More Mitt Mandate Madness

Poor Mittens, he is just a few hours away from giving an important speech on healthcare reform and the left has dug up new examples of his support for mandates on the Federal level.

Blue Mass Group: [...] back in 1994 when he was running for Senate, Romney said he would support a federal individual health care mandate. Yes, yes, he did.

See, in 1993, then-Senator John Chafee, a Republican from Rhode Island, floated a health care bill that was supposed to be an alternative to the Clinton administration’s proposal. It never really went anywhere, but it did garner 20 co-sponsors in the Senate, including a couple of Democrats (Boren of OK and Kerrey of NE). And a key feature of that bill was that, if it passed, the bad ol’ federal government would have required every American (with the usual hardship etc. exceptions) to purchase health insurance.

Subtitle F: Universal Coverage – Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005.

Pretty straightforward, right? And yes, at least according to Kaiser Health News, this provision of Chafee’s bill was indistinguishable from President Obama’s plan.

The Wall Street Journal adds a little more rain to Mitt's parade with a very unflattering editorial today showcasing the failures of RomneyCare in Massachusetts.

Romney's problems with RomneyCare and the 2012 election really took off when he tried to have it both ways. On one hand Romney wants to condemn ObamaCare on the federal level and then on the other hand wants to claim success for RomneyCare on the state level. All while the two plans are basically identical. Romney might not be in such a jam, if he took a page from Tim Pawlenty and simply admit he made a mistake.

As I have repeatedly said on this blog, Obama and the left will be looking for distractions in 2012. They will use anything to avoid focus on Obama's failures with the economy, jobs, debt and the deficit. Romney's mixed and muddled excuses for RomneyCare offer up some really fine distractions that will keep him from hammering away at Obama's weak spots.

Unless Romney comes up with a clear and strong way to move RomneyCare off the table in 2012, he is a hopeless flawed candidate that is sure to lose to Obama.

Via: Memeorandum
Via: The Wall Street Journal
Via: The LA Times
Via: Blue Mass Group

Via: The Hill

Mitt Romney: If he were president it would be ObamaCare waivers for all 50 states

National Review: If I were president, on Day One I would issue an executive order paving the way for Obamacare waivers to all 50 states. The executive order would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services and all relevant federal officials to return the maximum possible authority to the states toinnovate and design health-care solutions that work best for them.

As I have stated time and again, a one-size-fits-all national plan that raises taxes is simply not the answer. Under our federalist system, the states are “laboratories of democracy.” They should be free to experiment. By the way, what works in one state may not be the answer for another. Of course, the ultimate goal is to repeal Obamacare and replace it with free-market reforms that promote competition and lower health-care costs. But since an outright repeal would take time, an executive order is the first step in returning power to the states.

Hum, I see two problems with this approach.

First, blue states will no doubt institute mini ObamaCares with their waivers. That's OK, because isn't that is what the Tenth Amendment is all about? But what if you are a conservative or Republican in a blue state? You will be stuck with ObamaCare whether Obama wins or Romney wins. If that is the case, why bother to enthusiastically support Romney?

Second, I can easily see this executive order scheme taking the heat off Republicans to immediately repeal ObamaCare. Red States will no doubt go for free market and pro-individual solutions. As those states remove the specter of ObamaCare, pressure on the Republicans from the right might diminish. Sheepish Republicans who prefer to shy from a fight might just be happy to let things be. In that case, the only thing standing between us and an awful return of ObamaCare will be an executive order.

This idea from Romney seems like an attempt to make himself look less flip floppy and more consistent this time around. First, there is his refusal to admit that RomneyCare was a mistake. Then he offers up the States' Rights excuse to explain away his bad decision. Now he is taking the States' Rights idea one step further with this executive order idea. This maybe a good thing for Mitt Romney's presidential aspirations, but is it really the best way to go for America?

Via: Memeorandum
Via: National Review

Judge Vinson to Obama - Get To Gettin' on ObamaCare Appeal

Politico: U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson put the health care reform law on a fast track to the Supreme Court on Thursday — giving the Obama administration just seven days to file an appeal and signaling to fellow jurists that the time for a decision is now.

Vinson called his order a stay, but the real message was clear: Hurry up.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson put the health care reform law on a fast track to the Supreme Court on Thursday — giving the Obama administration just seven days to file an appeal and signaling to fellow jurists that the time for a decision is now.

Vinson called his order a stay, but the real message was clear: Hurry up. [MORE]

What Judge Vinson did today was to take away the Obama administration's delay tactics, by treating the administration's motion to "clarify" and a motion to stay. However, the stay to his earlier ruling is only in effect provided the administration appeals to the 11th Circuit Court or the Supreme Court in seven days.

It is in the administration's best interest to delay going to the Supreme as long as possible. This is because the further down the road the implementation of ObamaCare goes, the greater the possibility the Supremes might be reluctant to strike it down. It is a long shot, but still another factor in the administration's favor.

Vinson's ruling today pretty much closes off that option.

I really like this guy Vinson, not only did he completely shot down mandate and ObamaCare in total, he put an end to the administrations courtroom shenanigans.

You can read Vinson's new ruling here.

Via: Memeorandum
Via: Politico

Obama's backtrack on mandates

The Hill: President Obama backed a significant change to the healthcare reform law for the first time Monday, supporting a plan that could delay implementation of the unpopular mandate to buy insurance.

Speaking to the nation’s governors, Obama said states should be able to request waivers for implementing alternatives to the reform law starting in 2014, three years earlier than the law allows. [...]

The waiver provision comes with a catch, however. A state’s waiver proposal must show that it is capable of providing coverage that is at least as comprehensive and affordable as that offered through new state-run health insurance exchanges, which also open in 2014. The state must also provide coverage to as many residents as the exchanges would have, and the proposal must not increase the federal deficit.

That is a pretty big catch.  Given the requirements, states are only left with the option of creating mini-ObamaCares or variations of RomneyCare.  I really get a kick out of the part about not increasing the federal deficit.  Even ObamaCare doesn't do that.  These individual state schemes will be very, very expensive at a time when states are looking at some serious budget shortfalls.

I have to say I don't like all this waiver action. First for politically well connected companies, then for unions and now for states.  Basically, ObamaCare has made all these institutions beholden to the Fed and the Fed can then arbitrarily grant or deny waives.  That is way too much power and easily opens the door for political shenanigans.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: The Hill 

3 - 2: Another Federal Judge rules in favor of ObamaCare mandates

Another liberal judge (appointed by Clinton) has ruled in favor of ObamaCare mandates.  U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler, of the District of Columbia, rules that opting out of health insurance cost others money, therefore government is within its right to use the Commerce Clause.

Ben Smith Politico: The perfect partisan streak in health care rulings continues, with D.C. federal district judge Gladys Kessler, a Clinton appointee, ruling the Affordable Care Act constitutional. She's the third Democratic judge to do so; two Republicans have found it unconstitutional.Kessler writes in one key passage on the mandate:
First, this Court agrees with the two other district courts which have ruled that the individuals subject to § 1501’s mandate provision are either present or future participants in the national health care market. See Liberty Univ., 2010 WL 4860299, at *15 (“Nearly everyone will require health care services at some point in their lifetimes, and it is not always possible to predict when one will be afflicted by illness or injury and require care.”); Thomas More Law Ctr., 720 F.Supp.2d at 894 (“The health care market is unlike other markets. No one can guarantee his or her health, or ensure that he or she will never participate in the health care market. . . . The plaintiffs have not opted out of the health care services market because, as living, breathing beings . . . they cannot opt out of this market.”). Thus, the vast majority of individuals, if not all individuals, will require some medical care in their lifetime.

But people can still opt out by paying the fee, so is anything really solved?  I also fail to see where the Constitutional authority comes from for the government to save.  If such a thing exists, why the heck hasn't been enforced across the board?  Our $14 trillion deficit would seem to speak to the contrary.

The Supreme Court really needs to fast track this.

Via: Memeorandum
Via: The Note
Via: Ben Smith Politico

Florida says "thanks, but no thanks" to ObamaCare cash

Florida seems to be taking full advantage of Justice Vinson's recent ruling that ObamaCare is unconstitutional.  


Today Florida turned back $1 million in ObamaCare cash.

Politico: No thanks. That’s what the state of Florida is saying to the Obama administration, declining a $1 million grant to implement the health law.

The move follows this week’s federal court decision declaring the law unconstitutional.

In a letter sent Tuesday and obtained by POLITICO, Florida Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty informed the Department of Health & Human Services that the state no longer wanted a $1 million grant that they had applied for last year.

“The purpose of this letter is to inform you that after deliberate consideration, I hereby rescind acceptance of the above-referenced $1 million rate review grant, which occurred in a letter to you dated September 15, 2010,” McCarty wrote.

As the state tries to deal with Monday’s explosive court decision, its Democratic senator is arguing for some certainty sooner rather than later. Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida is introducing a resolution asking the Supreme Court to quickly take up the health care reform lawsuits.

“Isn’t it in our interest, isn’t in the common sense interest, if we were to come here and join in a resolution to petition the Supreme Court to have an expedited review of this case,” Nelson said on the Senate floor Wednesday. [MORE]

I think more states should take these kinds of actions in light of the recent ruling. These sort of actions will create a certain amount of chaos that will force the Supreme Court to rule on ObamaCare sooner rather than later.

Via: Memeoranudm

Via: Politico

Strike Two: Florida judge rules ObamaCare unconstitutional

Today Justice Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court in Pensacola ruled that the individual mandate clause of ObamaCare is unconstitutional. Furthermore, Justice Vinson notes that since the mandates are so integral to ObamaCare, the entire 2,700 page nightmare is unconstitutional.


You can read Justice Vinson's entire ruling below (h/t: Michelle Malkin)

Vinson Ruling

For an extra nice touch, Justice Vinson uses Obama's own words against him.

The Washington Times:In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal JudgeRoger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, when the then-Illinois senator argued there were other ways to achieve reform short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday.[...]

The footnote was attached to the most critical part of Judge Vinson‘s ruling, in which he said the “principal dispute” in the case was not whether Congress has the power to tackle health care, but rather whether it has the power to compel individual citizens to purchase insurance.

Judge Vinson cited Mr. Obama‘s campaign words from an interview with CNN to show that there are other options that could pass constitutional muster including then-candidate Obama‘s plan.

The only thing Justice Vinson did not deliver on was an injunction stopping the immediate implementation of ObamaCare.

The New York Times: [...]The judge declined to immediately enjoin, or suspend, the law pending appeals, a process that could last two years. But he wrote that the federal government should adhere to his declaratory judgment as the functional equivalent of an injunction. That left confusion about how the ruling might be interpreted in the 26 states that are parties to the legal challenge.

The insurance mandate does not take effect until 2014. But many new regulations are already operating, like requirements that insurers cover children with pre-existing health conditions and eliminate lifetime caps on benefits. States are also preparing for a major expansion of Medicaideligibility and the introduction of health insurance 

Even though this ruling doesn't stop ObamaCare in its tracks, the left isn't happy.  On Memeorandum, you can hear them screaming "judicial activism".  The White House even had the gall to call this ruling an overreach!  That is comical seeing how the Democrats overreached all over the place to pass ObamaCare!

What this ruling does is to help advance the battle to repeal ObamaCare to the Supreme Court.  There if all goes well, ObamaCare will meet its demise.  Fingers crossed!

Via: Memeorandum

Via: The Washington Times

Via: The New York Times

Yes Nancy, we are quite serious! VA judge rules ObamaCare’s individual mandate unconstitutional

Do you remember when Nancy Pelosi got on her high horse when asked about the constitutionality of the individual mandate?

I guess Nancy is taking things a little more seriously now.

The New York Times: A federal judge in Virginia ruled on Monday that the keystone provision in the Obama health care law is unconstitutional, becoming the first judge to invalidate any part of the sprawling act and ensuring that appellate courts will receive contradictory opinions from below.

The judge, Henry E. Hudson of Federal District Court in Richmond, said the law’s requirement that most Americans obtain insurance exceeded the regulatory authority granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause.[…]

 In a 42-page opinion, Judge Hudson wrote: “Neither theSupreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market.”

Allowing Congress to exert such authority, he said, “would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers.”

Ah, and there in lies the heart of the matter.  If government can force you to buy health insurance, then what other products can they force you to buy.  Electric cars?  Fresh fruit and vegetables?  

From the comments at the NY Times, it seems that many are convinced that the Feds already have this power because they make you buy auto insurance.  This is erroneous, because one can easily opt out of buying auto insurance by simply choosing not to drive.  There is no way to opt out of choosing to buy health insurance.  It is this clear lack of choice that puts ObamaCare on unconstitutional grounds.

In an editorial over at the Wall Street Journal, the Journal notes that some liberals are saying that mandate or no mandate, ObamaCare will stay:

The Wall Street Journal: Yesterday liberals were crowing that even if the mandate is eventually declared illegal, it's no big deal because the rest of ObamaCare's new system would remain intact. Yet they've argued for years that the mandate is essential to health reform, because the mandate is at the heart of the regulatory machine. ObamaCare without a mandate would mean individuals wouldn't have to pay into a system until they were sick, driving up costs even faster and ruining what's left of health insurance markets.

And destroying the health insurance market was the real goal of ObamaCare from the get go.

Now comes the big push to get the Supreme Court to hear this case. There was a time where the outcome could have been pretty much guaranteed.  Now a day with so many judges doing their own thing, it is hard to say with absolute certainty whether or not the individual mandate will stand.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: The New York Times

Via: The Wall Street Journal

Video h/t: Michelle Malkin

ObamaCare strikes again? McDonalds may drop health plan

Those of us who fought against ObamaCare knew stuff like this was coming down the pike.  The Wall Street Journal has a story up saying McDonalds may have to dump the health plan for its 30,000 hourly employees because of cost.

WSJ: Trade groups representing restaurants and retailers say low-wage employers might halt their coverage if the government doesn’t loosen a requirement for “mini-med” plans, which offer limited benefits to some 1.4 million Americans.

The requirement concerns the percentage of premiums that must be spent on benefits.

While many restaurants don’t offer health coverage, McDonald’s provides mini-med plans for workers at 10,500 U.S. locations, most of them franchised. A single worker can pay $14 a week for a plan that caps annual benefits at $2,000, or about $32 a week to get coverage up to $10,000 a year.

Last week, a senior McDonald’s official informed the Department of Health and Human Services that the restaurant chain’s insurer won’t meet a 2011 requirement to spend at least 80% to 85% of its premium revenue on medical care.

Everybody is now coming out saying that the Wall Street Journal story is not true (well sort of). What McDonald’s and Health and Human Services aren’t denying is that they are talking about the effects (i.e. waivers) of ObamaCare.

h/t: The Right Scoop

Right now, no one wants to admit the ill effects of ObamaCare, however reality will sooner or later make this a moot point.  The government simply cannot set one size fits all rules for something as expensive as health care and expect that everyone can easily comply.  To make matters worse,  ObamaCare’s low penalty makes dumping employee’s health coverage for more cost effective than supplying coverage.

 For more info on this story check out the Weekly Standard and then follow the discussion on Memeorandum.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: The Wall Street Journal

Via: The Right Scoop

Via: The Weekly Standard

Missouri rejects ObamaCare mandates by over 70%

The New York Times: Missouri voters on Tuesday easily approved a measure aimed at nullifying the new federal health care law, becoming the first state in the nation where ordinary people made known their dismay over the issue at the ballot box. 

The measure was intended to invalidate a crucial element of President Obama’s health care law — namely, that most people be required to get health insurance or pay a tax penalty. Supporters of the measure said it would send a firm signal to Washington about how this state, often a bellwether in presidential elections, felt about such a law. 

Granted this is referendum will not stand up in court, however what it does do is send a clear and undeniable message that Washington has crossed the line.  Some on the left maybe tempted to say that these numbers merely represent Republicans coming out in mass for a Republican primary. Well, left wing blog No More Mister Nice Blog dispels that notion. 

That's from The New York Times, which arrives at an odd conclusion about the results:

In the end, though, the referendum seemed not to capture the general population's attention. Instead, Republican primary voters (who had the most competitive races on Tuesday) appeared to play a crucial role in the vote's fate. 

Really? I'm looking at election results here and I can't help noticing that there were more "Yes" voters -- voters rejecting the health care mandate -- than there were voters for all the candidates in the top-of-the-ballot GOP race, the primary for a candidate to succeed Kit Bond in the U.S. Senate.

The referendum vote was:

Yes: 667,680

No: 271,102

The total number of votes cast for the nine candidates in the Republican Senate primary (which Roy Blunt easily won) was 577,612 -- 90,000 votes fewer than were cast against health care reform. Which suggests that anti-HCR voters were more motivated to vote in the referendum than to vote in the primary, that virtually all Republicans voted with the anti-HCR majority, and quite possibly that a fair number of Democratic primary voters joined them.

The referendum gathered 90,000 more votes than the combined votes of the 9 Republicans running in the primary. Now that is better bipartisan support than you find in Washington today.

I noticed a few polls last week that were trying to show that support for ObamaCare was growing. If Missouri is any indication of how the actual voting public feels about ObamaCare, then I say those polls are pretty much meaningless. If Republicans are smart they should make repeal of ObamaCare the cornerstone of their 2010 and 2012 elections. Clearly, repeal will resonate with the folks who actually turn out at the polls.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: The New York Times

Via: No More Mister Nice Blog

Via: Hot Air

You want to keep your current health care plan? Good luck with that!

How many times during the health care debate did we hear Obama say if you like your current health care plan, you will be able to keep it?  Well, like so many things in ObamaCare now that it has passed, turns out to be a big fat lie. 

Investors Business Daily: Internal administration documents reveal that up to 51% of employers may have to relinquish their current health care coverage because of ObamaCare.

Small firms will be even likelier to lose existing plans.

The "midrange estimate is that 66% of small employer plans and 45% of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfathered status by the end of 2013," according to the document.

In the worst-case scenario, 69% of employers — 80% of smaller firms — would lose that status, exposing them to far more provisions under the new health law.

The 83-page document, a joint project of the departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and the IRS, examines the effects that ObamaCare's regulations would have on existing, or "grandfathered," employer-based health care plans. [MORE]

Anyone who took the time to actually check what was in ObamaCare knew that the chances of keeping your current plan were slim to none. ObamaCare was not designed to fix the problems of our current healthcare system; instead ObamaCare was designed to bring about its demise. The whole goal of ObamaCare is to leave the single payer health care system as the only viable option once ObamaCare is done wrecking havoc on the current system.

Here is the link to the 83-page document. Check out page 36, it will show you how “grandfathered” plans will react to ObamaCare.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: Investors Business Daily

Missouri to hold statewide referendum on Obamacare

As some 18 states prepare to go to court over the individual mandates in ObamaCare, Missouri is trying a different approach. 

Washington Times: The Missouri General Assembly yesterday decided to try a slightly different approach, giving final approval to a first-of-its-kind statewide referendum on Obamacare. That means voters will take to the ballot box and decide whether to nullify any law that would "compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer or health care provider to participate in any health care system."

Missouri state Sen. Jane Cunningham, the Health Care Freedom Act's primary sponsor, credited the Tea Party movement for pushing the issue through the state Senate 26-8 and the state House 108-47. "We've got a very active grass-roots patriot uprising in Missouri, and they've been very active in passing this," Mrs. Cunningham told The Washington Times. "My guess is that turnout will be pretty heavy because there is so much angst over what is coming down from over there in Washington."

Show Me State Democrats feared the impact of energizing Republican turnout when close congressional races are on the line. Theyused their filibuster power in the state Senate to ensure the referendum vote would take place in August during the primary and not the November general election. About 2.9 million voters took part in the last general election but only 755,000 in the last primary. Placing health care on the ballot is likely to draw enthusiastic participation from voters excited for the chance to make their voices heard in a meaningful way.

This voice needs to be heard. By fining people who fail to purchase a health insurance coverage package deemed acceptable to federal authorities, Obamacare oversteps the limits on federal powers set by the Constitution. It is a testament to the health of our democracy that so many states are fighting back - even more so now that the public will have the chance to take part in the effort. Opinion surveys based on a few hundred people are one thing, but perhaps the message will get through when nearly a million people pass their judgment on the federal plan. Can Obamacare survive a vote? Not a chance.

To say I like this idea is an understatement. The result will allow for no wiggle room to lie and say people want that hunk of junk ObamaCare. The direct voice of the people will be heard, despite Missouri Democrat’s trickery.

If you know anyone in Missouri, make sure to pass this on.

Via: The Washington Times 

CBO revises the cost of ObamaCare … $115 billion upwards

Just a little more proof that the Democrats snookered us on ObamaCare. 

Politico: Congressional Budget Office estimates released Tuesday predict the health care overhaul will likely cost about $115 billion more in discretionary spending over ten years than the original cost projections.

The additional spending — if approved over the years by Congress — would bring the total estimated cost of the overhaul to over $1 trillion. […]

The Congressional Budget Office expects the federal agencies to spend $10 billion to $20 billion over 10 years on administrative costs to implement the overhaul. The CBO expects Congress to spend an additional $105 billion over 10 years to fund discretionary programs in the overhaul.

The CBO released the estimates in response to a request from California Rep. Jerry Lewis, ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee. A spokeswoman for Lewis said the inquiry was filed before the House voted on the bill.

“[L]arge sums of discretionary spending in both the House and Senate versions of the health care reform bills have not yet been included in estimates by the CBO, rendering it impossible to make informed decisions regarding the outcome of this legislation,” Lewis wrote in a February letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, asking her to postpone votes until the discretionary spending analysis was complete.The CBO estimated in March that the gross cost of the overhaul would be $940 billion over 10 years. The net cost was estimated at $788 billion over 10 years. But the group cautioned that it couldn’t make an estimate of the discretionary costs without more time and information.

The CBO estimated in March that the gross cost of the overhaul would be $940 billion over 10 years. The net cost was estimated at $788 billion over 10 years. But the group cautioned that it couldn’t make an estimate of the discretionary costs without more time and information.

Think back to the big rush job with having to passing ObamaCare on a Sunday. Considering that ObamaCare doesn’t really kick in until 2014, why couldn’t we have waited for these figures? The reason is that the Dems knew over time, the real cost of ObamaCare would have been revealed by the CBO and Medicare’s actuaries. The whole rush, rush, rush crap was just so the Dems could get away with their lies. 

I wonder if in addition to suing over the individual mandate, we could sue for false representation?

Via: Memeorandum

Via: Politico

Video: Peter Orszag explains how ObamaCare will ration healthcare

Remember how the left completely freaked out over Sarah Palin’s Death Panel remark? They insisted that under ObamaCare bureaucrats would not be making decisions about your health and that there would be no rationing. Well, just like the price tag of ObamaCare, the left lied.

Watch the video below and listen to how Obama’s Director of Office Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, explains how the Independent Payment and Advisory Board (IPAB) will move our health care system from one of quantity to “quality” by aggressively putting forward proposals that will hit economic targets.  Also pay close attention to how Orszag describes the high threshold for overriding the IPAB.

So let’s recap, we have un-elected bureaucrats that can enact immediate proposals to our health care system based on bending the cost curve downwards, regardless to our individual health care needs. Furthermore, a super majority in Congress is needed to override these proposals. Too bad our neutered media did not bring this to our attention before the bill was passed.

Hot Air has more information on the IPAB.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: Sarah Palin’s Facebook Page

Via: Hot Air

Well what do you know ObamaCare doesn’t work as advertised

If it weren’t for the fact that so many people are going to be hurt by these findings, this would be a moment to gloat. 

Associated Press: [...] Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report issued Thursday that the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million to the coverage rolls.

But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.[…]

In particular, concerns about Medicare could become a major political liability in the midterm elections. The report projected that Medicare cuts could drive about 15 percent of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red, "possibly jeopardizing access" to care for seniors.[…]

The report acknowledged that some of the cost-control measures in the bill — Medicare cuts, a tax on high-cost insurance and a commission to seek ongoing Medicare savings — could help reduce the rate of cost increases beyond 2020. But it held out little hope for progress in the first decade.

"During 2010-2019, however, these effects would be outweighed by the increased costs associated with the expansions of health insurance coverage," wrote Richard S. Foster, Medicare's chief actuary. "Also, the longer-term viability of the Medicare ... reductions is doubtful." Foster's office is responsible for long-range costs estimates.[…]

In addition to flagging provider cuts as potentially unsustainable, the report projected that reductions in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans would trigger an exodus from the popular alternative. Enrollment would plummet by about 50 percent. Seniors leaving the private plans would still have health insurance under traditional Medicare, but many might face higher out-of-pocket costs.

In another flashing yellow light, the report warned that a new voluntary long-term care insurance program created under the law faces "a very serious risk" of insolvency. 

Everyone on the right was warning about these things. We all saw the bogus assumptions the Democrats handed to the CBO to get back the figures they wanted. Now that ObamaCare is law, the phony assumptions are replaced with reality and the picture isn’t pretty.

I suspect thing will be even worse. The way ObamaCare is written, I think less people will end up being insured than before. If your choice is to pay a couple hundred-dollar fine versus buying an insurance policy well over a grand, you will take the fee. Add to the fact that you can always buy insurance at the last possible second now that insurance companies cannot deny you and you have a recipe for more uninsured. 

On the bright side, as more and more nasty details of ObamaCare come to light before 2012, the better the chance we have of repealing and replacing it.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: Associated Press

New York Times finally sees flaws in ObamaCare

Here is another example why the New York Times is only suitable for fish wrap. The Times is just now figuring out that even with subsidies, some people still will not be able to afford to buy health insurance under ObamaCare.

New York Times: William Mann of Pittsburgh earns just enough to get by. He is 46, doesn’t own a car, hasn’t taken a vacation in three years and hasn’t had health insurance for most of his adult life.

But Mr. Mann says he still can’t afford it. He lives too close to the edge, and won’t be buying insurance, even though he will face a fine under a provision called the individual mandate, which penalizes most Americans who don’t buy coverage starting in 2014. The requirement is one of the most controversial aspects of the overhaul.

“I just can’t put that kind of money out for a ‘maybe’ — maybe I’ll get sick and use it,” said Mr. Mann, who makes just over $25,000 a year as an administrative assistant at a small wine distribution company. “That’s a lot of money.”

“The people who make all these decisions don’t live like the way I do,” Mr. Mann added, echoing other uninsured people in his income group. “They don’t live like the rest of us.”

Any American who is living paycheck to paycheck is going to have the same problem. This should have been terribly obvious to everyone inside the beltway. There are many people who simply have no extra money to buy something as expensive as health insurance, no matter how much you subsidize it.

Many people on tight budgets will have no choice but to pay the fine rather than buy the insurance. The IRS is already planning to take the penalty out of tax refunds for anyone who does not have proof of health insurance. People like Mann will then end up with no health insurance and no refund. Now how is this any better than what we had before?

Repeal ObamaCare!

Via: Memeorandum

Via: The New York Times