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 ...
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.
From Wikipedia:
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)[1] 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.
WTF!
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.