 2% is less than the margin of error in a poll and so that’s equal to no one.

    Only it turned out that the percentage of people who liked their health care plan and found they couldn’t keep it, was higher than 2% or 3%.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (117043) — 12/26/2013 @ 10:56 am

  73. “When he said, “if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan” and “if you lke your doctor, you can keep your doctor” he thought only 2% of the people or so would both lose their health care plan and want to keep it, or care who their doctor was, because he doesn’t.”

    Sammy – How do you know what Obama thought? Do you have any evidence of this? There is very clear evidence to the contrary.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/26/2013 @ 11:48 am

  74. Anyone want to answer or discuss the Roosevelt question which i thought of?

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 12/26/2013 @ 12:06 pm

  75. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/26/2013 @ 11:48 am

    How do you know what Obama thought? Do you have any evidence of this? There is very clear evidence to the contrary.

    Because somewhere he said he thought not too many people were affected. (so it was OK)

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 12/26/2013 @ 12:07 pm

  76. “Because somewhere he said he thought not too many people were affected. (so it was OK”)

    Sammy – That doesn’t mean he believed it even if you can find he said it, does it, given all the lies he told about Obamacare?

    We know 85% Americans were happy with their insurance plans. Obamacare legislated existing private market plans out of existence and the Administration knew it. The delayed the business mandate for a year due to fear over its impact, so we have no idea how many plans will be cancelled.

    The 2% statement does not even pass the pink face test.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/26/2013 @ 12:16 pm

  77. OK to make that claim.

    He actually said this.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-president-obamas-nov-14-statement-on-health-care/2013/11/14/6233e352-4d48-11e3-ac54-aa84301ced81_story.html

    Keep in mind that the individual market accounts for 5 percent of the population. So when I said you can keep your health care, you know, I’m looking at folks who’ve got employer-based health care. I’m looking at folks who’ve got Medicare and Medicaid. And that accounts for the vast majority of Americans.

    And then for people who don’t have any health insurance at all, obviously that didn’t apply. My commitment to them was you were going to be able to get affordable health care for the first time.

    You have an individual market that accounts for about 5 percent of the population. And our working assumption was — my working assumption was that the majority of those folks would find better policies at lower cost or the same cost in the marketplaces and that there — the universe of folks who potentially would not find a better deal in the marketplaces, the grandfather clause would work sufficiently for them. And it didn’t. And again, that’s on us, which is why we’re — that’s on me.

    In other words, there would be so few people who would care that it was equalivalent to nobody.

    Let me finish the sentence Barack Obama did not finish.

    and that thereFORE, IT’S NOT A LIE, BECAUSE 2% IS EQUAL TO 0%.

    According to Barack Obama, if something is true for 98% of the population, it’s not a lie to say it’s true for everyone.

    No more than 2% or so (a majority – that is, 3% of the 5% – incorrect figure, by the way, I read it was more like 8% – but 3% of 5% would find better policies.)

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 12/26/2013 @ 12:23 pm

  78. You know, of course, that 2% is less than the margin of eerror in a poll.

    What Barack Obama really meant, an insignificant number of people would find his claim to be a lie.

    You notice how he sees where he is going in that
    sentence that starts: “And our working assumption was..” and he doesn’t like where it’s heading, so finishes it very lamely.

    And that thereFORE, what?

    It’s OK to say it even though it is not true for everyone.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 12/26/2013 @ 12:27 pm

  79. Keep effing that chicken Sammy.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/26/2013 @ 12:49 pm

  80. It’s very clear.

    Barack Obama was about to say that since only 2% of the people (per his calculations – I’m sure somebody worked this out in front of him with a calculator before) would be disappointed, it was all right to claim “if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”

    Then he realized that that would not really be a good thing to say in public, and he cut himself off before he could finish saying the word “therefore.”

    And finished with a jumble of words.

    As Lincoln said?

    If only 2% of the people feel that you fooled them about something important, it’s nothing

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 12/26/2013 @ 1:07 pm

  81. I mean somebody worked it out with a calculator when he was saying all of this from 2009 to 2012 and 2013.

    “Only 2% of the people will think that you lied. That’s less than a poll’s margin of error!”

    Now, in November, 2013, he realized it was a big problem.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 12/26/2013 @ 1:10 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2563 secs.