Skip to comments.Historic Law to Un-insure People, Then Insure Some of Them and Claim a Victory for Social Justice
Posted on 01/19/2014 4:54:07 PM PST by Sub-Driver
January 19, 2014 7:19 PM Historic Law to Un-insure People, Then Insure Some of Them and Claim a Victory for Social Justice By Rich Lowry
The Wall Street Journal had a devastating report this weekend on how most, and perhaps the overwhelming majority, of people enrolled on the Obamacare exchanges were previously insured:
Early signals suggest the majority of the 2.2 million people who sought to enroll in private insurance through new marketplaces through Dec. 28 were previously covered elsewhere, raising questions about how swiftly this part of the health overhaul will be able to make a significant dent in the number of uninsured.
Insurers, brokers and consultants estimate at least two-thirds of those consumers previously bought their own coverage or were enrolled in employer-backed plans.
The estimate from a McKinsey survey of the percentage who were previously insured is much higher:
Only 11% of consumers who bought new coverage under the law were previously uninsured, according to a McKinsey & Co. survey of consumers thought to be eligible for the health-law marketplaces. The result is based on a sampling of 4,563 consumers performed between November and January, of whom 389 had enrolled in new insurance.
We had to upset the apple cart of American health insurance for this?
Kind of like “The Trail Of Tears” in a way.
It cannot be repeated enough that the political party which made health care a political issue for decades, in the guise of helping the poor and the homeless, ended up causing more people to be uninsured than it enrolled. And THEN, some of the law had to be unlawfully delayed until AFTER the elections to protect the clowns that imposed it on the population. EPIC FAIL.
All analysis needs to exclude 0bamaMedicaid peeps.
Social engineering by idiots who believe they are intelligent beyond imagination
Next step is for the call that it was a good try, but we have to have single payer to fill in where this failed and because everything in the market is in Chaos (as planned)....
Obamacare. Twice the price. Half the coverage.
NOTHING is changed ... for the EXEMPT hated Congress,
their staff, their families, and the Moslems they serve,
and arm, and bow to, as they continue to the ignore
the US Constitution.
This law is the most evil thing to ever come from a president and the democrat party. People really need to ask themselves ‘why?’ before voting for democrats ever again.
Will the republicans take advantage of it? Time will tell, but if recent history is any example, then no they won’t.
No, not a fail ... they accomplished most of what they set out to accomplish. Single Payer is closer than ever.
How else would you start a MASSIVE new welfare program? It has nothing to do with health or insurance
only redistribution of wealth to the favored cronies, dark skinned peoples and assorted parasites.
You are exactly right.
I wish so-called conservative publications would stop printing drivel with words like “social justice” and “insuring the uninsured”.
The demoncrat elitists want to know EVERYTHING about EVERYONE so that only those who agree with them will receive crumbs from fedgov. The rest of us are on our own and soon to be headed to the camps.
Good Hunting... from Varmint Al
Now, how many of the 11% that were previously uninsured are how on Medicaid?
I will guess a substantial number of them had no insurance in 2013.
Which brings up an obvious question I asked before Obama signed the bill in 2010:
Why didn't we just put ALL the low income folks on Medicaid and leave the rest of the health system alone?
Clearly, the cost issue would still have been a significant problem, at least $150 billion a year.
But our deficit spending is already so huge, what difference would another $150 billion make?
Now, we are stuck with this insanity, because it is clear that McConnell, Boehner, and Paul Ryan are not going to do one serious thing to stop ObamaCare.
It sounds like the poll only asked for information on those who paid for new policies.
That would exclude Medicaid, which is free.
At this point in time, the sign up data is almost useless.
There are too many variables to keep track of:
24 state exchanges, each one with different options.
Medicaid. "Old" Medicaid. "ObamaCare" Medicaid.
Sign ups for policies, but not yet paid for.
The Silver Plan, which has multiple layers of subsidies for premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and total out of pocket expenses.
Three other plans that have no subsidies.
And Medicaid is known to be the very next thing to useless.
Obamas Great Leap Forward.
The title of this article is EXCELLENT! That idea needs to be hammered home among all the bleeding heart social justice whiners. They need to have their noses rubbed in the fact that their votes to “insure everyone” have had the opposite effect. And to add insult to injury, costs have gone up for nearly everyone. As far as I can tell, there have been no positives with this law. The only winners have been crony capitalists who made money (some insurers, incompetent and unqualified website designers, etc.), and a very, very few people who were previously uninsured. The social justice crowd needs to answer the question about whether it was ok to acquire insurance for a few previously uninsured while causing a larger number to become uninsured. Is this what they wanted all along?
Now it can be told:
OBAMA/CARE IS A SOCIAL JUSTICE LOTTERY......and, IMHO, is eminently prosecutable under those terms.
ANLYSIS Obama called Americans' cancelled health plans "substandard". Ergo, a good lawyer would construct his legal arguments around the fact that Obama means Americans must buy plans HE likes---plans he specifically designed to serve his social equity and income redistribution goals......
......same as a state lottery redistributes income to education, etc.....to achieve socially beneficial goals......
In Obama's calculated view, "some" Americans must now pay first-class fares for coach seats so that "hand-picked" Americans can pay less, and receive extra benefits.
O/Care induces every American into paying into the program. Some people "win" subsidies, tax breaks, deferments, exemptions, etc, while others are "losers"---excluded from these benefits.
Obama picking winner and losers raises legal questions that Obamacare is an illegal lottery. By picking winners and losers.....a court might decide O/Care is an illegal lottery.
REFERENCE (I'm sure the law books have better examples): The following is an example of a Federal Statute defining Lottery:
According to 12 USCS § 25a, lottery" includes any arrangement whereby three or more persons (the "participants") advance money or credit to another in exchange for the possibility or expectation that one or more but not all of the participants (the "winners") will receive by reason of their advances more than the amounts they have advanced, the identity of the winners being determined by any means which includes--
(A) a random selection;
(B) a game, race, or contest; or
(C) any record or tabulation of the result of one or more events in which any participant has no interest except for its bearing upon the possibility that he may become a winner. (SOURCE uslegal.com/lotteries)
Yes. To make employer-paid healthcare go away. So corporate CEO's could flow those premiums to their bottom lines (after taking a cut for incentive compensation).
The GOP can't quit this defense of Obamacare until private, employer-paid health insurance is, in the immortal words of Rahm Emmanuel,
DEAD! .... DEAD! .....DEAD!!!
</off stabbing table with knife> </off screaming> </off bulging veins and eyeballs>
They already are. See my last.