Obamacare Initiates Self-Destruction Sequence

[FarCenter]

Yesterday, we had a more official announcement from the administration: Anyone who has had their policies cancelled will be exempt from the individual mandate next year. The administration is also allowing those people to buy catastrophic plans, even if they’re over 30.

What to make of these two statements? On the one hand, the administration is trying to minimize the number of people who have been affected by cancellations, and on the other hand, it is unveiling a fix to the problem of cancellations. And these are not minor changes.

...

I’m not sure the administration is thinking that far ahead. The White House is focused on winning the news cycle, day by day, not the kind of detached technocratic policymaking that they, and the law’s other supporters, hoped this law would embody. Does your fix create problems later, cause costs to spiral or people to drop out of the insurance market, or lead to political pressure to expand the fixes in ways that critically undermine the law? Well, that’s preferable to sudden death right now.

However incoherent these fixes may seem, they send two messages, loud and clear. The first is that although liberal pundits may think that the law is a done deal, impossible to repeal, the administration does not believe that. The willingness to take large risks with the program’s stability indicates that the administration thinks it has a huge amount to lose -- that the White House is in a battle for the program’s very existence, not a few marginal House and Senate seats.

And the second is that enrollment probably isn’t what the administration was hoping. I don’t know that we’ll start Jan. 1 with fewer people insured than we had a year ago, but this certainly shouldn’t make us optimistic. It’s not like people who lost their insurance due to Obamacare, and now can’t afford to replace their policy, are going to be happy that they’re exempted from the mandate; they’re still going to be pretty mad. This is at best, damage control. Which suggests that the administration is expecting a fair amount of damage.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-20/obamacare-initiates-self-destruction-sequence.html

[Tarheel_Dem]

1. Why you guys are given free reign to trash and bash is beyond me. Talk about "self-destruction".

Folks like you defeat the very purpose of this board, which AFAIK still remains:

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important —therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

Forgive me, but I just don't see how you help. It should be crystal clear that you have an agenda that runs counter to the mission of this site, and instead of joining the GOP refrain of "Obamacare Sucks", we should be pulling together to elect more Democrats who can sort out the kinks, and make this better. Dwelling on the daily machinations of the administration trying to provide the necessary fixes so that everyone has access to healthcare, is just bad form for this site. I mean, I could read this shit at Free Republic.

I hope the New Year brings some changes for ObamaCare, and for DU. It's a critical midterm election, and we don't need this suppressive bullshit trying to thwart the mission of this board.

[jaysunb]

2. +1 n/t

[HereSince1628]

3. Yah, we need more duck doofuss threads in which we can bash homophobes

rather than discussing wtf is happening with the most significant piece of legislation in the Obama administration.

Becasue really...unity around the issue of bashing homophobes is what is going to make a difference in financing healthcare and controlling its costs for hundreds of millions of Americans.

[geek tragedy]

4. This is a hit piece from a liberatarian hack. Google her name nt

[HereSince1628]

7. Yes, yes it is. And who better to discuss it, find its faults

and show people how to drive a stake into its heart than DUers?

Are we so worried that ACA cannot be defended? Are we going to be turned into republicans or tea-hadists?

[geek tragedy]

8. Are you familiar with the purpose of this site? It's not to promote rightwing propaganda nt

[HereSince1628]

17. Yes, quite. I've been here longer than your current username

I quite understand.

What's more important? Knocking homophobic minor television celebrities or knocking down hit-pieces about ACA?

I can't understand how you can't understand that I understand what you don't understand.

[geek tragedy]

20. The purpose of this thread is not to knock them down, but rather to promote them. nt

[HereSince1628]

25. The purpose was to begin a discussion that you seem to dreadfully fear

we will be inadequate to handle.

It seems you do not believe in being aware of the positions of the opposition in order to better your understanding and your arguments against the opposition.

Don't fret, down near the bottom of the op there is an 'ignore this thread' box that will allow you to avoid the arousal this thread brings you.

Have a pleasant solstice.

[geek tragedy]

26. Are you FarCenter's sock, or just a mindreader purporting to know his intent?

Note that he promotes rightwing talking points all the time here, including pimping Duck Dynasty.

[Autumn]

27. Pimping Duck Dynasty??? Got a link please n/t

[geek tragedy]

32. here ya go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024206452
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024201568
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024200991#post6

[Autumn]

33. Shame on that poster for posting those articles. God forbid

someone post articles on a current event on a message board. A discussion could break out.

[geek tragedy]

34. That person posts nothing but rightwing garbage here and doesn't discuss

what he posts.

Just hit and run spreading of rightwing manure.

We're not here to praise bigots or to give the Koch brothers a fair hearing.

[FarCenter]

60. I watched a couple of episodes of Duck Dynasty a few months ago when a friend asked me to make a DVD

I do not recall any homophobic or racist remarks being made in those episodes. The concept seemed to revolve around hunting, fishing, trucks, family squabbles, redneck practical jokes, rural and small town life, etc. It was less objectionable than Jersey Shore or any of the Real Housewives shows.

Characters played on "reality TV" are not real. They are characters developed by writers and played by actors, even when the actors are playing "themselves".

I do not support Robertson's statements regarding sex or race. As for social policy regarding matters of personal behavior, I'm very liberal.

On the other hand, I do find it ironic that the furor created over Robertson's statements will bring Duck Dynasty to the attention of many people who were not aware or interested previously. This will most likely increase the viewership for the next season of Duck Dynasty (already shot with Phil Robertson in it) and no doubt increase demand for Duck Commander calls and the wide variety of Duck Commander branded merchandise carried by sporting goods stores.

Succès de scandale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succ%C3%A8s_de_scandale

"No such thing as bad publicity"

[HereSince1628]

29. No. But that suggests you've run out of meaningful things to say.

[geek tragedy]

30. No, it means that I'm here to debate progressives and liberals on how

to best achieve our common vision, not waste my time with the talking points spit out by ALEC and the Koch Brothers.

[HereSince1628]

36. Then it makes a mountain of sense to spend so much time in this subthread

wasting time trying to police what other people discuss.

Yep. That seems about right.

[former9thward]

39. If DD is the criteria I guess you would ban Obama from DU.

"He said he loves the show and watches it on Air Force One," Willie said.

http://blogs.cbn.com/beltwaybuzz/archive/2013/12/20/president-obama-watches-duck-dynasty.aspx

[Tarheel_Dem]

24. Exactly. If the mission has changed, why not throw the doors open to everyone? Including....

Freak Republic? I mean, we know they're here, but Skinner & MIRT usually keep them pretty well contained. This defeatist, suppressive bullshit has so far gotten a pass. Every true "Democrat" in the country should be rooting for the success of ObamaCare, instead of propagating rightwing anti-Obama talking points.

[flying rabbit]

28. I hear ya, propaganda posted on DU should be a tool we use to dissect them with.

I don't believe that the poster is advocating the position; rather they are pointing out what is being put out in the media.

[Tarheel_Dem]

12. Fuck the ducks, and the Bashers!

[geek tragedy]

9. Word, but community standards are that all rightwing content is acceptable here. Apparently

this is equally Kochbrothersunderground as much as it is democraticunderground according to the juries that sit here.

[busterbrown]

23. !.2 million signed up since oct rollout.. This thing is gonna eventually lead to a Single Payer

System......We need to keep electing Dems. no matter what. Supporting people who stand no chance of winning is idiotic, no matter what their message. This a dumbed down Country and the Center which controls the results of elections is very fickle and not that well informed. Present them with a Candidate like Alan Grayson and they will probably back away.. Present them with E. Warren and the odds are much better. It all depends on the candidate and the geographics.

[SidDithers]

42. Nailed it...nt

Sid

[tabasco]

56. Unbelievable, isn't it?

The radar needs calibrated.

[sendero]

73. Forgive ME..

.... but how is pushing problems under the rug helping ANYBODY? This seems like a balanced piece of analysis, with what part do you disagree?

If you think just ignoring problems will make them go away, good fucking luck with that.

[Bobbie Jo]

88. +100000

[grantcart]

95. Well he did get one rec. Of course when you click and see the name that is pretty funny too.

[Scurrilous]

5. Pfffffffft.

"Megan McArdle is a Koch-trained conservative activist working as a business journalist and pundit. She earned her MBA from the University of Chicago, received journalism training at the Kochs' flagship libertarian think-tank, the Institute for Humane Studies, and has used her position at The Atlantic and, most recently, Newsweek/Daily Beast, to run cover for and promote Koch interests and the Republican Party agenda. In early 2009, a GOP outfit backed by the Kochs hailed McArdle for her "leadership role in ... re-branding the Republican party." McArdle continues to conceal the extent of her deeply conflicted relationships with the Koch influence-peddling machine."

http://shameproject.com/profile/megan-mcardle/

[geek tragedy]

6. maybe we should rename this place dkfunderground.com, since apparently this kind

of rightwing horseshit is considered acceptable by every jury.

[Scurrilous]

11. You'd Better Believe It!

[Tarheel_Dem]

14. Well, it's almost as if Megan's interns have taken over the damned board. There has to be a fix....

for this shit.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

15. Good exposure. The law is the law people! Deal.with.it!!!! Morons

[NYC Liberal]

35. They're switching from "Repeal Obamacare!!1" to

"Democrats are trying to take away your Obamacare!!1"

[ProSense]

38. .

[SidDithers]

43. Lots of "any port in a storm" bashing going on around here lately...

as long as it's anti-Obama, it's fine with some DUers. Doesn't matter what the source is.

Sid

[jaysunb]

47. +1 n/t

[alcibiades_mystery]

78. Some DUers' pathetic rage against all things Obama has finally come to this

Happy and positive citations of Megan McArdle's nonsense. What's next? Krauthammer as progressive hero?

They wonder why some of us think perhaps their irrational hatred stems from racist impulses. When you see McArdle elevated into some savior of the so-called progressives, there are few other options to consider.

A disgusting thread.

[ProSense]

10. You know what's funny?

Right wingers who hate the law and those who have been screaming that the individual mandate should be done away with are now claiming this change will affect the "stability" of the law.

I mean, really? Maybe the administration knows that this will affect a really small subset of people. Americans who want health care are signing up in droves.

Obamacare enrollment: the December deluge continues.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024206224

There are already a number of ways people can gain exemptions, extending it to a few more people isn't going to matter much.

How do I get an exemption from the fee for not having health coverage?

Starting 2014, most people must have health coverage or pay a fee (the “individual shared responsibility payment”). You can get an exemption in certain cases.

The individual shared responsibility payment

If you can afford health insurance but choose not to buy it, you must pay a fee known as the individual shared responsibility payment.

The fee in 2014 is 1% of your yearly income or $95 per person for the year, whichever is higher. The fee increases every year. In 2016 it is 2.5% of income or $695 per person, whichever is higher.

In 2014 the payment for uninsured children is $47.50 per child. The most a family would have to pay in 2014 is $285.

You make the payment when you file your 2014 taxes, which are due in April 2015.

Exemptions from the payment

Under certain circumstances, you won’t have to make the individual responsibility payment. This is called an “exemption.”

You may qualify for an exemption if:

• You’re uninsured for less than 3 months of the year
  
  
• The lowest-priced coverage available to you would cost more than 8% of your household income
  
  
• You don’t have to file a tax return because your income is too low (Learn about the filing limit.)
  
  
• You’re a member of a federally recognized tribe or eligible for services through an Indian Health Services provider
  
  
• You’re a member of a recognized health care sharing ministry
  
  
• You’re a member of a recognized religious sect with religious objections to insurance, including Social Security and Medicare
  
  
• You’re incarcerated, and not awaiting the disposition of charges against you
  
  
• You’re not lawfully present in the U.S.

Hardship exemptions

If you have any of the circumstances below that affect your ability to purchase health insurance coverage, you may qualify for a “hardship” exemption:

1. You were homeless.
   
   
2. You were evicted in the past 6 months or were facing eviction or foreclosure.
   
   
3. You received a shut-off notice from a utility company.
   
   
4. You recently experienced domestic violence.
   
   
5. You recently experienced the death of a close family member.
   
   
6. You experienced a fire, flood, or other natural or human-caused disaster that caused substantial damage to your property.
   
   
7. You filed for bankruptcy in the last 6 months.
   
   
8. You had medical expenses you couldn’t pay in the last 24 months.
   
   
9. You experienced unexpected increases in necessary expenses due to caring for an ill, disabled, or aging family member.
   
   
10. You expect to claim a child as a tax dependent who’s been denied coverage in Medicaid and CHIP, and another person is required by court order to give medical support to the child. In this case, you do not have the pay the penalty for the child.
    
    
11. As a result of an eligibility appeals decision, you’re eligible for enrollment in a qualified health plan (QHP) through the Marketplace, lower costs on your monthly premiums, or cost-sharing reductions for a time period when you weren’t enrolled in a QHP through the Marketplace.
    
    
12. You were determined ineligible for Medicaid because your state didn’t expand eligibility for Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.

How to apply for an exemption

If you are applying for an exemption based on: coverage being unaffordable; membership in a health care sharing ministry; membership in a federally-recognized tribe; or being incarcerated:

- more -

https://www.healthcare.gov/exemptions/

[jaysunb]

49. I didn't know about "this" little jewel

•You’re a member of a recognized religious sect with religious objections to insurance, including Social Security and Medicare

WOW !

[Pretzel_Warrior]

13. Another "anti-Obamacare" thread from FarCenter

What a surprise!

[geek tragedy]

18. Guarantee you that this one won't get hidden--call it the dkf rule--peddling propaganda

so rightwing that it gets a person banned by EarlG or Skinner is 100% acceptable according to the DU community.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

21. Has anyone alerted?

[geek tragedy]

22. yep, 3-3 to keep, closer than I would expect, given that he's also promoting Duck Dynasty nt

[SidDithers]

44. It's pointless to even alert on this kind of shit anymore...

Juries won't hide for right-wing sourcing.



Sid

[Tarheel_Dem]

52. Did that change after BBI? That used to be a HUGE no-no!

[SidDithers]

57. Moderators used to be all over right-wing sources...

it's been my experience, that juries don't really care about sourcing.

That's purely anecdotal, tho, based on alerts I've sent on posts using right-wing sources.

Sid

[Cali_Democrat]

16. Your slip is showing

again.

[edhopper]

19. 16000 post

and today you argue how great Duck Dynasty is and how Obamacare is doomed.
Get your shit together!

[JaneyVee]

31. Nothing says trolling like posting libertarian hit pieces and bouncing.

[Th1onein]

37. You know, it COULD be that Obama is just trying to be fair.

Even heard of that? Fairness. Seems to me that's also a liberal value.

[sibelian]

40. h'ooookidokey.

buhbye.

[Tarheel_Dem]

45. When is "enough" enough?

[Warren Stupidity]

55. Under the new rules of the glorious DU 3.0 scheming could be banned while far center remains.

Cool Rules, Bro.

[Bobbie Jo]

87. Unbelievable.

[Kingofalldems]

46. Can you at least stick around and defend your position?

[FarCenter]

61. I went to dinner -- see 59 and 60

[Motown_Johnny]

48. False premise. They are minor changes.

In a nation of over 308 million this change is for half a million at the most. Even then the odds are it is a temporary situation and those people will eventually go on to better policies.

They already had insurance. It seems obvious that they want coverage. This new law is there to help people get coverage.

I would love to see how many of these people still don't have any coverage, or just have catastrophic coverage, five years from now. My bet is very few.

[FarCenter]

59. If it is a minor change, then why did the administration do it?

Half a million is a lot less than the population of the US. but it is similar to the number who have enrolled in Obamacare so far, which is thought to be between a half million and a million. Estimates vary depending on how "enrolled" is defined.

So half a million who had insurance canceled can't get a policy to establish continuous coverage by 1/1/14 and will be at risk from the end of the year until they can get insurance. I agree that these people want coverage. That the can't get it in time seems to be their real problem, not that they will get penalized, which I don't think kicks in unless they cannot get insurance by 3/31.

So the change doesn't solve the canceled policyholder's problem with not having insurance. It is also premature, unless you actually think that the half million would be unable to sign up by 3/31. Is it a sign that the IT systems are that screwed up?

The other alternative is that the new policies are more expensive than the canceled ones and that people are not signing up due to sticker shock. The language about a hardship exemption seems to make this plausible. However, a similar exemption is not being offered to people who did not have insurance in 2013. Why would the exemption be offered to canceled policy holders and not those who had no insurance?

Lastly, this will place another burden on the IRS with respect to filing of 2014 income taxes in 2015 further increasing the complexity and cost of enforcement.

[ProSense]

66. Wait,

"If it is a minor change, then why did the administration do it?"

...is your point that there is no such thing as a "minor change."

"Half a million is a lot less than the population of the US. but it is similar to the number who have enrolled in Obamacare so far, which is thought to be between a half million and a million. Estimates vary depending on how "enrolled" is defined. "

Are you seriously making a comparison between a static number and one that's changing daily? The fact is the number affected by this change is in a static subset, but it's unlikely that everyone in that group will be affected by this.

"So the change doesn't solve the canceled policyholder's problem with not having insurance. It is also premature, unless you actually think that the half million would be unable to sign up by 3/31. Is it a sign that the IT systems are that screwed up? "

Huh? The policyholder can shop the exchange. They have the option to take advantage of the exemption. It's that person's decision which route to take.

"Lastly, this will place another burden on the IRS with respect to filing of 2014 income taxes in 2015 further increasing the complexity and cost of enforcement. "

You're concerned about the IRS? LOL!

Again, right wingers who hate the law and those who have been screaming that the individual mandate should be done away with are now claiming this change will affect the "stability" of the law.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024206545#post10

[Blanket Statements]

67. The stability of the law relies in the mandate

At least that was the argument before the Supreme Court.

And how large is the subset? Is it only 500,000 or is it the 3% of the population figure that was cited when the reports of cancellations first started?

There shouldn't have been an exception granted

[ProSense]

68. Do you

"The stability of the law relies in the mandate

At least that was the argument before the Supreme Court."

...believe that? Do you believe the mandate is absolutely necessary for the law to work? That it should be applied to everyone with no exemptions?

Did you know that more than 5 million people have gained access to health care since October?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024206224

[Blanket Statements]

70. I'm just saying what the argument before the Supreme Court was

And yes, I think it should.
Everybody in, nobody out

And the majority of those 5million have gone to medicade, which doesn't do anything to support the ACA in the manner intended.

[ProSense]

71. The mandate

"And yes, I think it should. Everybody in, nobody out"

...is important, but again, there are exemptions for millions built into the calculations.

<...>

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have estimated that about 30 million nonelderly residents will be uninsured in 2016, but the majority of them will not be subject to the penalty tax. Unauthorized immigrants, for example, who are prohibited from receiving almost all Medicaid benefits and all subsidies through the insurance exchanges, are exempted from the mandate to obtain health insurance. Others will be subject to the mandate but exempted from the penalty tax—for example, because they will have income low enough that they are not required to file an income tax return, because they are members of Indian tribes, or because the premium they would have to pay would exceed a specified share of their income (initially 8 percent in 2014 and indexed over time). CBO and JCT estimate that between 18 million and 19 million uninsured people in 2016 will qualify for one or more of those exemptions. Of the remaining 11 million to 12 million uninsured people, some individuals will be granted exemptions from the penalty because of hardship, and others will be exempted from the requirement on the basis of their religious beliefs.

After accounting for those who will not be subject to the penalty tax, CBO and JCT now estimate that about 6 million people will pay a penalty because they are uninsured in 2016 (a figure that includes uninsured dependents who have the penalty paid on their behalf) and that total collections will be about $7 billion in 2016 and average about $8 billion per year over the 2017–2022 period. Those estimates differ from projections that CBO and JCT made in April 2010: About two million more uninsured people are now projected to pay the penalty each year, and collections are now expected to be about $3 billion more per year.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43628

"And the majority of those 5 million have gone to medicade, which doesn't do anything to support the ACA in the manner intended."

It's the other way around. Medicaid doesn't have to "support the ACA." The ACA is designed to support people on Medicaid.

[Blanket Statements]

72. This is what the administration argued before the Supreme Court

The minimum coverage provision [i.e., the individual mandate] is essential to ensuring that the Act’s 2014 guaranteed-issue and community-rating reforms advance Congress’s goals… As Congress expressly found (and as experience in the States confirmed), those provisions would create an adverse selection cascade without a minimum coverage provision, because healthy individuals would defer obtaining insurance until they needed health care, leaving an insurance pool skewed toward the unhealthy.

…

The guaranteed-issue and community rating provisions ensure that all individuals have access to health insurance priced according to community-wide rates, rather than individual risk factors. Congress understood that, in a market governed by those provisions but lacking a minimum coverage provision, healthy individuals have an incentive to stay out until their need for insurance arises while, at the same time, those with the most serious immediate health-care needs have a strong incentive to obtain coverage. Premiums would therefore go up, further impeding entry into the market by those currently without acute medicate needs, risking a “market-wide adverse selection death spiral”…and restricting the availability of affordable health insurance – the opposite of what Congress intended.

[ProSense]

74. That doesn't

change the fact that exemptions for millions are built into the assumptions.

As I said, maybe the administration knows that this change will affect a really small subset of people. Americans who want health care are signing up in droves.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024206545#post10

[Blanket Statements]

75. How small is that subset? Is it the 3% figure

The administration talked about or is it 500,000?
How many more waivers will be granted in the coming months?
The insurance companies won't stand by and take the hit if things keep changing. They'll raise rates or go to court to either force the mandate to be complied with or have the law struck down...which is exactly what the administration argued would happen if the individual mandate was struck down.
If it wasn't essential, why make that argument before the court? If it is essential, why keep changing the law in knee jerk response to the latest headlines?

[ProSense]

76. See,

"How small is that subset? Is it the 3% figure
The administration talked about or is it 500,000? "

...now you're trying to make the subset the entire individual market. Why? Because for this concern to be legitimate, it has to apply to a large number of people. That debate played out with the cancellations. The fact is that many in the individual market who received cancellation letters chose to shop the exchanges. As the issues arose and were addressed, the number of people affected dropped.

"How many more waivers will be granted in the coming months?
The insurance companies won't stand by and take the hit if things keep changing. They'll raise rates or go to court to either force the mandate to be complied with or have the law struck down...which is exactly what the administration argued would happen if the individual mandate was struck down."

Now, you're worried about changes in the future? That's some hypothetical you have there. Say this with me: Screw the insurance companies.

"If it wasn't essential, why make that argument before the court? If it is essential, why keep changing the law in knee jerk response to the latest headlines?"

Again, exemptions are built into the assumptions. As for your last point, you seem to be upset that the administration is taking steps to improve the situation for people who are being screwed by insurers (yes the cancellation debacle was exploitation by insurers).

[Blanket Statements]

90. The 3% number is about half the individual market

That's why I'm confused by the 500,000 number. A few weeks ago, the small subset was a few million people. Now it's only 1/2 a million.

The exemptions that were built in have been expanded beyond the original estimates. With every waiver and every change, the estimates will become inaccurate.

And without the insurers the ACA fails. Without the mandate, the insurers will find a way out

[ProSense]

91. Seems you

"The 3% number is about half the individual market

That's why I'm confused by the 500,000 number. A few weeks ago, the small subset was a few million people. Now it's only 1/2 a million."

...you want the number quoted to be wrong to justify the concern. Like I said, every issue addressed has reduced the number of people who this will affect. You also ignore that not everyone affected will forgo shopping the exchange.

"The exemptions that were built in have been expanded beyond the original estimates. With every waiver and every change, the estimates will become inaccurate.

And without the insurers the ACA fails. Without the mandate, the insurers will find a way out."

Without the insurers, we could move toward single payer.

[Blanket Statements]

92. I don't want the number to be wrong, I'm

confused about the change in numbers over the last couple weeks.
We went from substandard plans being not good enough to substandard plans being okay for everyone.

Single payer would be better for all but if the ACA fails in the first year why would people embrace single payer?
I wish they had expanded Medicare and Medicade to a point where more and more people became eligible, then implemented an employer mandate instead of an individual one

[ProSense]

93. You're

"We went from substandard plans being not good enough to substandard plans being okay for everyone. "

...confusing the "substandard plans" sold before the law was enacted with catastrophic plans via the exchange.

"Single payer would be better for all but if the ACA fails in the first year why would people embrace single payer?
I wish they had expanded Medicare and Medicade to a point where more and more people became eligible, then implemented an employer mandate instead of an individual one."

Because they hate insurance companies?

You believe that "single payer would be better," but can't understand why people would "embrace" it?

It's "Medicaid," and the expansion covers about half of the currently uninsured.

Still, let go of the notion that the ACA is likely to fail. It's here to stay.

[Motown_Johnny]

94. More false premise

You claim that they can't get insurance in time to continue coverage. That is wrong. The deadline for signing up for coverage to start on January first is still two days away.


They did it to stop the right wing from trotting out the few people who were hurt by the change and making them seem like the norm.


Lastly, the IRS deals with things far more complicated than that. The very fact that you need to present something that foolish as evidence proves you are way off base here.





Edit to add, your math is way off too. There were roughly 1.2 million people signed up the last time I checked (a week or so ago). That does not include the three to three and a half million people aged 18-25 who are now on their parent(s) policies due to the change in the law which allows that. There are roughly 70,000 people signing up every week at this point and there is a trend where that number increases each week. Half a million is nowhere near the number of people helped so far and most of them will still be able to get coverage by the first of the year.

[BlueToTheBone]

50. hmmm. Bloomberg.

a dose of salt coming up.

[JaneyVee]

51. Bookmarking for later ridicule & scrutiny.

[Blanket Statements]

53. Thanks for posting this

[Kingofalldems]

64. I get it.

[Warren Stupidity]

54. I was wondering if the op was going to defend this fucking piece of shit.

I no longer wonder.

This is, however, classic.

"OMFG you cancelled my rip-off shitty-care!"

"OK you can keep your rip-off shitty-care for another year"

"OMFG people are keeping their rip-off shitty-care!"

HEY OP! YA YOU! Care to explain if you agree or disagree with the shit you posted?

[Rex]

62. Bloomberg, forbes, WSJ...meh

They can all bite my ass.

[blogslut]

65. Megan McArdle?

Really?

[RBInMaine]

69. Oh screw this ! Right wing hogwash. Total bunch of SHIT.

[JoePhilly]

77. Another right wing mastabatory fantasy.

Unable to repeal the law after 40+ attempts ... their cry ... DON"T GIVE UP!!!

The law is gonna collapse, really, I mean it. Its gonna collapse!!!!

Wait ... COME BACK!!!! I mean it!!! Its DOOMED!!!!!!!!!

Please!!!

[Savannahmann]

81. How about these links?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024206545#post80

Or are they all RW Bullshit too?

[JoePhilly]

84. OMG ... terrifying!!!!

The ACA isn't going away ... deal with it.

[Savannahmann]

85. I never said.

I never said the law should, could, would, or whatever word you choose go away. I said that the changes that were the subject of the post actually happened. The outcome is debatable, but it can't be good.

I'm saying that the information provided on the last minute changes is accurate. Now shooting the messenger didn't change the truth, so what is the next plan?

[JoePhilly]

86. Most of the changes have been minor, and temporary.

And running around with one's hair on fire as a result does not change that. And it won't lead to a repeal of the law, which is the OPs rather ridiculous contention.

And consider this, most of those who wanted to keep their crap plans, hate Obama, and by extension, they hate the ACA, without having any idea what's in it.

So he just carved out an exemption for those dim wits. And idiots who think that not getting insurance is a smart way to demonstrate their disdain for the President, are only going to hurt themselves.

Fortunately, they are a small number.

Meanwhile, people who actually want real coverage, millions of them, will now be able to get it.

Those are the facts.

[Enrique]

79. plausible until I saw who wrote it

at which time it was revealed to be 100% bullshit.

[Savannahmann]

80. If they don't like that link, perhaps these will be more to their liking.

CBS New York. http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/12/20/president-on-obamacare-we-screwed-it-up-changes-made-prior-to-deadline/

The deadline for signing up for Obamacare looms large on Monday and the White House has approved several last-minute changes that would spare some people from being fined if they don’t sign up and to allow others to sign up for catastrophic care.

“We would actually like to have catastrophic insurance. That’s what we would take, but they don’t even give us that option,” Middletown, N.J. resident Beverly Cena said.

Earlier this week, Cena said her family was considering going without insurance because the premium for her family were just too high – more than $400 a month.

But now the White House is caving, providing just that option. In a last-minute change, people who lost their insurance, like Cena, may not be able to sign up for cheaper catastrophic coverage plans. The bare bones policies come with lower premiums, but also higher deductibles and limited benefits.

About dot com website. http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2013/12/20/obamacare-will-now-allow-bare-bones-health-plans.htm

In yet another last-minute Obamacare rules change, the Obama administration has announced it will allow persons whose health plans were canceled to claim special "hardships" and buy minimal coverage, "catastrophic coverage" plans.

According to the announcement, tucked away in the this Healthcare.gov blog post rather than on Healthcare.gov, persons who had their existing health plans cancelled and found the plans offered through the Obamacare insurance exchanges to be too expensive can now apply for or a "hardship" exemption, which will allow you to buy less-costly catastrophic coverage.

So now the messenger has changed, but the message is pretty much the same. There are other stories out there, from other sites, but all of them have the same basic message.

The Washington Post (Followed link from Huffington Post) http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/19/the-obama-administration-just-delayed-the-individual-mandate-for-people-whose-plans-have-been-canceled/

I'd excerpt that but why bother? The obvious question is this. Why must we always spend the first two days of the news arguing about the messenger instead of the message? Why can't we discuss the issue without blasting everyone who posts it? Truth is one of those things, it speaks for itself. We don't need defenders of the faith, we need informed individuals who can then consider and see the advantage of our arguments.

[ProSense]

89. LOL!

"So now the messenger has changed, but the message is pretty much the same. There are other stories out there, from other sites, but all of them have the same basic message. "

What's the "message"? President Obama is allowing a few more hardship exemptions? Run for the hills?

CBS' convoluted story offers this:

"But now the White House is caving, providing just that option."

"Caving"? So the WH shouldn't try to provide relief?

Also, who is preventing the person from signing up for catastrophic care?

From the about.com link:

According to the announcement, tucked away in the this Healthcare.gov blog post rather than on Healthcare.gov, persons who had their existing health plans cancelled and found the plans offered through the Obamacare insurance exchanges to be too expensive can now apply for or a "hardship" exemption, which will allow you to buy less-costly catastrophic coverage.

Who wrote that? The exemption is from the penalty. Buying any plan via the exchange, even a catastrophic plan, satisfies the mandate.

From WaPo:

<...>

7. Put more simply, Republicans will immediately begin calling for the uninsured to get this same exemption. What will the Obama administration say in response? Why are people who plans were canceled more deserving of help than people who couldn't afford a plan in the first place?

8. The same goes for the cheap catastrophic plans sold to customers under age 30 in the exchanges. A 45-year-old whose plan just got canceled can now purchase catastrophic coverage. A 45-year-old who didn't have insurance at all can't. Why don't people who couldn't afford a plan in the first place deserve the same kind of help as people whose plans were canceled?

9. The insurers aren't happy. "This latest rule change could cause significant instability in the marketplace and lead to further confusion and disruption for consumers," says Karen Ignani, head of the trade group America's Health Insurance Plans. They worry the White House is underestimating the number of people whose plans have been canceled and who will opt to either remain uninsured or buy catastrophic insurance rather than more comprehensive coverage.

Breaking: Republicans are going to spin (see the OP) and "insurers aren't happy."

There are already hardship exemptions for various reasons: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024206545#post10

In fact, there are exemptions for millions built into the calculations.

<...>

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have estimated that about 30 million nonelderly residents will be uninsured in 2016, but the majority of them will not be subject to the penalty tax. Unauthorized immigrants, for example, who are prohibited from receiving almost all Medicaid benefits and all subsidies through the insurance exchanges, are exempted from the mandate to obtain health insurance. Others will be subject to the mandate but exempted from the penalty tax—for example, because they will have income low enough that they are not required to file an income tax return, because they are members of Indian tribes, or because the premium they would have to pay would exceed a specified share of their income (initially 8 percent in 2014 and indexed over time). CBO and JCT estimate that between 18 million and 19 million uninsured people in 2016 will qualify for one or more of those exemptions. Of the remaining 11 million to 12 million uninsured people, some individuals will be granted exemptions from the penalty because of hardship, and others will be exempted from the requirement on the basis of their religious beliefs.

After accounting for those who will not be subject to the penalty tax, CBO and JCT now estimate that about 6 million people will pay a penalty because they are uninsured in 2016 (a figure that includes uninsured dependents who have the penalty paid on their behalf) and that total collections will be about $7 billion in 2016 and average about $8 billion per year over the 2017–2022 period. Those estimates differ from projections that CBO and JCT made in April 2010: About two million more uninsured people are now projected to pay the penalty each year, and collections are now expected to be about $3 billion more per year.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43628

As for this:

"I'd excerpt that but why bother? The obvious question is this. Why must we always spend the first two days of the news arguing about the messenger instead of the message? Why can't we discuss the issue without blasting everyone who posts it? Truth is one of those things, it speaks for itself. We don't need defenders of the faith, we need informed individuals who can then consider and see the advantage of our arguments. "

Because the RW hype is BS, and the media is complicit (see Lara Logan).

Another example:

ABC News fall for another of Issa's manufactured scandals
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/20/1264210/-ABC-News-fall-for-another-of-Issa-s-manufactured-nbsp-scandals

[FarCenter]

96. Why the Latest Obamacare Delay Is the Biggest One Yet

When fairness goes out the window, you know politics has caused the White House to take its Obamacare scramble to a whole new level.The administration said Thursday night that people with canceled policies will not be subject to the individual mandate in 2014. This is huge, but you wouldn’t know it from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ letter announcing the change, which she sent in response to senators worried that those who saw their health insurance policies canceled this fall did not “consider” Obamacare replacement policies to be affordable.

In the letter to six Democratic senators, Sebelius tried to downplay the impact of announcing consumers with canceled policies would qualify for a “hardship exemption” from the Affordable Care Act’s requirement they have insurance in 2014. She characterized those affected as “a small number” and said “the population of individuals with canceled plans who do not have quality, affordable coverage for 2014 is clearly shrinking.”

But it would be a mistake to believe this most recent regulatory change is not very important.

Read more: Obamacare: Mandate Delay Is The Biggest Change Yet | TIME.com http://swampland.time.com/2013/12/20/obamacare-mandate-delay

[ProSense]

97. LOL!

"Why the Latest Obamacare Delay Is the Biggest One Yet"

Is this article offering anything new that hasn't been refuted as RW/media hype?

"This is huge, but you wouldn’t know it from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ letter announcing the change"

No "but." It's "huge" in that person's head.

I especially love this:

In addition, Sebelius is essentially implying that a situation the Obama administration has rightly anticipated for years — that insurers would cancel plans in the fall of 2013 if the plans did not comply with ACA rules — creates a special kind of unforeseen “hardship.” The original individual mandate hardship regulations were issued long before insurers began canceling plans this fall. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), a person was to qualify for a hardship exemption if:

So the media went from screaming for the administration to offer those affected relief to now claiming that the relief is a problem?

I think they're just pissed that there is a solution.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024206545#post10

[HappyMe]

82. Yay! More Bash-O-Matic crap.

Just fling the ACA in...

[SidDithers]

83. Why are you promoting Megan McArdle here?...nt

Sid