Skip to comments.ObamaCare Bailout? Detroit reportedly eyes health care law to cut costs
Posted on 07/29/2013 12:35:49 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Detroit could be looking to ObamaCare for a bailout as city leaders try to cut back on retiree health costs as they enter bankruptcy proceedings.
The New York Times reported Monday that the city is proposing a plan aimed at reducing its $5.7 billion in outstanding retiree health costs.
In short, they want to take those retirees too young to qualify for Medicare and send them into the ObamaCare insurance markets -- which are scheduled to launch next year.
Doing so would ease the burden on the Detroit coffers by taking them off city coverage.
But it would inevitably increase the burden on the federal government, with subsidies from ObamaCare being provided by federal taxpayers.
According to The Times, though, other cash-strapped cities like Chicago are also contemplating shifting retirees onto the insurance exchanges.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
LOTS of people want to dump their retirees on Obamacare. That’s why this turkey had as much support in the business community as it did.
Hmmm. I thought Obama said he was not going to bail out Detroit. Again.
Working as intended.
I would say that Obama can’t give Detroit a bailout, it would have to come from Congress, if we still lived in a Constitutional republic. But Obama has proved that he doesn’t let little things like the law stop him from doing whatever he wants.
And when they are on Obamacare in vast numbers, the death panels will be called to thin out those health care hogging retirees.
“And when they are on Obamacare in vast numbers, the death panels will be called to thin out those health care hogging retirees.”
But only the conservative ones, of course....which will be easily discerned by the personal internet info gleaned by the NSA and the IRS.
Obviously viewing it as s subsidy.
FDIC insurance scheme: the tax payer can carry the risks for the rest of failed political boondoggles.
Chicago is already getting that particular bailout.
Obviously, it can, and it will, so we must! (do something! to paraphrase an old high-school football team cheer)
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
There will be plenty of cities wanting to shift their retired and active public employees on to Obamacare to be subsidized by the taxpayer. Another unintended consequence.
“There will be plenty of cities wanting to shift their retired and active public employees on to Obamacare to be subsidized by the taxpayer. Another unintended consequence.”
Wrong. An INTENDED consequence.
If the intended consequence is to make hundreds of thousands if not millions of public employees angry at the Obama administration, then so be it. I do know that federal employees have been given an exemption for our “Cadillac” health plans. If Obama pulls that on federal employees as well, there will be hell to pay.
Exactly. NObama don’t take a dump without a plan (a paraphrase from Tom Clancy’s Clear and Present Danger).
“If Obama pulls that on federal employees as well, there will be hell to pay.”
I don’t believe they are exempt. Otherwise why would the IRS federal employees be seeking a waiver from having to have Obamacare rather than their current health plans.
I feel sorry for some of the public workers that have this happen to them, but this AFSCME scam is about to blow up.
It's Tom Clancy, but from The Hunt for Red October.
FYI: I am a retired federal employee with 36 years of service. I am still enrolled in the FEHBP.
I know this is a rhetorical question, but when did it become acceptable for a sitting Congress to obligate a future Congress to spending of any kind. This mandatory spending crap in our baseline budget is wrong on so many levels.
Correct, my bad.