Obamacare Insurance Workaround Reveals Law that Remains Unfinished, Unaccountable, and Unworkable

The latest tweak reveals how much of the health law's basic architecture is still incomplete.

Whitehouse.govWhitehouse.govIn October, when it became clear that Obamacare's online enrollment system wasn't functioning, President Obama gave a speech in which he told people who wanted to sign up to contact call centers instead, or fill out pen and paper applications.

This week, the administration announced that it would be employing another manual workaround, this time for critical insurer payment systems. In this case, it's not because the payment system is broken. Instead, it’s because the part of the system that is supposed to both calculate how much money the government owes insurers in premium subsidy and cost-sharing payments and make the appropriate payments simply hasn't been built yet.

What hasn't been built can’t be used, but insurers need to be paid in order for the system to function. So the administration has decided to require insurers to estimate how much they are owed and submit payment requests manually. Later, after the systems are built, the plan is to sort out the details and figure out the exact amounts that should have been billed, then reconcile any differences.

Because it deals with the insurance industry side of the system, this temporary, technical tweak will probably garner far less attention than the ongoing problems with the consumer side of the federal exchange system. But the on-the-fly patch offers a revealing moment for the law all the same, one that highlights how unfinished, unaccountable, and unworkable the health law continues to be.

On the most basic level, the newly proposed patch suggests how much work remains on simply constructing the essential technical infrastructure necessary to make Obamacare's exchange-based insurance scheme work. Some 30 to 40 percent of the functionality remains incomplete, according to Henry Chao, the Medicare technology official who oversaw the development of the exchanges. And the features that remain to be built are vital to the system’s functionality.

The core service that health insurers provide is paying for eligible claims by beneficiaries. But if insurers don't get paid themselves, they can’t cut checks for those claims. Some of the larger insurers could finance delays, at least for a little while, but as former Medicare official Kevin Lucia tells Reuters, smaller insurance plans, which are heavily represented in the health law’s exchanges, aren't well equipped to do so. Plan providers need that money, and they need it soon if they're going to be able to actually provide insurance to their plan members.

The fact that these critical systems haven't been built—months after the launch of the exchanges and with just weeks to go until insurers need to start being paid—makes it clear that the implementation effort still lags far behind. And if the rollout of portions that remain incomplete resembles the rollout so far, that means there are lots of new problems still to come.

But it’s not just that there’s a lot of work still to do. The insurer payment workaround also highlights how much of Obamacare's buggy implementation is still being managed on a temporary, ad hoc basis. The administration is flying a broken vessel without a flight plan. 

Significant delays started early this year, when the administration decided to hold off on implementing the single most critical part of the small-business exchange system. Then, in mid-summer, reporting requirements for employers, along with the employer mandate and income verification requirements, were delayed too. Since the launch of the law, we've seen further delays in the Spanish language website, Medicaid data transfer systems that are necessary to facilitate coverage, and the federal small-business exchange, which has now been completely delayed by a year. Last month, the White House proposed an administrative tweak in response to public anger over a wave of plan cancellations, one that, if it has a significant effect, could further undermine the health law's enrollment scheme. 

The legal authority to implement many of these changes is dubious, but the administration seems more concerned with charging ahead than with accounting for legal niceties. As with the insurer payment tweak, if need be, they'll sort it all out later. 

These aren’t the signs of an administration that is prepared to effectively handle the rollout of the largest and most complicated domestic policy in a generation; quite the opposite. They’re the signs of an administration that is struggling keep its signature initiative afloat, somehow. They’re just making it as they go along, and hoping that eventually it all works out. 

Will this latest workaround buy the administration some time? Perhaps. Insurers seem to prefer it to the alternative of not getting paid. But buying time is about all it will do.

It's also worth remembering what happened the last time Obama pointed people frustrated with the online system toward a manual alternative: It turned out that the call centers and the pen-and-paper enrollments he said could help move people through the enrollment process were dependent on the same broken web system that was causing all the problems in the first. It was a workaround that didn't work. Ultimately, what the long list of tweaks, delays, and temporary patches to the law suggest is that, as passed, written, and envisioned by its Democratic authors, the law itself doesn’t work either.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    What hasn't been built can’t be used, but insurers need to be paid in order for the system to function.

    Are you sure that's right? These guys express on a regular basis how evil insurance companies are. Why would they want to pay them for services they were ordered to provide?

  • thom||

    Exactly. The insurance companies are absolutely swimming in profit. I think they can afford to provide a few extra services without taking the US taxpayer for a ride.

  • JWatts||

    At the very least the government should slow pay. Wait at least 90-120 days to send a check after receiving the bill. It's not like the health insurers can force the government to pay or charge a late fee or cut them off.

    Of course a 90-120 payment delay is probably the standard Federal SOP, so no one should be surprised. I wonder if a lot of these mid-sized health insurers can get financing to cover the time lag. And if they do, won't they be forced to eat the cost, because they are limited to 15% overhead costs now. In a normal commercial environment, every 30 days is anywhere from 0.5% to 1.5% in added costs. So I could see the delayed processing costing the health insurers 2% off the top. Which is their entire profit.

  • DGPFL||

    According to my company's finance department, slow paying service providers is just good business practice ... irregardless of the payment terms in our purchase order contracts.

  • Adam330||

    Actually the government is usually a pretty fast payer (30 days). And for many types of invoices, they do have to pay interest when they are late.

  • Swiss Servator, referendiffic!||

    It sure isn't in IL government...you are lucky if you get paid only 1 year past due. If at all.

  • Adam330||

    I was talking federal.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Then things must have changed a lot. I remember when you could hardly find anyplace that took the government fuel card, because they were so slow if they even got around to paying.

  • rpm||

    Back in the day, our receivables manger was a retired Special Forces Sgt. The Federal Gov't was generally on credit hold.

    Yes, they pay in 30 days after all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed--and only they know what all those are. We basically gave up. Put them on COD.

    It was hilarious to hear the clerk on the other end splutter "....But we are the federal gov't!". Sgt ABC would say: "I don't care who you are, if you don't pay on time, we don't ship."

  • John||

    I try not to think of the real world harm and misery this is causing. There is nothing I can do about it and thinking about it just makes me angry. If you put that out of your mind, watching these morons who have never achieved or accomplished anything beyond getting people believe their bullshit finally have to deal with reality is quite enjoyable.

    I have absolute confidence that Obamacare is only going to get worse and more mismanaged. These people are morons. Anything they do will only make it worse.

  • Drake||

    Yep - It is fun to watch if I don't think what is happening to small businesses and contractors.

  • wwhorton||

    Think of it as political and economic chemotherapy: the process is painful, unpleasant, and causes a great deal of collateral damage, but it's the only chance of getting rid of the cancerous cells.

  • LynchPin1477||

    All insurance companies will have to do is "estimate" a little on the high side, consistently, and they will effectively get an interest free loan at the taxpayers' expense. Which I'm sure is exactly what all the corporation-hating progressives had in mind when they fell for this POS law.

  • John||

    When you look at how few healthy people are signing up, they are going to need that loan.

  • Sevo||

    LynchPin1477|12.5.13 @ 10:17AM|#
    "All insurance companies will have to do is "estimate" a little on the high side, consistently, and they will effectively get an interest free loan at the taxpayers' expense."

    Given the way O'care has fucked their pool demos, I'm not sure it's possible to estimate "a little" one way or the other.
    The Ins. Cos. are in a position where doubling the current number may be the closest they'll get.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    How are they going to estimate on the high side when their fee schedule has been dictated to them already?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It's almost as though when their lobbyists were crafting this law in secret and they were hurriedly ramming it through Congress without reading it that lawmakers didn't put much thought or planning into it beyond simple passage.

  • R C Dean||

    Sorry, but a paper substitute for an electronic system, with reconciliation to happen at some indefinite point in the future, is not a "temporary, technical workaround", Peter.

    If Reason's website crashed and wasn't going to be back for several months, minimum, would you consider mailing a copy of the magazine to be a temporary, technical workaround?

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    We'll have to send in our nasty comments using Morse Code, or the Twilight Bark.

  • Pro Libertate||

    The disaster this truly is seems to be escaping many. There are a lot of people who are either not going to have healthcare who did or--and this goes for many of us--will be paying much more for less coverage. My premiums have gone up and my deductibles have doubled. And I have nothing to do with ACA except for my role as an involuntary funder of it.

  • John||

    See my comment below about the cancer patient. The program was designed to take from people like you and the woman in that article. This is what redistribution is. For 70 years progs have hidden what redistribution really means. They have always managed to convince voters it was about taking from someone else. Finally, the country is getting to see what it means first hand. I don't think they are going to like it very much.

  • JWatts||

    They have always managed to convince voters it was about taking from someone else.

    No, that's not really true. FDR progressives made sure that Social Security and Medicare were both broadly supported (all workers were taxed), reasonably affordable (a small tax for the average person) and a potential benefit for all (everyone likes to think they'll get old enough to qualify).

    I suspect that Obamacare could have been successful if properly implemented.

    IE.
    * A mandate for catastrophic coverage for all American's. (15K individual/30K family threshold per year, 150K/300K lifetime max.)
    * Increasing the size of Federally subsidized high risk pools, to address the worst 2-3%.
    * Remove the business deduction for all health care plans (thus treating health care exactly the same as other forms of compensation).
    * Tort reform with low limits on max damages for non-negligence cases.
    * Cross-state health insurance policies legalized.
    * Requirements for providers to post their costs.
    * Requirements for providers to accept cash payments at no more than 20% higher than their lowest reimbursed rate. (In many cases, a cash paying customer, that's not part of a negotiated rate, is screwed by the current system.)

  • John||

    But Obamacare includes none of that. What you are telling me is that Obamacare could be successful if it were a different policy.

    As far as SS medicare. First medicare was Johnson not FDR. But those were not class redistribution. They were generational redistribution. Those programs mostly benefit the middle class. to the extent they redistribute income, they take it from the young and give it to the old. That has been popular for two reasons. First, everyone plans to some day get old, so they think they will benefit from the program. Second, most people have living parents. Those programs relived people of the responsibility of providing for their parents in their old age.

    Those two programs are in no way analogous to Obamacare. I cannot for the life of me understand why so many people on the Right, who should know better, keep saying they do.

  • JWatts||

    But Obamacare includes none of that. What you are telling me is that Obamacare could be successful if it were a different policy.

    Well yeah. The law, as written, is problematic and probably unworkable.

    Those two programs are in no way analogous to Obamacare. I cannot for the life of me understand why so many people on the Right, who should know better, keep saying they do.

    John, my point is that Obamacare could have been analogous to SS/Medicare. Something everybody pays into to fund the 2-3% in the high risk category that will never be able to provide for their medical expenses.

    Furthermore, a requirement to have catastrophic coverage would have been a genuine public good. It would prevent other tax payers from having to pick up the tab and it would have significantly reduced medical bankruptcies.

    This would have lowered the tax burden and reduced the role of government. Or at least reduced the costs to the taxpayers.

  • John||

    For sure it could have been. But that was not what Obama wanted. Obama wanted straight up redistribution from the middle class to the poor. And that is what he got.

  • GILMORE||

    "John, my point is that Obamacare could have been analogous to SS/Medicare."

    The tornado blowing your house down could have been analogous to a refreshing summer breeze that ruffles your hair and smells of the barbecue down the street. But its not.

    Why is it people discussing this law seem to invariably resort to NOT DISCUSSING THE LAW and instead talking about =

    1) how awful things were BEFORE the ACA (while ignoring the things that are now worse)

    2) how the ACA "could have/should have worked"
    (while ignoring that the law in place is EXACTLY what the Dems wanted)

    3) how, well, the GOP "proposed nothing!"
    (A sort of memory-hole denialism where reduction of regulations of insurance across state lines, allowing for employer subsidized HSAs, increasing the service pool by reducing liability costs for providers, etc.... NEVER HAPPENED! Nope. Those were "unrealistic" or something. Because they wouldn't discuss them! ERGO, not discussed? NEVER HAPPENED)

    Its the band on the titanic playing an encore. At what point after Jan 1, when there are millions "newly uninsured" due to the ACA, are the Obamabots going to finally realize how fucking retarded they are, and its not all just 'obstructionists' causing the failure of their utopia?

  • Loki||

    Obamacare could be successful if it were a different policy.

    Ding, Ding Ding! Winner!

  • Bryan C||

    FDR progressives made sure that's how Social Security and Medicare were sold. That had nothing at all to do with how they actually work, or don't work.

    The only real difference is that Obamacare's much more aggressive incompetence has given us disaster cycles that are near-real-time, rather than generations long. I think that's what'll save us, too.

  • Response||

    High risk pools were never efficient and not always immediately available. For example, in California, the state based high risk pool required that the resident be off any and all health insurance for at least 6 months before they could join. Here's an alternative - simply remove the regulation that requires all insured to pay the exact same price. Currently insurers can change the price only for location and age. But cannot charge more for preexisting conditions - so instead they decline the person asking for insurance. Another brilliant move by the regulators to screw things up.

  • rpm||

    The highest form of vote buying via taxation is to take a little from many to give a lot to a few. The many either don't notice, or it isn't worth fighting over. The few--well you own them.

    SS was exactly this situation in FDR's day. Political genius, even FDR recognized that it was economic fraud.

    Obama care require taking a LOT from the many to provide a little (after all the public and private bureaucracies get paid for) to many.

    Entirely different situation.

  • Rhywun||

    Sorry, but a paper substitute for an electronic system, with reconciliation to happen at some indefinite point in the future, is not a "temporary, technical workaround", Peter.

    In my experience, "temporary" workarounds tend to become permanent. My prediction is that the missing parts of the site will never be built.

  • John||

    http://www.realclearpolitics.c.....20855.html

    Meet Chico, Calif., attorney Kenneth Turner. His wife found out that she has breast cancer two days before they received their cancellation notice. She's scheduled for surgery Dec. 20 and will hear the prognosis Dec. 30. Two days later, she loses the doctor who will have operated on her, as well as other doctors she has seen for decades…

    Blue Shield is restricting access to close to half of its doctors and a quarter of its hospitals in the individual market -- and Blue Shield spokesman Steve Shivinsky told The Orange County Register these providers "had to agree to cut their rates" to get into the network.

    In Southern California, the Los Angeles Times reported, Health Net individual policyholders will have access to less than a third of the doctors on employer plans.

    Peter Lee, executive director of Covered California, told the San Francisco Chronicle that all but three of the 12 state exchange providers limit doctors and hospitals.

    But remember Obama cares about you. This law is so bad and there are and are going to be so many horror stories that even the media won't be able to lie enough to save Obama's sorry ass. There are going to be so many horror stories every one will know about one personally.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Yes, Obama cares about you much more than Blue Shield. They refuse to go under falling into line with the central plan.

  • John||

    Actually, Blue Shield is falling into line. The whole point of Obamacare is to take from the people who had good health care and give it to the people that Obama thought didn't. The redistribution is happening in two ways, higher premiums and restricted benefits.

    Finally, we have a policy that removes the mask and shows the country what prog redistribution really means. It means telling middle class cancer patients to go fuck themselves and get in line with everyone else.

  • JWatts||

    The redistribution is happening in two ways, higher premiums and restricted benefits.

    No, it's at least three ways. You forgot smaller reimbursements.

    It seems as if the Obamacare policies reimbursement rates are far below normal insurance rates and even below Medicare reimbursement rates. They are at the level of Medicaid rates. Which most Doctors rightly consider a form of charity. We are about to find out how "charitable" our existing health care workers are.

  • John||

    Very few doctors accept medicaide. Obamcare is taking millions of people who before had good health insurance and health care and reducing them to the same health care as paupers. It is a national crime. It is easily the worst crime committed by this government on the American people in my lifetime.

  • JWatts||

    "Very few doctors accept medicaide"

    John, you are misinformed about that.

    Slightly more than half of physicians (53%) reported their practices were accepting all or most new Medicaid patients; 28 percent reported accepting no new Medicaid patients.

    http://www.hschange.com/CONTENT/1078/

    So roughly, 80% of doctors currently have at least some Medicaid patients, and I doubt that number will go down too much.

    On the other hand, I bet that the number willing to accept new Obamacare patients will be much lower, assuming the current reimbursement rates remain as low as they are.

  • John||

    So their health care will be worse than paupers.

  • JWatts||

    Assuming that a pauper would be on Medicaid, yes, that's about right.

  • Lord Humungus||

    related:

    A poll released Wednesday by Harvard University’s Institute of Politics found that more than half of 18- to 29-year-olds disapprove of ObamaCare and believe it will raise their healthcare costs.

    Even more troubling for the administration is that less than one-third of uninsured young people said they plan to enroll in coverage.

    Without a large number of young, healthy people in the insurance exchanges, it could create a “death spiral” of high premiums that could threaten the long-term viability of the marketplaces.

    The White House appears to recognize the growing threat, and is making outreach to younger people a major focus of its ObamaCare relaunch.


    http://thehill.com/blogs/healt.....enrollment

  • Lord Humungus||

    Huh - it's almost like we - the Reason writers and the (sane) commentators - had second sight.

  • John||

    And women too.

    It's not the voters who hate Obamacare the most who are going to matter in next year's elections. It's the independents who frequently side with Democrats but could, if propelled by a distaste for the health care law, take a serious look at the GOP in 2014. And on this front, Democrats have a big problem with one of their most crucial constituencies — white women.

    Polling provided to National Journal by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that white women have soured considerably on the law, especially in the month since its botched rollout. The skepticism runs especially deep among blue-collar women, sometimes known as "waitress moms," whose deeply pessimistic attitudes toward the Affordable Care Act should riddle Democratic candidates with anxiety.

    http://www.nationaljournal.com.....x-20131205

    Women go to the doctor more than men. Women also tend to have a more personal relationship with their doctor than men. So losing their insurance and or their doctor affects women more than men. Obamacare really is a war on women.

  • Loki||

    The skepticism runs especially deep among blue-collar women, sometimes known as "waitress moms," whose deeply pessimistic attitudes toward the Affordable Care Act should riddle Democratic candidates with anxiety.

    Not to worry, they'll still end up pulling the lever for whoever has a D after their name. Because abortionz!!!!11!

  • rpm||

    Exactly.

  • Raston Bot||

    And thank Buddha for that personal relationship phenomenon because just a premium increase is not enough to bring down the white woman hammer. My family's on my plan so when the premium goes up, me buying less beer does not drive the impact home to anyone other than me.

  • gimmeasammich||

    You don't think that you buying less beer doesn't mean your wife and kids will now have to go to the hospital less for "falling down a flight of stairs?"

  • Sevo||

    Oh, and happy face!
    "Poll: 66% of uninsured plan to get health coverage"
    Yep, 66% of the people they asked said, 'uh, yeah, sure.'
    http://www.sfgate.com/health/a.....036554.php

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    "It's free, right?"

  • John||

    That is some classic mendacity. "Plan to get" is not the same as "has". And even if it did, that just means they are buying it because they are forced to. It is not like they couldn't buy it before Obamacare. Forcing people to buy over priced insurance they don't want is a real success.

  • Adam330||

    Just wait until they see the prices and realize it isn't free. The only surprising thing about that poll is at 33% said no without even looking at the prices first.

  • John||

    The sense of entitlement among poor people is staggering. The dumb ass gentry liberals who wrote this thing have no clue what poor people are actually like. The creators of this bill honestly think poor people are going to be grateful for getting health insurance. Instead, they are going to be angry and feel betrayed because the insurance isn't free.

  • wwhorton||

    That's a bit of a broad stroke, there. Poor people aren't a monolithic group any more than any other demographic you care to slice from the pie. Sure, you can find vocal groups who are poor and who feel a deep sense of entitlement while lacking any sense of personal responsibility, but you can also find groups in the middle classes who feel similar senses of entitlement, just in different arenas.

    I think, like any other entitlement program, there will be people who will get insurance they wouldn't normally have and feel grateful. Because I'm a cynic, I think there will be a bunch of people who will be furious that they have to pay anything, as you say, and there will be some who will just be excited that there may be a new way to scam the entitlement system, but I don't think that the poor will riot in the streets en masse because there will be a premium required.

  • Sevo||

    John|12.5.13 @ 10:40AM|#
    "That is some classic mendacity"
    Exactly.
    This is happy-face bullshit. I presume if it wasn't driven by the lying POS in the WH, it was some CA suck-up trying to gain points with that turd.

  • Spoonman.||

    Only 66% even plan to? That's disastrous.

  • AB1979||

    And the 66% who said yes are older, sicker and poorer than those who said no.

    It's almost like people estimate their expected return and then act accordingly. Weird.

  • OneOut||

    Insurance companies have proposed that in the event of these estimated payments that when the underestimate the amounts due them the government will make up the difference. In the even that the insurance companies overestimate the amounts that they were to be allowed to keep the amounts due the government.

    How many insurance companies will underestimate and then get reimbursed accurately vs. overestimate and keep the over payments?

    Zero ?

  • AB1979||

    One. The CEO of the insurance company that Obama taps to replace Sebelius before the midterms. He will then reissue the regs to make sure his "former" employer gets a bigger slice of the payouts due to its "honesty".

  • John||

    Sibelius will never leave her post. Replacing her would mean having a confirmation hearing that would be nothing but a big examination of Obamacare. And that is the last thing any Democrat wants.

  • AB1979||

    Removing the second most recognizable face of Obamacare might prove to be a winner for them though.

    And they can simply announce her leaving before the election for the messaging of "it wasn't us, it was her" and then only let her leave after the results are in.

  • wwhorton||

    Well, I don't know. Now that Harry "Tyranny of the Majority? Never heard of it..." Reid has gotten his way in the Senate, I expect subsequent confirmation hearings will go a little easier for this administration.

  • Adam330||

    On the up side, the overestimate potential will be limited by the extremely low enrollment. From what I can gather, they were projecting 4.5M enrollments in the federal exchanges by the end of this year, which is effectively Dec. 15 to start coverage Jan. 1. There were 126,000 in all of Oct. and Nov. and it's been running about 15,000 a day in December, so they may hit 350,000 or less than 8% of projections.

  • Lord Humungus||

    I saw an article on Yahoo that the enrollments are "EXPLODING"...at 100K users for November.

  • NoVAHockey||

    I think Maryland has managed to enroll about 3000 people. I remember that on day one "six enrolled" was the leaked number. And I couldn't believe it b/c it zero would have made more sense. but here we are.

  • JWatts||

    I saw an article on Yahoo that the enrollments are "EXPLODING"...at 100K users for November.

    I saw that article, I think it linked to a "Business Insider" article. IE, it's pure propaganda.

  • Lord Humungus||

    current numbers from Enroll Maven:

    Qualified Health Plan (QHP) Enrollment
    308,780*

    Administration QHP Enrollment Goal by 03.31.14
    7,066,000

    Percent of QHP Enrollment Goal Achieved
    4.4%

    Percent of QHP Enrollment Period Elapsed
    34.6%

    note: numbers are for people who have selected plans and not necessarily paid for them.

  • John||

    So what happens in the first of April when there are several million people who were unable to buy insurance and are facing the penaltax? Waive the penaltax and all of the people who got through and only bought insurance because they wanted to comply with the law feel like fools. Don't waive it and you end up with people being penalized for not doing something that was impossible to do.

    It is going to be an interesting year.

  • AB1979||

    No, they'll be forced to pay the penalty. A good citizen is one who is willing to wait in front of his computer screen for hours at a time, day after frustrating day until he can fulfill the wishes of his masters. The penalty is economic re-education for the dissenters.

  • John||

    I don't think the Democrats who are up for re-election next year are going to like that solution.

  • Sevo||

    But Obo is now on the OFFENSIVE about the disaster!
    What's he gonna do, go out and sign up people himself? He can't even do that; the web site won't take payments.
    He's one asshole who really does deserve to be bit by reality.

  • John||

    I am starting to think he won re-election because cosmic justice demanded it.

  • BakedPenguin||

    In a way, it's good. Had Romney won, they would be blaming all the current problems on Teathuglikkkans! And while there's plenty that's crappy about TEAM RED, they were never for this steaming pile of legislation and it's great that the people who shat it out own it lock, stock & barrel.

  • John||

    You said it BP. Had Romney won, the Dems would have filibustered any change to Obamacare. This would have allowed the Dems to escape any responsibility for the resulting disaster by claiming "everything would have been great if you had just left Obama in charge you racist tea baggers".

    As horrible as an Obama second term is, it has done the country the great service of leaving no doubt who is responsible for all of this.

  • JWatts||

    In a way, it's good. Had Romney won, they would be blaming all the current problems on Teathuglikkkans!

    I'll third that sentiment. The Liberal line would have been that Obamacare would have worked but the evil, racist Republicans hate poor people, so they stopped it.

    Can you just imagine if Romney had won, not stopped Obamacare and then the website was as bad as it is? Every Liberal would be proclaiming internal sabotage.

  • MSimon||

    ^^^^^^^

  • JWatts||

    I think they'll waive it. It's the Liberal SOP. On the other hand they'll be telling all the health insurance companies complaining about looming bankruptcy, tough shit, that's what you deserve for being an EVAL private business!

  • John||

    I am not sure JW. Waiving it means admitting that Obamacare is a failure. It means admitting that Obama couldn't get the system up and running. Anything is possible. But if that happens, it will be the first time Obama has ever admitted being wrong or failing at anything in his life. He is such a mean spirited egotistical asshole, I could see him going through with the fine and telling the uninsured to fuck off this is his signature policy.

    The interesting part is going to be when Democrats in Congress see their constituents revolt and demand that it be waived and Obama refuses to do it. Does Congress waive it over Obama's veto? That will go over well. It is going to be a mess.

  • Sevo||

    ..."It means admitting that Obama couldn't get the system up and running."...

    But that's already been shown and the Obots continue with the 'rethuglican' theme song.
    Now it's 'He fixed it but that's not good enough for the rethuglicans!' And 'The rethuglicans are hacking it!'. And 'Yes, were getting screwed, but we still support this, 'cause rethuglicans!'
    Maybe it's just the SF water I drink, but I'm not seeing nearly enough people admit this is a disaster.

  • John||

    The hard core progs are never going to admit it failed. And that is precisely why it is going to be their undoing.

    The smart thing to do would be to conduct a tactical retreat by throwing Obama over the side and arguing for single payer or at least trying to co-opt the coming Republican fixes. But the Progs can't do that. So they will end up alienating the other 70% of the population who see this thing as a disaster.

  • Adam330||

    Those are for all states, no? Or just for federally run ones?

  • rogerfgay||

    A Second Look at the Failure of ObamaCare 'Exchanges'
    (Like I said on Oct. 12)
    http://www.libertarian-examine.....acare.html

  • ||

    Gahhh .... because we can't just let people claim a refundable tax credit like everything else.

    The obvious simnple solution is to have consumers pay the full cost of their insurance and then receive a tax credit at the end of the year. But of course, Obama wants to disguise from consumers how much they are actually paying. So instead we get this hackneyed workaround that will surely be abused.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    All this is a perfect example of the two "Circus Faction" Political Parties that run this country failing to cooperate to produce a workable health care system where all can benefit to include the Health Insurance Companies and so on.

    Instead, one party forced a super revised system on the country just to spite the other party. The American people have been screwed again by the arrogance and manipulation of the RePOOPlicans and the DemoCRAZIES.

  • MoMark||

    • On The Road To Mandalay|12.5.13 @ 12:11PM|# wrote

    "All this is a perfect example of the two "Circus Faction" Political Parties that run this country failing to cooperate to produce a workable health care system where all can benefit to include the Health Insurance Companies and so on."

    So, you think the libs and republicans and government should produce a “workable” health care system? How about advocating that the government get out of health care altogether.

    And how are the republicans responsible for Obamacare?

  • GILMORE||

    Dude, "OtRtM" is a sockpuppet.

    did "repooplicans" not clear that up?

  • ThomasAnthonyGuerriero||

    Obamacare should have better options to pay for better services.
    Thomas Anthony Guerriero
    www.thomasanthonyguerriero.com

  • Thomas Guerriero||

    Obamacare should have better options to pay for better services.
    Thomas Anthony Guerriero
    www.thomasanthonyguerriero.com

  • parkerbce586||

    my neighbor's mother makes 63 BUCKS every hour on the laptop. She has been out of work for 7 months but last month her pay check was 15302 BUCKSjust working on the laptop for a few hours. Learn More Here
    ===========================
    http://www.fb49.com
    ===========================

  • Black Liberty Unchained||

    I'm afraid of the new gubmint solutions that will be dreamed up to fix ocare. Many of the mental wastelands like demo underground etc... posters are foaming at the mouth for singlepayer. Every "civilized" nation provides healthcare for its citizens why cant America. Any reasoned analysis as to why sp increases costs and leads to shortages doesn't even penetrate the stupidity force field that progs erect for themselves.

  • wwhorton||

    Me too. Every prog who sees this train wreck ignores the drunken conductor and blames the rails. Sure as shit we're gonna be looking at a single-payer proposal as a solution to this mess, and that's been the plan from day one.

  • MSimon||

    Who will trust single payer after this train wreck?

  • Straightthinker||

    Here is what has happened so far: The people who were not paying into the insurance pool and were not insured are now receiving insurance, but are still not paying because they are enrolling in medicaid or they are on the poorer side and are getting subsidies. On the other hand, people who were paying - exactly the people the program needs to "work," have had their insurance cancelled. But, according to Obama and his gang, the law is working.

  • AAC||

    "They’re the signs of an administration that is struggling keep its signature initiative afloat, somehow."

    ***
    They are the signs of an egotistical president who refuses to lose, and make no mistake about it, he's engaged in a war with the GOP who want to take his legislation away.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement