America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 11 years ago by bloody spaniard. 40 replies replies.
Wouldn't THIS Just Suck?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,489
Lawsuit over health care tax could kill ‘Obamacare’

“Obamacare” looks increasingly inevitable, but one lawsuit making its way through the court system could pull the plug on the sweeping federal health care law.

A challenge filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation contends that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because the bill originated in the Senate, not the House. Under the Origination Clause of the Constitution, all bills raising revenue must begin in the House.

The Supreme Court upheld most provisions of the act in June, but Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. took pains in the majority opinion to define Obamacare as a federal tax, not a mandate. That was when the Sacramento, Calif.-based foundation’s attorneys had their “aha” moment.

“The court there quite explicitly says, ‘This is not a law passed under the Commerce Clause; this is just a tax,’” foundation attorney Timothy Sandefur said at a Cato Institute forum on legal challenges to the health care act. “Well, then the Origination Clause ought to apply. The courts should not be out there carving in new exceptions to the Origination Clause.”

The Justice Department filed a motion to dismiss the challenge in November, arguing that the high court has considered only eight Origination Clause cases in its history and “has never invalidated an act of Congress on that basis.”

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is expected to rule on the Justice Department’s motion “any day now,” said Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Paul J. Beard.

The challenge citing the Origination Clause isn’t the only lawsuit against Obamacare, but it is the only one that has the potential to wipe out the entire act in one fell swoop. Other claims, notably the freedom-of-religion cases dealing with the birth control requirement, nibble at the fringes but would leave the law largely intact.

In their brief, attorneys for the Justice Department argue that the bill originated as House Resolution 3590, which was then called the Service Members Home Ownership Act. After passing the House, the bill was stripped in a process known as “gut and amend” and replaced entirely with the contents of what became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Using H.R. 3590 as a “shell bill” may be inelegant, but it’s not unconstitutional, according to the government motion.

“This commonplace procedure satisfied the Origination Clause,” said the brief. “It makes no difference that the Senate amendments to H.R. 3590 were expansive. The Senate may amend a House bill in any way it deems advisable, even by amending it with a total substitute, without running afoul of the Origination Clause.”

The brief cites a number of cases in which courts upheld shell bills, but foundation attorneys counter that those rulings involved the Senate substitution of one revenue-raising bill for another.

“Here, by contrast, it is undisputed that H.R. 3590 was not originally a bill for raising revenue,” said the Pacific Legal Foundation lawsuit. “Unlike in the prior cases, the Senate’s gut-and-amend procedure made H.R. 3590 for the first time into a bill for raising revenue. The precedents the government cites are therefore inapplicable.”

The Justice Department also points out that the court has allowed revenue bills to originate in the Senate if the money raised was incidental to the bill’s mission.

The Affordable Care Act’s central purpose is to “improve the nation’s health care system,” and it fulfills that goal “through a series of interrelated provisions, many, if not most, of which have nothing to do with raising revenue,” said the government brief.

Mr. Sandefur disagrees. “What kinds of taxes are not for raising revenue?” he asked.

Legal opinion on the matter is split. Randy Barnett, a Georgetown University Law Center professor, said in an article for the Volokh Conspiracy that, “[I]f any act violates the Origination Clause, it would seem to be the Affordable Care Act.”

But Yale Law School professor Jack M. Balkin said the Obama administration has legal precedent on its side, although the lawsuit “may nevertheless become plausible if enough prominent people get behind it and vouch for it.”

“And then, perhaps, Chief Justice Roberts, given a second chance, will change his mind — again,” Mr. Balkin said in an essay for The Atlantic.

Legal scholars agree on one point: The courts haven’t seen the last of lawsuits against Obamacare.

“The Supreme Court’s ruling last June was only the end of the beginning as far as Obamacare litigation is concerned,” Cato Institute senior fellow Ilya Shapiro said at the February forum. “The more we read and the more regulations are promulgated, the more constitutional and other defects are found.”


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/31/obamacare-lawsuit-over-health-care-tax-will-test-c/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS#ixzz2PKgJKYkz
daveincincy Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2006
Posts: 20,033
If we really want to see how Obamacare works we need to begin implementing ASAP...full speed ahead.






























Sarcasm
DrMaddVibe Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,489
CBO: ObamaCare Price Tag Shifts from $940 Billion to $1.76 Trillion


President Obama's landmark healthcare overhaul is projected to cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, reports the Congressional Budget Office, a hefty sum more than the $940 billion estimated when the healthcare legislation was signed into law. To put it mildly, ObamaCare's projected net worth is far off from its original estimate -- in fact, about $820 billion off.


Backtracking to his September 2009 remarks to a joint session of Congress on healthcare, Obama asserted the following: "Now, add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years -- less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration."


When the final CBO report was released before the law's passage, critics surmised that the actual 10-year cost would far exceed the advertised projections. In other words, the numbers were seemingly obscured through a political ploy devised to jam the legislation through Congress.


"Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation," asserted Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner, "the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014." This accounting maneuver allowed analysts to cloak the true cost of ObamaCare, Klein alleged, making the law appear less expensive under the CBO's budget window.


If that doesn't tickle your fancy, maybe this will: "President Obama's healthcare reform law coverage provisions will cost less but cover fewer people than first thought," the Hill reported, considering data from the CBO's Tuesday report. Revised estimates of ObamaCare's coverage provisions indicate that 2 million fewer people will acquire coverage by 2016.


Moreover, the CBO estimates that 4 million Americans will lose their employer-sponsored health plans by 2016, a far cry from the 1-million-person figure forecasted last year. Further yet, 1 million to 2 million fewer people will be granted access to the federally-subsidized healthcare exchanges, while an additional 1 million are estimated to qualify for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Provision.


In a second blog post published on Tuesday, Mr. Klein summed up the debacle: "It's also worth noting that we were told time and again during the health care debate that the law didn't represent a government takeover of health care. But by 2022, according to the CBO, 3 million fewer people will have health insurance through their employer, while 17 million Americans will be added to Medicaid and 22 million will be getting coverage through government-run exchanges."


http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-price-tag-shifts-940-billion-1-163500655.html



This was from over a year ago...
DrafterX Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,559
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Lawsuit over health care tax could kill ‘Obamacare’

“Obamacare” looks increasingly inevitable, but one lawsuit making its way through the court system could pull the plug on the sweeping federal health care law.

A challenge filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation contends that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because the bill originated in the Senate, not the House. Under the Origination Clause of the Constitution, all bills raising revenue must begin in the House.

The Supreme Court upheld most provisions of the act in June, but Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. took pains in the majority opinion to define Obamacare as a federal tax, not a mandate. That was when the Sacramento, Calif.-based foundation’s attorneys had their “aha” moment.

“The court there quite explicitly says, ‘This is not a law passed under the Commerce Clause; this is just a tax,’” foundation attorney Timothy Sandefur said at a Cato Institute forum on legal challenges to the health care act. “Well, then the Origination Clause ought to apply. The courts should not be out there carving in new exceptions to the Origination Clause.”

The Justice Department filed a motion to dismiss the challenge in November, arguing that the high court has considered only eight Origination Clause cases in its history and “has never invalidated an act of Congress on that basis.”

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is expected to rule on the Justice Department’s motion “any day now,” said Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Paul J. Beard.

The challenge citing the Origination Clause isn’t the only lawsuit against Obamacare, but it is the only one that has the potential to wipe out the entire act in one fell swoop. Other claims, notably the freedom-of-religion cases dealing with the birth control requirement, nibble at the fringes but would leave the law largely intact.

In their brief, attorneys for the Justice Department argue that the bill originated as House Resolution 3590, which was then called the Service Members Home Ownership Act. After passing the House, the bill was stripped in a process known as “gut and amend” and replaced entirely with the contents of what became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Using H.R. 3590 as a “shell bill” may be inelegant, but it’s not unconstitutional, according to the government motion.

“This commonplace procedure satisfied the Origination Clause,” said the brief. “It makes no difference that the Senate amendments to H.R. 3590 were expansive. The Senate may amend a House bill in any way it deems advisable, even by amending it with a total substitute, without running afoul of the Origination Clause.”

The brief cites a number of cases in which courts upheld shell bills, but foundation attorneys counter that those rulings involved the Senate substitution of one revenue-raising bill for another.

“Here, by contrast, it is undisputed that H.R. 3590 was not originally a bill for raising revenue,” said the Pacific Legal Foundation lawsuit. “Unlike in the prior cases, the Senate’s gut-and-amend procedure made H.R. 3590 for the first time into a bill for raising revenue. The precedents the government cites are therefore inapplicable.”

The Justice Department also points out that the court has allowed revenue bills to originate in the Senate if the money raised was incidental to the bill’s mission.

The Affordable Care Act’s central purpose is to “improve the nation’s health care system,” and it fulfills that goal “through a series of interrelated provisions, many, if not most, of which have nothing to do with raising revenue,” said the government brief.

Mr. Sandefur disagrees. “What kinds of taxes are not for raising revenue?” he asked.

Legal opinion on the matter is split. Randy Barnett, a Georgetown University Law Center professor, said in an article for the Volokh Conspiracy that, “[I]f any act violates the Origination Clause, it would seem to be the Affordable Care Act.”

But Yale Law School professor Jack M. Balkin said the Obama administration has legal precedent on its side, although the lawsuit “may nevertheless become plausible if enough prominent people get behind it and vouch for it.”

“And then, perhaps, Chief Justice Roberts, given a second chance, will change his mind — again,” Mr. Balkin said in an essay for The Atlantic.

Legal scholars agree on one point: The courts haven’t seen the last of lawsuits against Obamacare.

“The Supreme Court’s ruling last June was only the end of the beginning as far as Obamacare litigation is concerned,” Cato Institute senior fellow Ilya Shapiro said at the February forum. “The more we read and the more regulations are promulgated, the more constitutional and other defects are found.”


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/31/obamacare-lawsuit-over-health-care-tax-will-test-c/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS#ixzz2PKgJKYkz




how come this was't on da news..?? Huh
paulkeck Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2013
Posts: 2,686
liberal media!!!
DrMaddVibe Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,489
DrafterX wrote:
how come this was't on da news..?? Huh



That would be a real good question.

Instead we have leg snapped ballers, Kim Kardashian's fat face, Honey Boo Boo was voted off of Rollerskating with the NASCAR Karaoke Idols and nothing of this and those 2 little boo-boo's that happened in Arkansas over the weekend. Use the power of the interwebs to find a Exxon oil spill and a nuclear plant "accident" that injured and killed people.

The entire "Free Press" is a corporate entity that is all in for whatever they can take too. They've stopped doing their jobs and are coasting on fumes. They helped push this assclown's agenda for his "healthcare"...stopped investigating and stopped asking questions that demand answers. Benghazi? Hello? Syria? Hello? Africa? Hello? You do realize we're ramping up now for some little idiot "king" in Korea, riiiiight?

jackconrad Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
Oh the Pity ...
dubleuhb Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 03-20-2011
Posts: 11,350
DrMaddVibe wrote:
That would be a real good question.

Instead we have leg snapped ballers, Kim Kardashian's fat face, Honey Boo Boo was voted off of Rollerskating with the NASCAR Karaoke Idols and nothing of this and those 2 little boo-boo's that happened in Arkansas over the weekend. Use the power of the interwebs to find a Exxon oil spill and a nuclear plant "accident" that injured and killed people.

The entire "Free Press" is a corporate entity that is all in for whatever they can take too. They've stopped doing their jobs and are coasting on fumes. They helped push this assclown's agenda for his "healthcare"...stopped investigating and stopped asking questions that demand answers. Benghazi? Hello? Syria? Hello? Africa? Hello? You do realize we're ramping up now for some little idiot "king" in Korea, riiiiight?


Just when I got my blood pressure down, dammit!
DrafterX Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,559
dubleuhb wrote:
Just when I got my blood pressure down, dammit!



sounds like you could use a free 30 pack... Beer
engletl Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 12-26-2000
Posts: 26,493
DrMaddVibe wrote:
CBO: ObamaCare Price Tag Shifts from $940 Billion to $1.76 Trillion


WTF??? Is Halliburton running this thing now?? Brick wall
dubleuhb Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 03-20-2011
Posts: 11,350
Serenity now..
Brewha Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
DrafterX wrote:
how come this was't on da news..?? Huh

Because you don't read the Onion.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,489
Brewha wrote:
Because you don't read the Onion.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/31/obamacare-lawsuit-over-health-care-tax-will-test-c/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS#ixzz2PKgJKYkz


If only it was a joke. It was ruled a tax by the Supreme Court and ObamaCare was upheld. Rammed down despite a more than 70% of American's displeasure. Now it appears its going to go back in front of the Supreme Court and this time Supreme court Justice Roberts will overturn it on the Constitutional merits of it not starting in the House like all taxes should.

Right now small businesses were counting on knowing how to play the game by their "rules" and now there will be major cracks where people are going to be uncovered.

I don't know one person that was in favor of this bill or the way it was passed.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,489
Obamacare credits could trigger surprise tax bills

Millions of people who take advantage of government subsidies to help buy health insurance next year could get stung by surprise tax bills if they don't accurately project their income.

President Barack Obama's new health care law will offer subsidies to help people buy private health insurance on state-based exchanges, if they don't already get coverage through their employers. The subsidies are based on income. The lower your income, the bigger the subsidy.

But the government doesn't know how much money you're going to make next year. And when you apply for the subsidy, this fall, it won't even know how much you're making this year. So, unless you tell the government otherwise, it will rely on the best information it has: your 2012 tax return, filed this spring.

What happens if you or your spouse gets a raise and your family income goes up in 2014? You could end up with a bigger subsidy than you are entitled to. If that happens, the law says you have to pay back at least part of the money when you file your tax return in the spring of 2015.

That could result in smaller tax refunds or surprise tax bills for millions of middle-income families.

"That's scary," says Joan Baird of Springfield, Va. "I had no idea, and I work in health care."

Baird, a health care information management worker, is far from alone. Health care providers, advocates and tax experts say the vast majority of Americans know very little about the new health care law, let alone the kind of detailed information many will need to navigate its system of subsidies and penalties.

"They know it's out there," said Mark Cummings, who manages the H&R Block office where Baird was getting her own taxes done. "But in general, they don't know anything about it."

A draft of the application for insurance asks people to project their 2014 income if their current income is not steady or if they expect it to change. The application runs 15 pages for a three-person family, but nowhere does it warn people that they may have to repay part of the subsidy if their income increases.

"I think this will be the hardest thing for members of the public to understand because it is a novel aspect of this tax credit," said Catherine Livingston, who recently served as health care counsel for the Internal Revenue Service. "I can't think of what else they do in the tax system currently that works that way." Livingston is now a partner in the Washington office of the law firm Jones Day.

There's another wrinkle: The vast majority of taxpayers won't actually receive the subsidies. Instead, the money will be paid directly to insurance companies and consumers will get the benefit in reduced premiums.

Health care providers and advocates for people who don't have insurance are planning public awareness campaigns to teach people about the health care law and its benefits.

Enroll America, a coalition of health care providers and advocates, is planning a multimillion-dollar campaign using social media, paid advertising and grass-roots organizing to encourage people who don't have insurance to sign up for it, said Anne Filipic, a former Obama White House official who is now president of the organization.

The Obama administration says it, too, is working to educate consumers.

"On Oct. 1, each state will have a marketplace up and running where consumers can choose a private health insurance plan that fits their health needs and budget," said Treasury spokeswoman Sabrina Siddiqui. "The premium tax credits will give middle-class Americans unprecedented tax benefits to make the purchase of health insurance affordable for everyone, and we will continue to work with consumers, community health organizations and other stakeholders to raise awareness and understanding of these tax benefits."

The subsidies, which are technically tax credits because they are administered through the tax code, will help low- and middle-income families buy health insurance through the state-based exchanges. Under the new law, nearly every American will be required to have health insurance starting in 2014, or face penalties.

The enrollment season starts Oct. 1.

The subsidies are available to families with incomes up to 400 percent of the poverty level. This year, four times the poverty level is about $62,000 for a two-person family. For a family of four, it's $94,200.

About 18 million people will be eligible for subsidies, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

If families get bigger subsidies than they are entitled to under the law, the amount they have to repay is capped, based on income and family size. If they get less than they qualify for under the law, the government will pay them the difference in the form of a tax refund.

There are also special rules that protect people who marry or divorce from being required to pay back subsidies just because their marital status changes.

There are four thresholds for repaying the subsidies:

—A family of four making less than $47,000 would have to repay a maximum of $600.
—If the same family makes between $47,000 and $70,000, the amount they have to repay is capped at $1,500.
—If the same family makes between $70,000 and $94,200, the amount is capped at $2,500.
—Families making more than four times the poverty level have to repay the entire subsidy.

"It's potentially going to come as a shock to individuals who meet that criteria where their income hits a point where they owe money back," said Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., chairman of the House Ways and Means oversight subcommittee. "The fact is, with variations in income, people could end up owing money back and that will create consternation and problems for them."

The total amount of money that taxpayers will have to repay is unclear, but congressional estimates offer some clues.

Twice since the health care law was passed Congress has increased the caps for how much people will have to repay. Combined, the two measures are expected to raise more than $40 billion over the next decade, according to Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation.

"I think people will get there," said Livingston, the former IRS official. "They will develop instincts about it the way we all do about any process we go through multiple times. But when it's new, in the early years, this will be a real learning curve."

http://news.yahoo.com/obamacare-credits-could-trigger-surprise-tax-bills-162031250.html
DrafterX Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,559
DrMaddVibe wrote:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/31/obamacare-lawsuit-over-health-care-tax-will-test-c/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS#ixzz2PKgJKYkz


If only it was a joke. It was ruled a tax by the Supreme Court and ObamaCare was upheld. Rammed down despite a more than 70% of American's displeasure. Now it appears its going to go back in front of the Supreme Court and this time Supreme court Justice Roberts will overturn it on the Constitutional merits of it not starting in the House like all taxes should.

Right now small businesses were counting on knowing how to play the game by their "rules" and now there will be major cracks where people are going to be uncovered.

I don't know one person that was in favor of this bill or the way it was passed.




there should be outrage..... Mellow
HockeyDad Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,156
DrafterX wrote:
there should be outrage..... Mellow



I shall confer with my outrage meter.
DrafterX Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,559
HockeyDad wrote:
I shall confer with my outrage meter.



prolly ought to check da batteries..... Mellow
HockeyDad Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,156
The Outrage Meter said. "Obama wins, get under the Cone Of Protection, scoreboard bitches"
DrafterX Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,559
Magic 8 Ball says.....'Reply hazy, try again'..... Mellow
DrMaddVibe Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,489
Obamacare Incompetence

Let me try to understand this: The key incentive for small businesses to support Obamacare was that they would be able to shop for the best deals in health care super-stores—called exchanges. The Administration has had 3 years to set up these exchanges. It has failed to do so.

This is a really bad sign. There will be those who argue that it’s not the Administration’s fault. It’s the fault of the 33 states that have refused to set up their own exchanges. Nonsense. Where was the contingency planning? There certainly are models, after all—the federal government’s own health benefits plan (FEHBP) operates markets that exist in all 50 states. So does Medicare Advantage. But now, the Obama Administration has announced that it won’t have the exchanges ready in time, that small businesses will be offered one choice for the time being—for a year, at least. No doubt, small business owners will be skeptical of the Obama Administration’s belief in the efficacy of the market system to produce lower prices through competition. That was supposed to be the point of this plan.

Certainly, the Republicans who have stood in the way of these exchanges—their own idea, by the way, born in the conservative Heritage Foundation—deserve a great deal of the “credit” for the debacle. But we are now seeing weekly examples of this Administration’s inability to govern. Just a few weeks ago, I reported on the failure of the Department of Defense and the Veterans Administration to come up with a unified electronic health care records system. There has also been the studied inattention to the myriad of ineffective job training programs scattered through the bureaucracy. There have been the oblique and belated efforts to reform Head Start, a $7 billion program that a study conducted by its own bureaucracy—the Department of Health and Human Services—has found nearly worthless. The list is endless.

Yes, the President has faced a terrible economic crisis—and he has done well to limit the damage. He has also succeeded in avoiding disasters overseas. But, as a Democrat—as someone who believes in activist government—he has a vested interest in seeing that federal programs actually work efficiently. I don’t see much evidence that this is anywhere near the top of his priorities.

One thing is clear: Obamacare will fail if he doesn’t start paying more attention to the details of implementation, if he doesn’t start demanding action. And, in a larger sense, the notion of activist government will be in peril—despite the demographics flowing the Democrats’ way—if institutions like the VA and Obamacare don’t deliver the goods. Sooner or later, the Republican party may come to understand that its best argument isn’t about tearing down the government we have, but making it run more efficiently.

Sooner or later, the Democrats may come to understand that making it run efficiently is the prerequisite for maintaining power.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/04/02/obamacare-incompetence/
DrafterX Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,559
Those Bassards..!! Mad
DrMaddVibe Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,489
A Slick Marketing Campaign Won't Save ObamaCare

Uninsured: The White House recently released details about how it plans to market ObamaCare to the uninsured. What it reveals is that most of them don't want what the administration is trying to force them to buy.

In a series of slides posted on the Health and Human Services' website, the administration explains how it plans to market ObamaCare to the uninsured.

Let's leave aside for a minute the oddity of this effort. Its backers have endlessly touted ObamaCare as a miracle of modern government that will at long last bring insurance within reach of 48 million people who desperately want it. Besides, the law mandates that everyone buy ObamaCare coverage.

So why the need for a big marketing push at all?

Once you look at the marketing slides the HHS has produced, you find the answer.

It turns out that the Democrats and the Obama administration apparently didn't bother to investigate who these uninsured people actually are before they forced through a $1.8 trillion plan to help them.

What they've learned since is that more than half of the 48 million who the government says are uninsured aren't interested in health insurance, which is why they don't bother to buy it in the first place.

The administration now admits that vast numbers of the uninsured will be unlikely to respond to ObamaCare's marketing pitches.

The biggest market segment identified by HHS, in fact, is what it describes as "healthy and young," who make up 48% of the uninsured population.

They have "a low motivation to enroll" because they are in "excellent to very good health" and so "take health for granted."

Plus, as the HHS has apparently just discovered, most of them say that cost is the main reason they don't have coverage.

Then there are the "passive and unengaged," which make up 15% of the uninsured and also have a "low motivation to enroll" because they "live for today." They also cite cost as a key factor.

The problem, of course, is that ObamaCare will make insurance vastly more expensive for many of those who fall into these groups by larding on new benefit mandates and placing limits on premium-lowering deductions and co-pays. It will also introduce insurance market rules that force the young and healthy to subsidize premiums for those older and sicker.

State insurance commissioners have been warning the administration about how all this will cause "rate shocks."

And even ObamaCare's backers admit that its subsidies won't compensate for all the new costs these rules will impose, making it even less likely that these groups will sign.

Indeed, the only group likely to rush into ObamaCare's arms are the 29% who the HHS says are "sick, active and worried" who will have the "highest predicted responsiveness" to mass media ads.

If only these people sign up, ObamaCare's premiums will spiral out of control, as the pool of insured gets sicker and more expensive.

And that, in turn, will cause still more of the young and healthy to drop insurance and taxpayer subsidy costs to skyrocket.

Democrats may think that a big, slick marketing campaign can change all this. Our guess is that it will be about as effective as Ford's was for the Edsel.



http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/040313-650381-slick-marketing-campaign-wont-save-obamacare.htm#ixzz2PcFug7Af



Yet...they're not gonna stop this...it was all about precedent.
DrafterX Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,559
Those Bassards..!! Mad
Bur Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 07-31-2012
Posts: 5,638
^^Wait, you mean an Economics 101 class concept, that consumers only buy what they value, may be at play in why many uninsured don't have health insurance?

Too bad most our elected officials and probably all civil servants woudl fail a basic economics test. As they would a civics test on the Constitution.

"ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?"
DrMaddVibe Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,489
Great now DC has a two drink minimum now too?

Holy F#@K!
teedubbya Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
I wonder what the accuracy rate in here on the predictions regarding Obamacare are.
jpotts Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
teedubbya wrote:
I wonder what the accuracy rate in here on the predictions regarding Obamacare are.



Well, the people who said that premiums would go up the minute it was imposed get an accuracy rating of 100%.

And when Krugman said that in order to pay for healthcare in this country (mind you that this was in a speech well after the passage of Obamacare) it would require "sales taxes and death panels," I'm thinking Sarah Palin was a tad ahead of the curve.

Your point being...?
ZRX1200 Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,626
Too bad Palin didn't have communist backers pusher her acceptance/finances/grades tgrough college and politics then the lemmings would believe her not Soetoro.

RICKAMAVEN would get a soft serve in his pants every time he turned MSNBC on.
chemyst Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 05-29-2006
Posts: 1,674
Hopefully the OP is true, and we will all get relief from this ACA scam.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
DrMaddVibe

WHO WAS PHOTOSHOPPED OUT THAT WAS IN FRONT OF YOU AND BEHIND YOU?
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
ZRX1200 28

I'VE READ YOUR POST THREE (3) TIMES AND STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.
ZRX1200 Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,626
THANKS FOR THE COMPLIMENT UNCLE RICK!
Beer

jpotts Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
RICKAMAVEN wrote:
ZRX1200 28

I'VE READ YOUR POST THREE (3) TIMES AND STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.



Well, if you didn't understand it, maybe you should have used a magnifying glass?

Seriously Rick, it doesn't surprise me at all that you don't understand a lot of stuff. You're also the same guy who admitted he voited for Idi Amin Jr. because he was black.

Although, I'd be careful about signing up for Obamacare. Given some of your inane rants, some Obamacare coordinator might think dementia has set in, and they might schedual you to go to one of those "end of life" doctors. The one where old folks check in, but they don't ever "check out"...at least breathing...

RICKAMAVEN Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
MR PUTZ.

BEFORE I TOOK ANY ADVICE FROM THE LIKE OF YOU AND YOUR ILK, YOU DO HAVE ILKS,

DON'T YOU?I WOULD HAVE "DNR" TATOOED ON MY FORE HEAD.

I HAVE NO FORESKIN LEFT



Z, PLEASE FWWD HIM I BELIEVE HIS SUGAR IS LOW.

DrafterX Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,559
Think
where do you get ilks..?? do they bite..?? Huh
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
35. Author: DrafterX

NOT IF THEY WANT TO GET PAID. I AM MORE OF A TONGUE MAN.
jpotts Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
RICKAMAVEN wrote:
MR PUTZ.

BEFORE I TOOK ANY ADVICE FROM THE LIKE OF YOU AND YOUR ILK, YOU DO HAVE ILKS,

DON'T YOU?I WOULD HAVE "DNR" TATOOED ON MY FORE HEAD.

I HAVE NO FORESKIN LEFT



Z, PLEASE FWWD HIM I BELIEVE HIS SUGAR IS LOW.




DNR tatooed on your forehead? You belong to the Department of Natural Resources?

I guess that explains why Purina makes Rickamaven Feed....
DrafterX Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,559
RICKAMAVEN wrote:
35. Author: DrafterX

NOT IF THEY WANT TO GET PAID. I AM MORE OF A TONGUE MAN.




IS THAT WHAT HAPPNED TO YOUR FORESKINS..?? Huh
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
DrafterX

HOW DO YOU STOP JEWISH WOMEN FROM HAVING SEX?

MARRY ONE.


I SAVED MOST OF MY FORESKINS FORESHIKSAS

THEY CONSIDER IT AN APPETIZER.
bloody spaniard Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
Not sure what you're talking 'about, Ricardo, but good to see you again regardless.
Users browsing this topic
Guest