Now Obama does an Emily Litella around the individual mandate…
…for people whose policies were cancelled due to Obamacare:
Some insightful commentary (and no, that “insightful” part is not sarcastic) by Ezra Klein, who seems bewildered:
Today, the Obama administration announced that people whose insurance plans were canceled this year will “temporarily” be exempted from the law’s individual mandate…
…[T]his puts the administration on some very difficult-to-defend ground. Normally, the individual mandate applies to anyone who can purchase qualifying insurance for less than 8 percent of their income. Either that threshold is right or it’s wrong. But it’s hard to argue that it’s right for the currently uninsured but wrong for people whose plans were canceled.
…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?
…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?
Those are questions along the line of what I asked yesterday. Why, indeed? Because, that’s why. Because some animals are more equal than others.
The old inequities of the health insurance system were logical consequences of how insurance works as a business in terms of managing risk. They were not arbitrary discrimination, they reflected logical and unavoidable differences that are inherent in insurance and risk pools. The inequalities and waivers of Obamacare are government-sanctioned and politically-motivated creations of favored and unfavored classes of citizens. Probably unconstitutional as well.
[NOTE: It also would mean, as someone in the comments section of the Klein article observed, that in order to decide whether you should be penalized for noncompliance with Obamacare, the IRS would need to determine whether your insurance policy had been cancelled because of Obamacare. Good luck with that.
One more thing—ever since the cancellations began, I’ve been wondering how Obama would respond if the political reaction to them was negative enough. My leading theory (and it was something of a joke, but also sort of not a joke) was that he’d declare Obamacare to be a disaster and that the people who’d been affected would be eligible for FEMA relief. This announcement of his today and the one last night aren’t far behind.]
Drip, drip, drip. If this keeps up, Obama will have gutted Obamacare in time for next year’s Congressional elections, and we’ll be back to the old system. And, with John Podesta by his side, maybe the Democrats, with MSM help of course, will be able to say that’s the real Obamacare and what were all those Republicans screaming about, anyway.
“The old inequities of the health insurance system were logical consequences of how insurance works as a business in terms of managing risk. They were not arbitrary discrimination, they reflected logical and unavoidable differences that are inherent in insurance and risk pools. The inequalities and waivers of Obamacare are government-sanctioned and politically-motivated creations of favored and unfavored classes of citizens.”
This is a big part of the problem – Nobody seems to know what the “rules” are as they keep changing.
oops, sorry hit submit instead of preview . . .
With the rules changing so much (day to day it seems) do I buy insurance I really cannot afford and risk having it cancelled and the IRS charging me a penalty anyway; or do I buy insurance and risk having the premiums sky-rocket and the IRS not penalize me, or do I not buy the insurance and gamble that the IRS will leave me alone.
“Those are questions along the line of what I asked yesterday. Why, indeed? Because, that’s why. Because some animals are more equal than others.
The old inequities of the health insurance system were logical consequences of how insurance works as a business in terms of managing risk. They were not arbitrary discrimination, they reflected logical and unavoidable differences that are inherent in insurance and risk pools. The inequalities and waivers of Obamacare are government-sanctioned and politically-motivated creations” neo
Those who are ‘more equal’ than others are those who defy the logical reality and inherently unavoidable differences in life itself. Liberalism is the result of the infantile protest; “that’s not fair!” and the consequent juvenile arrested development that disallows the acceptance of reality in an inherently unequal universe.
ObamaCare is a liberal attempt to lessen reality’s inherent inequality and the waivers and inequalities the clumsy attempt to refine and fix a fundamentally flawed system whose theoretical foundation is divorced from reality.
I agree with the basic premise but there are other thing to consider http://ezinearticles.com/?ObamaCare-What-Are-Some-Alternatives?&id=8101807
Charles,
The ‘fine’ in the first year is 1% of your income BUT with a maximum fine of $285.00. You can always purchase insurance if you get seriously ill, as that would be a pre-existing condition. Door number three would appear to be your answer.
That old concept of a democratic republic with three separate but co-equal branches of government was growing rather boring wasn’t it. Really glad that’s over.
kaba:
It was so last-century.
Everything is just peachy because the messiah has his ordinary guy on the street side because (link at drudge) he watches Duck Dynasty on AF1. But seriously folks, its a temporary glitch and after the 2014 elections obamacare will be roaring back to life, full of vigor, operating smoothly, and ready to redistribute equality if only the dems maintain control of the senate over the MSM’s dead body.
Well, if the Republicans had only tried to work with Obama and delay the mandate?
waitforit, 5:29 pm — “Well, if the Republicans had only tried to work with Obama and delay the mandate?”
(“What if”? [smile]) Yes, very ironic.
Vladimir Putin bailed out The One by offering a lifeline by which the latter could back away from war against Syria (that infamous “line in the sand” business). The One jumped at the opportunity and never looked back.
But The One could not bear to deal with The Darth Vader Party when they offered a one-year delay in the ACA, even once it became clear (or should have become clear to anyone involved, especially the putative leader and chief executive) that a delay was a gift from God (or from John Boehner, anyway).
This is more than a mere flaw in The One. It is a very serious flaw, in that He is so blinded by his own partisanship -slash- ideological purity -slash- determination to do things his way (or the highway) that he couldn’t see a divine gift staring Him in the face, even if it was not intended as one.
If only Putin had taken Him aside and talked to him about the one-year ACA indidual mandate delay.
indiVIdual
“This is more than a mere flaw in The One. It is a very serious flaw, in that He is so blinded by his own partisanship -slash- ideological purity -slash- determination to do things his way (or the highway) that he couldn’t see a divine gift staring Him in the face, even if it was not intended as one.”
IMO the messiah has much in common with Kim Jong-un. We need Dennis to go to the White House and teach BHO how to shoot baskets so he doesn’t look like such a sissy when he goes in for a lay-up.
I don’t think there is an old system any more. They’ve transformed it. That was the change we were hoping for, right?
Ymarsakar:
Yes, it’s already destroyed.
Destruction is both easier and faster than building.
It’s off-topic, but I don’t think we’ll get to Pajama Boy again and this, from one of Neo’s links, is just too good!
http://www.asher813.blogspot.com/
I think Asher nailed it. Thanks for the link, waitforit.
About waitforit’s link: Don’t you wonder how those people make a living – the parents and the grandparents that is? My experience with a lot of these do-gooders is that they have trust funds and have never actually worked a day in their lives.
On topic: These waivers by “announcements” aren’t worth much unless you can actually find an insurance company that will write you a policy. At what point do the insurance companies revolt? They are not set up to react to the whims of a politician. If it weren’t so tragic for a lot of real people this would be extremely amusing. The SNL writers and late night comics are starting to smell blood in the water.
Pingback:Obamacare Panic Mode - BitsBlog
Pingback:DANIEL GREENFIELD: THE WEEK THAT WAS PART 2 | RUTHFULLY YOURS