Skip to comments.Administration announces new ObamaCare exemption (Desperation)
Posted on 12/19/2013 7:18:18 PM PST by Kaslin
The Obama administration, in an 11th-hour change just before the holiday break,announced a major exemption in ObamaCare that will let people who lost coverage and are struggling to get a new plan sign up for bare-bones policies.
The move Thursday to allow potentially hundreds of thousands of people to sign up for "catastrophic" coverage plans was blasted by the insurance industry as a shift that would cause "tremendous instability.
The administration downplayed the sudden change, saying they expected it to impact fewer than 500,000 people.
Health and Human Services spokeswoman Joanne Peters said, "This is a common sense clarification of the law. For the limited number of consumers whose plans have been cancelled and are seeking coverage, this is one more option."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Why can’t they exempt all Americans from Obamacare?
Banana Republic, thanks Demonrats.
Still more legislation by the executive branch, clearly against the Constitution.
But, still, not a single pubbie, not even a TEA party rep or senator, standing in vocal opposition.
Time for pitchforks and ropes, it seems... if only the sheeple had the gumption.
We are, truly, slouching toward Gomorrah.
They are like soooooo in trouble.
We’re not slouching anymore, we’re rolling downhill on a steep slope.
So they can pay $3000 a year for a policy with a $15,000 deductible and a $100,000 limit?
The insurance companies claim this will lead to “tremendous liability.”
Let’s examine that claim and see what it means. If straight catastrophic insurance (no payments for anything until a high deductible, presumably with “club” pricing for out of pocket payments below the deductible) is properly priced, it isn’t a liability in and of itself. The anticipated liability is that the young and healthy won’t be forced to buy a wildly overpriced menu of health maintenance benefits to subsidize the non-payers or the high maintenance insureds who are getting a good deal (for them) by force of law.
If the viability of O-care depends on a sizeable transfer, and those targeted for the transfer—the young and healthy—opt out either by foregoing the bloated bronze policies entirely, or by buying real catastrophic insurance, who is going to pay the insurers for their costs. The obvious answer is the taxpayer (via the law’s “risk corridor”), with a ballooning deficit.
Just makin’ it up as they go along. No need to consider the legalities of issuing edicts and rulings on the fly....
crap coverage at high prices.
wow what a succes story this is for those people who had plans that worked for them and their conditions, but lost them.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED BARRYCADES
>> Why cant they exempt all Americans from Obamacare
They’re not? It’s hard to keep up with all the king’s decrees.
The Bare bones policies are what is being offered under Obamacare. High deductibles, high copay’s and limited doctors especially if you receive no subsidy and you make a certain amount. I consider it a catastrophic plan they are offering.
Looks like a harmonica rack.
I admit that I am against this plan. Probably, I am a racist. Yep, I just have rejected all of this, because of someone’s skin color. Ouch. Oh my, I’m awful, this racist feeling I have in anger of this last 11th hour fix, is taking away all of my sense of well being. Racism is destroying us at this very hour.
‘clarification’ of the law.
As opposed to rewriting the thing each and every day, without the legal authority to do so.
Would someone please file some sort of injunction so that SCOTUS can step in and say, “Ah, no. Can’t do that.”
No exemptions, no delays. Enforcement it now so everyone can feel raped by Fedzilla...and like it!
Will the people who decided to sacrifice and signed up for one of the other plans, will they be allowed to go back choose this new option instead?
Think of how many of those catastrophic claims would he avoided if earlier exams and treatments is sought, until waiting until it is too late to avoid the catastrophic from occurring.?
These are pre-schoolers playing with C-4.
With the catastrophic coverage (high deductible) policies which meet the Obmacare requirement what is to stop someone from getting a gap type of policy? Or you could set up a health savings account.
Seems that realities are pushing Obamacare toward more realistic plan offerings.
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
In addition to the other reasons why Obamacare is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional because it is an overbroad delegation of legislative power to the Executive. The Administration's continual ad hoc modification of the law and creation of law is daily creating a record of fact on which the law can be struck down.
In the Federal Government of the United States, the nondelegation doctrine is the principle that the Congress of the United States, being vested with "all legislative powers" by Article One, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, cannot delegate that power to anyone else. However, the Supreme Court ruled in In J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States (1928) that Congressional delegation of legislative authority is an implied power of Congress that is constitutional so long as Congress provides an "intelligible principle" to guide the executive branch: "'In determining what Congress may do in seeking assistance from another branch, the extent and character of that assistance must be fixed according to common sense and the inherent necessities of the government co-ordination.' So long as Congress 'shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to [exercise the delegated authority] is directed to conform, such legislative action is not a forbidden delegation of legislative power.'"
All of these ad hoc "fixes" show that Congress did not "lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle" and that there is nothing in the law to which the Administration must "conform." More from Wikipedia:
Only rarely has the Supreme Court invalidated laws as violations of the nondelegation doctrine. Exemplifying the Court's legal reasoning on this matter, it ruled in the 1998 case Clinton v. City of New York that the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, which authorized the President to selectively void portions of appropriation bills, was a violation of the Presentment Clause, which sets forth the formalities governing the passage of legislation. Although the Court noted that the attorneys prosecuting the case had extensively discussed the nondelegation doctrine, the Court declined to consider that question. However, Justice Kennedy, in a concurring opinion, wrote that he would have found the statute to violate the exclusive responsibility for laws to be made by Congress.
In the case of Obamacare, the Administration is actually doing things contrary to the plain words of the statute. Congress cannot delegate the authority, purely legislative, to re-write the statute.
Supposing someone challenges the statue on the grounds of overbroad delegation. Is the Administration going to defend by claiming that its actions were unauthorized by the statute? No, the Administration will claim that the statute authorizes the Executive to do whatever it feels like.
I do not have much confidence in the courts. However, knowing that the statute is unconstitutional is a guide and support for decisions by individuals -- both as to their private conduct and their conduct as jurors in any case where Obamacare is at issue.
I’m confused. Aren’t catastrophic policies the ones that last week Obama called inadequate junk insurance that no one should be allowed to buy?
When they announced those artificially low numbers on the total of cancelees who’d be left without coverage I was wondering how they’d accomlish that. Guess we know now.
I haven’t laughed so hard in months. Thanks! LOL
a joy to hear
And isn’t it another one of his scams where he waits until the insurance companies couldn’t possibly implement his solution, then announces it, planning to blame the failure to accomplish it on the insurers?
If you apply for coverage through the Marketplace by March 31, 2014, and maintain coverage throughout the rest of the year, you will not have to pay a penalty for 2014.So, I'm wondering, is this true for the other 56 states too?
No one really has standing until Jan 1, 2014.
“Commonsense clarification of the law” translates as “we pulled it out of our ass”.
‘If you like your 12-23-2013 Deadline, you can keep your 12-23-2013 deadline, period.’
I would say yes and yes.
There are some studies that indicate that health outcomes with routine preventive care are roughly the same as the outcomes without it. Essentially, one route produces overtreatment, the other produces undertreatment.
Let me get this straight.
They closed down a whole bunch of insurance industry policies because they didn’t offer the things Obama demanded.
Now Obama says Obamacare will offer plans that don’t offer the things Obama demanded.
They’re routing many of the decisions through Sibelius. The statute gave her almost unlimited authority.
Bump to that!
According to Steve Jobs biographer, Walter Isaacson, the Apple AAPL -1.14% mastermind eventually came to regret the decision he had made years earlier to reject potentially life-saving surgery in favor of alternative treatments like acupuncture, dietary supplements and juices. Though he ultimately embraced the surgery and sought out cutting-edge experimental methods, they were not enough to save him.
Jobs cancer had been discovered by chance during a CT scan in 2003 to look for kidney stones, during which doctors saw a shadow on his pancreas. Isaacson told CBS 60 Minutes last night that while the news was not good, the upside was that the form of pancreatic cancer from which Jobs suffered (a neuroendocrine islet tumor) was one of the 5% or so that are slow growing and most likely to be cured.
Just yesterday evening, at the good-ol-boys round table salon and tête-à-tête in our local country propane and hay store, we were reviewing possible future scenarios regarding the devolution of obamacare and obama. I posited the following:
1. That if the Republicans would just twiddle their thumbs pretty much about everything for next 3-4 months, obamacare would become so unraveled that the Democrats would be forced to beg the Republicans to save them, and that regardless of any legislative changes that might thereby result in a bipartisan fashion, obama would veto it all, preferring to see the complete destruction of the medical system and the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, as well as the total destruction of the Democrat Party for at least two generations, rather than admit he was wrong about something.
2. That it was highly likely that obama would soon totally panic over the chaos wrought by obamacare and descend into utter lawlessness by attempting to govern completely by diktat, and that therefore there was also a reasonable probability that obama’s attempted dictatorship would eventually become so severe that Congress would be forced to initiate impeachment.
It would appear that this second prediction is already starting to come true.
The cancer cases that are really an argument for screening are those involving fairly rapidly growing tumors. The outcome with indolent tumors isn’t impacted much by early discovery since, by definition, they’re slow growing. And aggressive malignancies can progress to where they’re untreatable during the time period between one checkup and another.
Choice of treatment’s a whole different issue.
My experience with sociopaths fits your two options and adds a third. When they’re finally faced with the reality of what their arrogance has created for them, they announce that the game is beneath them and “tune out”. That’d probably be the best outcome for all.
Yet again, Obamacare is whatever Lord Obama proclaims it to be - whenever it suits him.
Some ‘law’, huh?
Death to all misplaced apostrophes!!
Oh now. It's just my pet peeve acting up again :-)
Making up the rules as they go. Frightening.
I disagree--and I think you are missing my point.
Catastrophic insurance is pure insurance, and for the young and healthy it is very rarely used. Detailed health maintenance isn't going to save much money in the 20 to 30 year age bracket.
The problem for O-care is that they won't (up until this announcement) sell pure insurance; they want to sell and overpriced "maintenance" product that is heavily over-priced as the minimum choice, and use the overcharged amount to subsidize a sizable portion of the population. Many younger people are shocked at how much the rates were driven up, and aren't playing.
This announcement is an effort to at least bring them into the system, but it gives up on a large portion of the anticipated cash flows, and doesn't help the potential death spiral of rates when too few low-cost, healthy people sign up.
Seems if you had a policy canceled and by some miracle were able to purchase and pay for an original Obamacare policy you have been harmed financially by this latest decree and bring a suit.
Health and Human Services spokeswoman Joanne Peters said, "This is a common sense clarification of the law. For the limited number of consumers whose plans have been cancelled and are seeking coverage, this is one more option."No, a common sense approach is repeal, followed by impeachment, then trial and execution. Thanks Kaslin.