4 Ways a Budget Deal Could Change Obamacare

When the government shutdown began, Obamacare was front and center. House Republicans wanted to defund the health law—and said they wouldn't vote for any continuing resolution that kept funding in place.
But with President Obama and Democrats in the Senate determined to protect the health care overhaul defunding the law through the budget process, or even significantly rolling it back, was always unlikely.
Still, reports from last night and this morning about an initial offer made by the leadership of both parties in the Senate and a likely counteroffer made by House Republicans this morning indicate that some health care tweaks may end up in a final deal.
A delay of Obamacare's reinsurance fee: Obamacare institutes a $63 per enrollee annual reinsurance fee for the first three years the exchanges are in effect. The fees go into a pool that essentially acts as a backstop for any insurer that ends up attracting an unusually high percentage of sicker than average people. The reinsurance fee is charged per head, not per plan, so it makes family coverage more expensive. Big employers like Delta don't like it; the airline estimates that it will cost the company $10 million next year. Labor unions don't like it either, because it adds to the cost of health coverage. The proposal currently in play would not charge the fee next year, but would still fund the insurer backstop in 2014 through an advance from the Treasury, according to Politico. That advance would then be paid by an additional year of fees tacked on at the end.
A delay of Obamacare's medical device tax: The bill the House is reported to be moving on this morning would delay the 2.3 percent excise tax on medical device manufacturers for two years. That's a partial win for the medical device lobby, which has been pushing to kill the tax for a while. It's also a provision with bipartisan opposition: Last year, 18 Democratic Senators signed a letter urging delay of the device tax. Most Obamacare opponents are not big fans of the tax either. But privately some have worried about attempts to repeal the tax entirely, as doing so would remove a pressure point for Democratic legislators.
A requirement that members of Congress buy health insurance on the exchanges without employer subsidies: Obamacare was written with a requirement that members of Congress and their staffers can only be offered coverage through the health exchanges. Typically, those exchanges don't allow individuals to use tax-advantaged employer contributions to help pay for insurance. But a rule issued earlier this year said that members of Congress and their workers could use their existing employer contributions. Reports suggest that this morning's House proposal would reverse that rule for legislators, but not staffers.
Enforcement of Obamacare's income verification provisions: This is an interesting one, because it doesn't really change Obamacare. Instead, it basically asks the administration to enforce the law as it's written—and certify that it's doing so. Some of the health law's income verification provisions were delayed over the summer, meaning that individuals applying for insurance subsidies would essentially be relying on the honor system. This addendum would require that the administration actually verify the income of subsidy applicants and that the Health and Human Services Secretary certify that the administration was doing so. Some House Republicans have already expressed concern about including this provision, because it treats enforcement of a law as a concession—a potentially problematic precedent.
Needless to say, all of this could change before a final deal is made. Already there are signs that the White House, which would also need to agree to any final deal, isn't thrilled with this morning's House offer. But whatever happens, it's unlikely that any final agreement that moves through the Senate and the White House will include larger-scale changes to the health law. If Obamacare is going to be significantly altered, it won't be through the budget negotiation process.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
A requirement that members of Congress buy health insurance on the exchanges without employer subsidies...
Never happen.
They only get 150k a year for the "services" they provide our country! That's barely scraping by!
Yet they all manage to retire millionaires.
That's easy when you are on the inside and immune from insider trading laws.
Not to mention handing federal contracts to your buddies for 10x their value, and somehow your company gets subcontracted to perform work for the company you contracted in the first place...
Fucking kickbacks, how do they work!?
$172k. Plus I believe a stipend for travel and lodging.
I thought Representatives got 150k and Senators got 174k.
Everyone gets paid the same. $174k, according to Wikipedia. Plus an average of $1.2M/member in the House for staffing and travel back and forth.
Damn, only 1.2mil for staff?!
How do you anarchists expect them to operate!?
Poorly....so far I haven't been disappointed.
It's sacrifice all the way down.
One of the most mind-boggling aspects of Obamacare has always been the medical device tax. What a brilliant way of lowering the cost of health care! And it's an excise tax, not even a tax on profits, so it's an especially strong disincentive to manufacture in the US. Brilliant!
Papaya, can't you see that they're just trying to protect jerbz from those evil robots and automatons that are taking over!?
And even worse is delaying it. Then you not only have a tax, but you drag it out for years so that the market can't adjust to it.
it becomes the doc fix at that point. something that has to be passed lest disaster strike. and a christmas tree ... other ACA and medicare stuff gets added.
And that kind of uncertainty is horrible for the economy.
unless you're a lobbyist.
[ducks]
It's almost like those that make the rules profit somehow by destroying productivity!
I got a table full progressives to shut up about single payer once by noting that as someone who handles Medicare regulatory work, nothing would enrich me more than grafting that onto the entire system. It was basically "what do you really know about how Medicare works? I mean, more than health care for old people." They of course new nothing. "And who do you think will influence how such a system would play out? The Top Men you worship? Or someone like me, who knows all the players and the rules." Got them the STFU.
I said this on the other thread. Most self professed progs are so because they think that culturally that is how you must be and they don't believe that they ever will personally be called upon to pay for or sacrifice for this programs.
Here's my response to single-payer:
The 20th century proved that "single-payer" is the optimum way to provide a nation's food, housing, clothing, transportation, education, publishing, TV, radio, movies, and manufactured goods. So why wouldn't it be the optimum way to provide health care for 314 million people? Gigantic, centralized systems controlled by politicians, with the evil profit taken out, are more "efficient," right?
And real progs wouldn't get the joke at all.
The US medical device market has stopped growing. There is no possible benefit in developing and marketing new devices here. Delaying the tax will do nothing to stop that. In fact, nothing short of real insurance reform could change that at this point.
Changing the degree by which we get fucked could perhaps be construed as merciful, but none of these are meaningful changes in kind - only degree.
I can't wait until 10 years from now when Reason is lecturing us on the epic libertarian tidal wave sweeping the nation when the medical devices tax is lowered from 17% to 16.45% and subsidies are cut off for families making less than $100,000/year
I can't wait until 10 years from now when Reason is lecturing us on the epic libertarian whining about the rising nanny-state tidal wave sweeping the nation when the medical devices tax is lowered increased from 17% to 16.45% 35% and subsidies are cut off doubled for families making less than $100,000/year over $500,000/year.
Fixed!
Well geez, now you're just being cynical.
A .55 reduction? The Kochtopus is upon us!
Enforcement of Obamacare's income verification provisions: This is an interesting one, because it doesn't really change Obamacare. Instead, it basically asks the administration to enforce the law as it's written?and certify that it's doing so.
In fact, the House should simply insist on all provisions being enforced as written for funding.
Yeah, ask Obama to enforce something he doesn't want to enforce.
That'll happen.
Let me be clear. Eric Holder and his team are searching the far corners of the nation to ensure that everyone is abiding by all the terms of the law.
We're as serious about this as we were about the IRS Fast and Benghazi enforcement.
I ask the American people for their continued trust in the Most Transparent Administration in histo...HAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH!
Ohhhhh....almost made it through...Whew!
Not ask. Hold something he values as collateral to ensure his end of the bargain.
The only thing he values is power, which Congress has demonstrated they're more than happy to give him.
^THIS^ His response will be "Fuck you, that's why" and then continue doing whatever the hell he wants.
If Obamacare is going to be significantly altered, it won't be through the budget negotiation process.
If not through this process, what other process aside from 2016 elections (which will be far too late) will significantly alter Obamacare?
I still don't understand the reasoning behind the cosmotarians and the RINOS. "We can't possibly shut down Obamacare so lets not even try through the one process with which we still retain some power, because it will never work."
The alternative is, what, exactly?
You have a faulty premise: You assume they want to shut down Obozocare. They do not.
I suppose I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt, which most of them don't deserve.
Which is more likely: They want to actually do work and possibly suffer voter retaliation, or make it look like they *tried* to do work but it just couldn't happen unless you re-elect them to do what they couldn't get done last time?
I personally find the latter to be far more likely than the former.
True, I just wish they were held accountable more often for their failure to live up to their principles.
The alternative is, you stand back and let the train wreck happen. Either people wise up and demand change or they won't. But if they won't, no amount of government shut down is going to get them to do it either.
We live in a Democracy. The fact is that the country did vote to re-elect Obama knowing that doing so meant Obmacare was going to be a reality. I don't see how shielding them from the consequences of that decision accomplishes much.
This thing is a national tragedy. But it is a largely self inflicted tragedy. And if people are not smart enough to wake up and hold those who passed it responsible, then we are all wasting our time anyway.
Adults don't just sit back and let things burn because someone else chose poorly. We should be rallying around any differentiation between the parties on substantive policy points.
Adults don't just sit back and let things burn because someone else chose poorly.
When letting it burn is the only way you can stop them from setting fires, yes they do.
No, adults don't declare elections null and void because they don't like the results. Yeah, the Republicans won the House. But Obama did win the Presidency. He has a legitimate argument that people elected him to implement his big plan.
Well, it would seem that they would have re-elected the House and Senate Dem majorities, instead of giving mixed signals. The new Congress in January of 2015 is welcome to make their first act the restoration of funding.
If Obama was elected to implement OCare, then by the same token, weren't House Republicans were elected to stop OCare?
Exactly. We're insane.
Sure. And therefore neither side can complain if the other side wins. And if the House folds and Obamacare goes ahead, it is up to voters to do something about it. As I keep saying, if Obamacare is implemented and the voters won't hold the party that drafted it and did everything it could to make it go into effect accountable for its failure, then the country must like it. And if they like it, they should keep it.
the voters won't hold the party that drafted it and did everything it could to make it go into effect accountable for its failure
they did in 2010.
Of course not! This only works one way.
For example, did you know that Obamcare is a LAW? A LAW OF THE LAND that MUST be followed?!!!
But the debt limit is different and can be brushed aside, and if Congress won't, then Obama can just ignore it.
Also, trying to defund Obamacare is more than just wrong, it threatens the very foundations of our great democracy!
But passing Obamacare through procedural shenanigans that bypassed a trip back to the Senate because the people of Massachusetts (Massachusetts!) had elected a Republican for the sole purpose of stopping it, well, that's just clever politics.
How was that not hammered more? They straight up circumvented the rules to get their way before they could be stopped.
I would also like to point out to John that, supposedly, in our system of government some things can NOT be made law...such as enslavement. Doesn't mean they wont be but is does mean there is a moral high ground for those fighting such "laws" (the quotes because an unconstitutional law is not a law). SO. Natural rights or not...that is the question.
He can implement it with $0 in funding then, because the House can argue that the people elected them to defund it.
He has a legitimate argument that people elected him to implement his big plan.
I keep having to say this, but the 2012 election was not a referendum on Obamacare, no matter how much the media wants people to think it is. Yes, it was an issue, but even if it were not, and many things about the election were changed, Obama was going to win, Romney was going to lose. Period.
Just because Obama won doesn't mean a majority of the country "voted for Obamacare."
Maybe it wasn't juice. To which I say too bad. I guess should have woke up to the fact that Obama was going to do this and voted on something besides Sandra Fluke getting her birth control. Obama won. I hate this bullshit about "well he didn't really win to do that". No, he can do what he wants. If the country doesn't like it, perhaps they should be more careful about who the elect in the future.
Adults don't just sit back and let things burn because someone else chose poorly.
Sometimes the only thing you can do though is to let the "fire" burn itself out and then try to rebuild later. Sucks, but it is what it is.
I'll also add that adults don't stamp their feet and throw a fit, or force through an unpoluar bill using procedural gimmicks, when they don't get their way either.
The fact is that the country did vote to re-elect Obama knowing that doing so meant Obmacare was going to be a reality.
Some of "The Country" did vote to re-elect Obama, and it was enough for an electoral majority. Many did not. Some of the same country voted for politicians who promised, if elected, that they would work to revoke Obamacare at every possible opportunity and those politicians are doing what they said they would.
National tragedy or not, there are some who believe that once this trainwreck gets full funded and implemented it will fundamentally alter the promise of a government of limited and enumerated powers.
Waiting for the tyranny of the majority to figure out that this is a disaster is somehow the alternative?
This is the better way? I don't get it.
Some of "The Country" did vote to re-elect Obama, and it was enough for an electoral majority. Many did not.
So what? Either we have a democratic republic or we don't. If we have one, we have one where votes, not what we think people want, count. He did win the election. If people were either too uninterested to vote or voted for him based on abortion and birth control, well tough shit. We have to have elections and that is the only way we can settle things.
National tragedy or not, there are some who believe that once this trainwreck gets full funded and implemented it will fundamentally alter the promise of a government of limited and enumerated powers.
Maybe so. And if it does, it is up to the American people to change it back. And if they don't want to change it back what can you do? It is the American people, through elections, government. If they decide they are no longer interested in liberty and are okay with socialized failure, that sucks. But I am not going to argue for a dictatorship to save them from themselves. We can't save them from themselves. They will either learn or they won't.
we have a democratic republic
Pedantic perhaps, but it's a Constitutional Republic. In this context there is a difference.
If we have one, we have one where votes, not what we think people want, count.
So the people who voted for Cruz or Lee, who promised to withhold funding of Obamacare if elected, do their votes count too?
if it does, it is up to the American people to change it back.
I thought that's what people were doing when they sent the Tea Party to congress. So only the presidential elections count? I thought we had a separation of powers, and the House originates all spending. Are you saying that only the presidential election is sufficient for revoking Obamacare?
Seems like this would also fundamentally alter our system as well.
I thought that's what people were doing when they sent the Tea Party to congress.
So the people who sent Obama back to the White House don't count? You are being as bad as the Progs here. Yeah, they are going to have to compromise and work with each other. But the Republicans in the House have no more or less right to their way than Obama does. He won an election too and so did the Dems in the Senate.
The bottomline is, if and when Obamacare is fully implemented, it will not be an undemocratic act. Passing it the way they did was undemocratic. But the country pretty much agreed to it going to affect by re-electing Obama. If they don't like the results of that, they might ought to consider voting against the party that created it. If they don't want to do that, then I guess they don't really mind Obamacare. And who are you or I to tell them what they should be angry about?
But the Republicans in the House have no more or less right to their way than Obama does.
James Madison in Federalist #58 disagrees.
"The House of Representatives can not only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of Government. They, in a word, hold the purse; that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the People gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the Government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon, with which any Constitution can arm the immediate Representatives of the People, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure."
No he doesn't. All Madison said is that the House has a right to shut down the government. He never says that the President has to give way to them. Only that, it is all part of the political process. At some point one side or the other will lose the will to fight and they will work it out. There is no right or wrong answer here in terms of the process. You can agree or disagree with each position. But you cannot say that either the House or the President is doing something unlawful.
The House has every right not to fund Obamacare. And the President has every right to veto any spending bill that doesn't. If the House doesn't like that, get with the Senate and override the veto. Otherwise, work it out among yourselves.
Do not claim that Madison is on either side here. That is not what he said or meant.
I think I claimed Madison meant exactly what you said.
The House is "right".
You claimed above that Obama's election meant something special that overruled the House's ability to do what they are doing.
Or how about they both count, but since we have a government of separated powers, the ones who voted for Obama probably should have been focusing on electing dems to the house so that spending wouldn't get fucked with instead of getting their jollies off voting for O.
-the ones who voted for Obama probably should have been focusing on electing dems to the house
Well, they did turn out over a million more votes in that direction.
I guess it's a good thing that total national vote numbers don't mean dick in representative legislature.
It is not a good thing if you think the consent of the people is best reflected in the will of the majority, which is what the criticism of Dems for 'not turning out and electing a Democrat House as well' rests upon.
The consent of the people is NOT best reflected in the will of the majority. The whole reason the system is set up the way it is, is to prevent the people who win the big population centers from lording it over the more rural areas.
It got them about 8 seats too.
Except that choosing to fund or not fund something is precisely their right.
I do not take John to be saying the House does not have this right, but rather that the President and Senate have equal right to resist it by not allowing any other funding to go by.
FIFY
That isnt what John said.
It is correct, but it isnt what he said.
I thought that's what people were doing when they sent the Tea Party to congress.
Sure, and Obama has a right to veto those bills. Just because the House passes something doesn't make it law. The Senate and President have to agree too. If the House wants to not fund Obamacare good for them. And if the Senate and the President refuse to fund anything else until the agrees otherwise, they can do that too. Neither side is doing anything illegal or outside of its powers.
Yeah, they are going to have to compromise and work with each other.
So because Obama won the election, the house doesn't get to originate spending bills anymore?
if and when Obamacare is fully implemented, it will not be an undemocratic act. Passing it the way they did was undemocratic.
Huh? Sense, that does not make.
who are you or I to tell them what they should be angry about?
This isn't about who or what should be angry, this is about how our government works. There is a separation of powers for a reason. And Republicans are entirely within their right to legislate via appropriation. I don't understand the argument that says the House should stop doing its job and just give the Senate or Obama whatever it wants.
So because Obama won the election, the house doesn't get to originate spending bills anymore?
No. He gets to veto them. If the House doesn't want to give him the funding he wants, he can veto the bills and shut down the government. The House has to originate those bills, but nothing says the Senate has to pass them or the President has to sign them. If the House wants the government funded, it better figure out a way to get Obama to sign the bill.
What the hell is wrong with you people? This is called politics and separation of powers. You guys sound as stupid as the liberals on this.
Ummm, John, this is exactly what we are saying. How is it stupid to say that?
We are supporting the House doing what it has the right to do. Period. End of story.
No Rob. You guys or at least some of you are saying that Obama has no right to do what he is doing. They are both totally within their rights here. And if Obama ends up winning, then the country has only themselves to blame for re-electing him.
You guys are implying that Obama closing the government to get his way is somehow illegitimate or if Obama does get his way it will be in some way undemocratic. No, it will be an example of the political process and separation of powers functioning as it was intended.
You guys or at least some of you are saying that Obama has no right to do what he is doing.
No one has said that.
Not a single person on this thread.
You were the one implying the House was illegitimate in their actions because of the Obama reelection.
Did Obama win because there was a mandate from the people, or because he was the incumbent. How often do incumbent presidents lose? Bush I lost because of Perot. Reagan's win could not be repeated because of campaign finance reform. From there you have to go back quite a while to find another president who wasn't elected to a second term. So Obama losing a second election would have actually been quite unusual. To call his win a mandate is quite a stretch.
-Did Obama win because there was a mandate from the people, or because he was the incumbent.
While I think it ultimately does not matter for John's overall point, I would suggest neither. He won because he seemed slightly less bad than Romney.
He won because he seemed slightly less bad than Romney.
THIS
Sarcasmic,
I don't care why people voted for Obama. They voted for him. And he is President and he has the legal right to veto whatever bills he chooses. And he can shut down the government if he doesn't like the funding bills.
I fully agree that it is Obama, not the House, who is shutting down the government to get their way here. But I also realize that as President, he can do that, just like the House can refuse to fund Obamacare. Separation of powers is a bitch like that sometimes. At some point they will figure it out.
I don't care why people voted for Obama.
You implied that his reelection was an endorsement of Obamacare.
Other than that, I agree. The fact that compromise means Democrats getting everything they want puts the blame squarely on them, not on the people offering to negotiate.
I agree with John. The President has the right to veto the bill just as much as the House has the power of the purse.
That wasnt John's original claim, he backpedaled to that position.
Of course, the President hasnt had to veto anything because the Senate hasnt passed any of them.
It's instructive to consider exactly how much power the power of the purse really gives the House. It could allow this partial shutdown for years, if it wanted and if the populace didn't replace the representatives responsible for it.
In fact, without laws giving the president far more discretion than he's supposed to have, this current shutdown would be closer to the real thing.
That was always my claim. I didn't back peddle on anything Rob. Go fuck yourself and pay attention to what I am saying. I have made the exact same claim over and over here.
Damn you squirrels, the blockquote was closed.
No Designate. what I was saying was that he fact that obama was re-elected makes it very likely it will be implemented. You can't shut the government down forever. And if it is, the country has no right to complain. They re-elected the bastard. What did they expect?
Ahh.
But they elected the GOP majority in 2010 to end Obamacare.
Its a mixed message, but its still there.
And they re-elected them in 2012.
Exactly. While reelecting Obama.
Mixed message, but its still clear what they wanted the House to do.
I agree. I think Obama won because he was perceived as being slightly less bad than Romney. They GOP House was returned (albeit with less overall votes) because a significant chunk of people who preferred Obama over Romney did not support Obama's policies.
Not sure the country was convinced that Capt. Willard was going to totally eliminate Obamacare, either.
Why do you think he was the candidate from TEAM RED FACTION?
But the country also elected Obama. If the country really wanted Obamacare ended, they should have thrown its author and his party out of power.
I hate Obama and Obamacare as much as anyone. But I can't deny Obama won re-election. And he has a right as President to use his veto power to get his policy funded. There is nothing wrong with him refusing to roll over to the House. He is wrong in substance. But he is not doing anything illegal or outside of his constitutional prerogative.
How does a veto get it funded? He has to sign a funding bill to get anything funded.
Who is claiming he is doing anything illegal?
How does a veto get it funded? He has to sign a funding bill to get anything funded.
By telling the House they can't have any of their funding bills unless they give him the one he wants. Obama is the one shutting down the government here, no question. But, he is doing so in a legal way. He doesn't have to sign anything he doesn't want to sign. If Congress doesn't like it, they can override his veto. Otherwise, they are going to have to work something out or keep the government closed. This is how the system works.
And how is that different than anything I have said in any thread on this issue?
Im just fine with the House keeping it shutdown.
I don't know Rob, i wasn't arguing with you. I was arguing with Tman who was claiming that if Obama gets his way that that is somehow defying the will of the people. And that is bunk. Both sides have a legitimate claim to get their way. Who gets their way is a question of who is willing to fight harder.
You were arguing that the House getting their way was defying the will of the people in reelecting Obama.
You cant have it both ways.
You were arguing that the House getting their way was defying the will of the people in reelecting Obama.
That wasn't my point at all. My point is that both sides have exactly the same legitimacy in this fight. I was merely pointing out that people expressed their will by re-electing Obama to make the larger point that "will of the people" whatever that is doesn't come into play here since both sides can claim a popular mandate.
Tman who was claiming that if Obama gets his way that that is somehow defying the will of the people.
Show me where in this thread I said that.
If you are not saying that TMan, then what the hell are you saying? You don't like Obamacare. Well neither do I. But tough shit for us. I guess we should have worked harder to get Obama out of office or it is our bad luck to live in a country that apparently loves it.
I said it above. We should support the House in defunding it, and make Obama veto it.
It's the only option available other than complete capitulation.
Stop putting words in my mouth, by the way.
some of you are saying that Obama has no right to do what he is doing.
Obama has every right to do what he is doing, as does the house. I'm not arguing that Obama does not have these powers.
My point, from the beginning, was that this is the ONLY option the House has to resist the full implementation of Obamacare.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying it would be better if they didn't resist full implementation, and instead waited for this whole thing to become a full on dumpster fire, thus motivating the country to elect someon to revoke it in 2016. The problem I have with that is there is zero reason to believe that this program will ever get revoked if it's still up and running in 2016.
Losing is not a strategy.
^^^What Tman said^^^
NOW! is the time to defeat this thing.
Actually 2011 was the time, but whatever.
But all the House can do is defund it. They can't repeal it. And I am not sure defunding it really has that much effect.
I don't see how it being implemented is a defeat. Like I said above, if people are unwilling to vote against the people who created this after it is implemented, then maybe they want Obamcare.
You guys assume that once it goes into effect it can never be undone. And maybe you are right. But if you are right about that, it is because the country really like Obamacare or doesn't have the intelligence or the will to undo it even thought they don't like it. And if that is the case, then frankly Obamacare should go into effect. Who are we or anyone else to deny the majority of the voters what they actually want?
They can't repeal it.
Sure they can.
They are too big of pussies to do it, but they can. Attach a repeal to every funding bill for anything.
And be prepared to stay shutdown until the Senate/Prez pass/sign one.
No they can't rob. You can only repeal it if the Senate and the President agree.
if people are unwilling to vote against the people who created this
They already did, in 2010.
But they didn't in the Senate and the Presidency. And that matters as much or more than the House does.
I do not believe ObamaCare can stand as it's presently constituted, and I think it's going to flame out much sooner than 2016.
The pre-existing condition exclusion starts on January 1, 2014. The penaltax for healthy people buy health insurance doesn't kick in until April 15, 2015.
The first time the insurance companies report earnings--April of 2014--I'd expect the implosion to begin.
Consumers respond to price signals. On January 1, 2014, there won't be any more of a price signal reason for healthy people to buy insurance (and make up for all the money the insurance companies are going to lose treating preexisting conditions) than there was the day before.
I don't understand why people think all these healthy people are suddenly going to buy insurance. Because Obama wants them to? Because some hipsters ran an ad for the exchanges on MTV? When the insurance companies start losing money, it's game over...
There's no need to wait for 2016. It's gonna be like when the Greek government suddenly decided to slash their budget. They had no other choice. If the insurance companies start hemorrhaging cash, it's game over for ObamaCare.
I'm kind of astounded by how many of my fellow libertarians seem to think that ObamaCare will be able to function until 2016. You can color me skeptical.
I am with you Ken. I think this thing is a disaster for the Dems and if Obama were anything but a stubborn blithering idiot he would be begging the Republicans to delay this thing.
The fact is that the country did vote to re-elect Obama knowing that doing so meant Obmacare was going to be a reality.
Obamacare had been the law of the land for two years when the people went to the polls last year. As far as they could tell, and this was by design, the law had minimal impact on them and was thus working fine.
"The fact is that on the order of 20% of the country did vote to re-elect Obama..."
There isn't necessarily a solution to this problem.
KICK THE CAN
Screw the liberals and all their whining that Rethuglicans not rolling over and doing everything that The Messiah wishes equals Dysfunctional Congress. Dysfunctional Congress is when political logrolling (i.e. everyday politics) does not result in anything but...
KICK THE CAN
http://www.nationalreview.com/.....lec-torres
I do not think government officials should lead children in the Pledge of Allegiance, or any other pledge, anyways. If students want to get together and say it themselves, fine.
I am sure that made the kids really miss the government. You really have to be a special sort of stupid to make school principal.
There is an old saying: those can, do and those who can not, teach.
Where does that leave principals?
Those who can't teach, administrate.
I think the better question is where does that leave the Education professors. Principals at least are (or are supposed to be) managers of teachers, not teachers of them.
A HS teacher of mine had a prof who regularly used that phrase. Once, he yelled back "And those who cant teach, teach teachers."
He got kicked out of the class.
I do not get Obamacare even 'in theory' and granting liberal assumptions. When I ask liberals what it is supposed to address they reply with stories about poor people and middle class people who are underinsured. If that was the case, why not simply extend the eligibility of Medicaid (of course, most poor people should already be covered by that)? How does policies like imposing an additional tax on medical devices or on 'Cadillac plans' that are 'too generous' supposed to be remedies for people being underinsured? What in the world?
You assume that the people in question actually think / thought this through. They do and did not. Cost and benefit analysis is something to be done in justification of the policy they already support.
I'm constantly taken back to what one of my econ professors, a former Columbia professor and old money, lifelong Manhattanite said about liberals in this country: the best way to short circuit any policy discussions with them is to either ask them how or why. One of the two is sure to get them to change the subject.
Good points. I always assume incompetence in government schemes, but this seems actually counter-productive to their stated goals.
Ive stopped assuming incompetence and am going with malevolence as my default assumption.
I think Im right more often.
Fortunately, its usually incompetent malevolence.
the best way to short circuit any policy discussions with them is to either ask them how or why
Yep. Because they judge policy not on merit, but on who proposes it.
I once worked with some single payer advocates, I asked, 'who decides the price of an operation in your system? Doctors? Patients? Government? If its the later do you assume the price to be fairly distributed to absorb the cost, and if so, what is it about what it does that makes you assume that?' They thought the question was irrelevant to the matter.
Absolutely. And the problem it "solves" did not exist in the first place.
People were getting health care already. It was being paid for, one way or another, either through higher prices or government subsidies, much of it which was at the local and state level. Maybe not the most efficient system, but it set the bar. Anything that made things more expensive was a bad idea. Obamacare does that; excels at it, really.
It would have made a lot more sense to use free market initiatives to drive down costs as much as possible, and allow as many people as possible to buy insurance or get it through their workplace. THEN we could figure out how to cover the remaining people, through an expansion of Medicaid, or whatever.
Back in 2010, I kept asking supporters on a forum just how PPACA was supposed to lower the cost of health care. I kept the question very simple: If we know we're increasing demand for medical services, why should we expect the price to fall? The demand curve is shifted to the right, so why won't the price go up?
The responses were almost always evasions, with the occasional reference to lessening "overhead." Granting the insane idea that a govt managed system will be operated at lower cost than privately, they expect you to believe that the savings are greater than the "30 million uninsured" suddenly consuming medical care that they supposedly could not before.
That's the thing that really infuriates me. All this talk about getting people insurance, while they also talk about how much we spend on medical care vs other countries. What does the number of insured have to do with the total amount of money spent? So they're forcing me to throw some of my money into the insurance pot, why does that make medical care cheaper? It simply changes who pays what. If they're really serious about lowering costs, there are a number of simple changes to make. But we got PPACA and they have to support it!! It'll work, you selfish anarchist!
"Enforcement of Obamacare's income verification provisions: This is an interesting one, because it doesn't really change Obamacare. Instead, it basically asks the administration to enforce the law as it's written?and certify that it's doing so."
This time we promise not to bullshit. Scout's honor!
LOL
P.S. Sounds racist.
So looks like Obamacare is refusing the House's attempt to cave.
Hopefully this will unite them to stand strong.
Honestly, you guys wanted this to fail from the beginning, so I don't know why anyone should listen to you when you celebrate that it's a failure.
It's not like any of you offer any productive suggestions about how to improve health care. Better to work with a bill already passed then to wait until one comes along with Reason's collective blessings.
OMG, it's Minge!!!! He's back, everybody!!! He's back!!!
Naahh, spoof. Bo is the real MNG. This doesn't have enough simpering racist elitism for the real MNG.
As an aside, I see MNG as the Skeksis Chamberlin and John as The Mystic who joined him. Warty is of course Olgra and SF is Jen. The rest of us are podlings...our essences forfeit to the commentariat elite.
We are being trolled. The real MNG would never have put the spaces in his name.
Someone, probably a libertarian troll, took my original MNG moniker, so I had to use it with spaces.
That was Tony's excuse for a while. I'm not buying it.
It's true that Bo sounds exactly like MNG. I think quite a few of us noticed that right after he started commenting here. Though I don't remember MNG claiming to be a libertarian.
In many ways, I've felt like a horrifying Muppet elf-something my entire life.
*squints*
Not sure if serious...
OK, now this is a model of efficiency. So many talking points, non-sequiturs and fallacies crammed into three sentences.
Just like no one should have listened to the suggestions of those who objected to the Iraq war from the beginning.
Clearly, the last people you want to listen to on the subject are people whose predictions and fears have been borne out. No, the people to fix this were the people who have been proven wrong.
even the old MNG wasn't this idiotic - or was he?
TRACTOR PULLZ!
Yes, yes he was.
But the real MNG could have kept himself from making some facile reply to every sub-thread since he posted.
We have plenty of suggestions for improving health care. I guess you haven't been paying attention.
http://hlmenckenclub.org/blog/.....of-america