If It's "the Law Of The Land", Then How Can Obama Just Change It When *HE* Wants To?
Because he purposely had it written ("the final Senate-passed version of the ACA that had been rewritten behind the closed doors of Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office in the fall of 2009") so that he and his surrogates could do. just. that:
He's done it by making sure that Charlie Rangel and all of the House and Senate, many of whom make upwards of $170,000 a year, can have their higher costs subsidized (paid for in large part) by you and me, not them, to the tune of a $10,800 a year GIMME, while a woman making $36,000 or more can't qualify, at least in some states, for ANY subsidy.
Let me repeat that for you:
The White House has already pushed back the deadline to buy health insurance by six weeks, as Democrats voiced concerns that the botched ObamaCare rollout would hurt their 2014 election bids and potentially prevent them from taking the House.He's done it also with all the waivers and exemptions from this "law" he's already granted. (HINT: good chunks of the bennies go to Nancy Pelosi's home district and Harry Reid's home state, but I guess he had to avoid more "Cronyism" charges so Obama threw all his union supporters under the bus and now they no longer support the law).
ObamaCare requires people to have health insurance by March 31, 2014. To guarantee the coverage, people must begin the process of applying for insurance no later than Feb. 15.
Under the change, people who have signed up for insurance by the end of March will not face a penalty, even if they do not actually have the insurance.
He's done it by making sure that Charlie Rangel and all of the House and Senate, many of whom make upwards of $170,000 a year, can have their higher costs subsidized (paid for in large part) by you and me, not them, to the tune of a $10,800 a year GIMME, while a woman making $36,000 or more can't qualify, at least in some states, for ANY subsidy.
Let me repeat that for you:
CNSNews.com: "So no taxpayer money for health insurance [for Congresspeople] to go on the exchanges at all?"While Rangel defends getting his $10,800 freebi--I mean, subsidy (a whopping 6.2% of his salary), a 59 year old Baltimore man making $36,000 a year was elated--one week PRIOR to the ObamaCare Exchange "roll-out"--that he expected to get a--wait for it--$2,148 a year subsidy:
Rangel: "I didn’t say that. The federal government is our employer."
CNSNews.com: "But do you think you should get that money to go in the exchanges?"
Rangel: "No question about it. We should not lose a part of our overall compensation. Of course not."
"But the biggest reason for Dodson's low premium is the system of federal subsidies. Dodson's modest income of $36,000 dollars a year qualifies him for a $179 federal tax credit -- a tax credit that brings down his policy from its true cost at $464 to what he pays -- $285 [a month]."The fellow, who is currently unable to afford insurance, was elated that he hoped to pay what he estimated he'll pay, which represents almost 10% of his total gross pay.
Have any of you tried to really live on $36,000 a year? I have. And this guy's in Baltimore, where the cost of housing is as bad as it is in my area of Connecticut. And groceries and utilities cost about 10% more there than here. This guy must have a roommate or a second earner in the household to afford even a 400-square-foot apartment. And that's without the $285 per month for ObamaCare. He's going to have to do without a LOT to "afford" even that. But that CBS News article isn't discussing that aspect.
More notably, they haven't revisited Mr. Baltimore to see if the estimate turned out to be accurate or if he actually did sign up and is still so relieved, now. Or perhaps they have, but it didn't, and he isn't anymore, and CBS doesn't want us to know the truth.
But wait! There's more:
There isn't any way for ObamaCare to verify you actually make what you claim you make, so you can say you make less than you really do, and voila! qualify for whatever subsidy you think you're entitled to![A]nyone can receive subsidies tied to income without judging the income they declare against the income data the Internal Revenue Service collects. This change has nothing to do with the employer mandate, even tangentially. HHS is disowning eligibility quality control because pre-clearance is "not feasible" as a result of "operational barriers" and "a large amount of systems development on both the state and federal side, which cannot occur in time for October 1, 2013."
You've got to love that passive voice. It's true that coordinating and managing vast amounts of information from hundreds of millions of Americans and corporations, and monitoring compliance with more than 10,000 pages of fine-print Federal Register regulations so far, is hard to do. Yet that is the system Democrats installed when they passed the law, which is not supposed to be optional due to administrative incompetence.
...
So don't be surprised if millions of individuals decide they're eligible for the subsidies, or should be, and wait for someone eventually to say they aren't.
But wait! There's more:
What if Mr. Baltimore's subsidy is one of the ones cut by the sequestration, which is also "the law of the land"? The left-leaning media either hasn't uncovered this yet, or it has and it's still in shock:The Obama administration has acknowledged that the cost-sharing subsidies [of ObamaCare] are subject to sequester reductions. A May report from the White House Office of Management and Budget estimated that the sequester would reduce the subsidies by 7.2% in fiscal year 2014. That amounts to a $286 million reduction through next September—the first nine months of ObamaCare.So what is Obama to DO? The only thing he's good at: blame it on the Republicans. But that isn't working so well anymore, is it?
What will really happen and what are the White House's options here?
There are two possible outcomes. The first is that individuals who have managed to enroll in subsidized health insurance will find they've been misled about their copays and deductibles. Families who currently think their plan will charge a $20 copayment for doctor visits may instead face a $25 charge when the sequester kicks in. Individuals who now believe they face maximum out-of-pocket costs of $2,000 may end up paying hundreds more.Finally, to answer my own headline question, "How Can Obama Just Change the ACA When He Wants To?", I went to the ACA itself, all 906 pages of it.
The other alternative is that insurers may be stuck with the sequester cuts. A May 31 Congressional Research Service report, noting that ObamaCare requires insurers to reduce cost-sharing for eligible individuals regardless of the sequester, concluded that "insurers presumably will still have to provide required coverage to qualifying enrollees but they will not receive the full subsidy to cover their increased costs." In other words, the CRS, Congress's own think tank, believes insurers may be forced to eat the costs of the sequester reductions—$286 million through September, and billions more through 2021.
Having first proposed the sequester two years ago, the Obama administration now finds itself on the horns of a self-imposed dilemma. It can tell the American people that the "good deal" President Obama promised isn't as good as they thought—that those who spent hours and days signing up on Healthcare.gov bought coverage that will cost more than advertised. If full disclosure truly were to prevail, the administration would also admit that this classic bait and switch occurred solely due to its failure to account for its responsibilities under the Budget Control Act.
Or the administration can try to force insurers to bear the full costs of the sequester reductions—and watch them promptly drop out of the exchanges.
This is no mere "glitch" in the website, nor was it unforeseen. The administration has known for years that the cost-sharing subsidies were subject to sequester, but has failed to plan for its impact.
I'd heard the claims that the phrase "'At the discretion of the Secretary' [of HHS, Sebelius] appears over 700 times" in it, but my research shows that may have started with an unsubstantiated tweet by some unknown.
[An aside note: this is the same Kathleen Sebelius who was responsible for the shredding of documents "related to felony charges" that Planned Parenthood was facing in Kansas in 2005 when she was Governor. What were those felony charges? Covering up over a hundred cases of underage rape or statutory rape.]
In the ACA (aka ObamaCare), the literal phrase, "At the discretion of the Secretary," appears once. However, phrases implying that, like "as determined by the Secretary" appear often enough.
Searching on just "the Secretary" yields what I think the claim was driving at (though that flamboyant claim does conservatives a huge disservice since it's clearly untrue).
This "Law of the Land" is riddled with unfinished, open-ended business, i.e., standards, expenditures, reporting requirements, exceptions to rules, definitions, criteria, penalties, grant formula determinations, even appropriation amounts in future years...all yet to be "established," "developed," "imposed," "reviewed and updated periodically," by the HHS Secretary.
This "law" really is up to the discretion, in too many ways to count, of the Secretary of HHS, clearly Obama's girl. Her discretion has really worked so well so far, hasn't it? And that's how they'll just keep power-morphing this "Law of the Land" to suit their own power, their own choices, their favorites and cronies, until we the people say enough is enough.And that's just the first 22 out of 906 pages.Not later than 12 months after the date of enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,the Secretary shall develop standards for use by a group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage, in compiling and providing to enrollees a summary of benefits and coverage explanation that accurately describes the benefits and coverage under the applicable plan or coverage. In developing such standards, the Secretary shall consult with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners...PERIODIC REVIEW AND UPDATING.—The Secretary shall periodically review and update, as appropriate, the standards developed under this section.PENALTIES.—In developing the reporting requirements under paragraph (1), the Secretary may develop and impose appropriate penalties for non-compliance with such requirements.‘‘(E) EXCEPTIONS.—In developing the reporting requirements under paragraph (1), the Secretary may provide for exceptions to such requirements for group health plans and health insurance issuers that substantially meet the goals of this section.DEFINITIONS.—The Secretary, in consultation with the National Association of Insurance Commissions, shall establish uniform definitions for the activities reported under subsection (a).CRITERIA.—A State that receives a grant under this section shall comply with criteria established by the Secretary for carrying out activities under such grantPUBLIC LAW 111–148—MAR. 23, 2010‘‘(d) DATACOLLECTION.—As a condition of receiving a grant under subsection (a), an office of health insurance consumer assistance or ombudsman program shall be required to collect and report data to the Secretary on the types of problems and inquiries encountered by consumers. The Secretary shall utilize such data to identify areas where more enforcement action is necessary and shall sharesuch information with State insurance regulators, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of the Treasury for use in the enforce-ment activities of such agencies.‘‘(e) FUNDING.—‘‘(1) INITIAL FUNDING.—There is hereby appropriated to the Secretary, out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $30,000,000 for the first fiscal year for which this section applies to carry out this section. Such amount shall remain available without fiscal year limitation.‘‘(2) AUTHORIZATION FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for each fiscal year following the fiscal year described in paragraph (1), such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.’’.‘‘(C) ALOCATION.—The Secretary shall establish a formula for determining the amount of any grant to a State under this subsection.
Isn't ObamaCare great?
posted by Annie at 8:56 AM
