Oh,bytheway,90%ofpeoplewithout

Oh, by the way, 90% of people without insurance won’t have to pay ObamaCare’s mandate penalty after all

posted at 8:01 pm on August 7, 2014 by Allahpundit

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Another reminder that when the economic realities of this boondoggle collide with Democrats’ political priorities, the economics ultimately must bow. The first hard lesson in that was the “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan” fiasco. It was never true that people could keep their old plans if they liked them under O-Care, as even Barney Frank admits. The whole point of the law was to cancel low-cost existing plans and steer healthy people to new plans with “comprehensive” benefits that many don’t really need. That’s how you justify squeezing them for the added revenue needed to cover medical treatments for people with preexisting conditions in the same new plan. But Obama had lied too many times on camera to escape political damage from the “if you like your plan” nonsense being exposed. So, to contain the political fallout, he created an economic “fix”: Insurers would be allowed, if they so chose, to bring back plans that had already been canceled. That’s nutty from a revenue perspective — the last thing you want is healthy people bailing out of the new risk pool and buying an old, cheaper plan instead — but it made jittery Democrats feel better and that’s what’s important.

Second verse, same as the first. The feds were expecting a certain amount of revenue from uninsured people opting to pay the individual mandate penalty instead of buying insurance. But the mandate is unpopular, and since the people who are most likely to end up paying it are core Democratic voters, i.e. young adults, it might be especially dangerous electorally for the White House to be sticklers about collecting the money. Politics versus economics once again.

Which do you suppose won this round?

Almost 90% of the nation’s 30 million uninsured won’t pay a penalty under the Affordable Care Act in 2016 because of a growing batch of exemptions to the health-coverage requirement…

The Obama administration has provided 14 ways people can avoid the fine based on hardships, including suffering domestic violence, experiencing substantial property damage from a fire or flood, and having a canceled insurance plan. Those come on top of exemptions carved out under the 2010 law for groups including illegal immigrants, members of Native American tribes and certain religious sects…

Patrick Getzen, vice president and chief actuary at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, said he saw more “older and sicker people” enrolled in 2014 than projected. He attributed some of that to the weakened mandate. “With a stronger penalty and less broad exemptions, that would be better for the risk pool.”…

Critics have assailed one exemption for people who “experienced another hardship obtaining health insurance” as too broad. That exemption asks for documentation if possible but doesn’t require it.

Two years ago, CBO estimated that six million uninsured people would fail to qualify for a hardship exemption and be forced to pay the penalty, producing $7 billion in revenue. Today we’re down to four million who fail to qualify and $4 billion in revenue. What happened in the interim? You already know: Late last year, HHS quietly added a “temporary” hardship exemption for anyone who’d had their old insurance plan canceled, even though canceling old plans was the whole point of ObamaCare. As Ezra Klein put it, the feds were now treating ObamaCare itself as a hardship worthy of an exemption. (That’d make a dynamite attack ad for the GOP if the law wasn’t too complicated to explain in 30 seconds.) Then, four months ago, HHS went a step further for good measure and added the catch-all hardship category described in the last paragraph of the excerpt above — with no requirement that the applicant provide proof that they were really suffering from a hardship. In other words, we’ve gone from Obama waging a legal war before the Supreme Court to protect the mandate to Obama handing out exemptions essentially as a matter of right, no questions asked, to anyone who wants one. It’s de facto repeal of the mandate, albeit on a case by case basis. (Not unlike his approach to immigration, in which he’s going to repeal parts of U.S. immigration law de facto in the guise of exercising “prosecutorial discretion” towards each individual illegal.) It’s also a $3 billion hit to the federal coffers, but so what? It makes jittery Democrats feel better before the midterms and that’s what’s important.

Incidentally, the rule extending these hyper-broad mandate exemptions is due to expire in … October 2016, one month before America chooses a new president. What do you suppose are the odds that it’ll be extended beyond that date before then?

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: hardship, individual, mandate, obama, ObamaCare, penalties, uninsured

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Thegovernmentcan’tsaveyou(anditnever

The government can’t save you (and it never really could)

posted at 3:31 pm on May 18, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

•  Share on Facebook

It is, perhaps, a somewhat self-immolating trait for anyone who spends a majority of their time thinking, talking and writing about government policy to throw up their hands and despair of the entire affair. And yet, if we are to be honest with ourselves and each other, it’s likely long past time to adopt a far more pessimistic attitude regarding what we should expect from the Masters of the Universe ensconced in their District of Columbia digs. Even as some of our greater thinkers ponder the meaning of various anniversaries we are reaching, such as that of the Great Society, and others mark Brown vs Board of Education, a frank assessment of the many problems which have plagued the nation for generations now with no sign of abatement should show us that we’re expecting a small horse to pull a cart the size of a mountain. It is an unfortunate truth that the government is capable of accomplishing only a very limited set of tasks which, not surprisingly, are listed in a brief section of the Constitution.

As with most issues, solving a problem requires understanding whether you are treating a symptom or a root cause. The federal government is only passably efficacious at the former – and even then, just in scattered instances – and wholly unequipped to deal with the latter. You may choose any of a number of societal ills to debate this point… a crumbling school system, real and perceived racial tension, violence outside your doors, declining productivity and employment or a national health crisis. Each of these have been trumpeted as a cause du jour by public officials and and office seeking hopefuls. Blue ribbon panels are established, experts are flown in from around the globe to testify before chambers empty of all but CSPAN camera operators, and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars are flushed into panacea programs which rarely move the needle past the point where the public attention span has been exceeded.

But in the end, these things all lie beyond the control of the government. They are all very real problems, but none of them came about because we failed to pass this regulation or reached too far in enacting that one. These are societal ills which grow up from between our toes and choke us off like tall weeds bringing the harvest to ruin. In short, the government can not solve these woes because, through our function as the selectors of those who represent us, we are the government. And we are also the source of the problem.

Society could heal itself through direct means, but the motivation to do so and the awareness of the potential long term benefits to be gained through short term sacrifice seem to be missing. In large numbers we have failed on a fundamental level, starting with the family and the general faith in an underlying comprehension of basic right and wrong. How many homes raise children today without a father? (Lee Culpepper shares some interesting thoughts on this in #BringBackOurFathers.) And how many of these children flee the nest and head out into the world having had no example of responsibility and no imparted sense of the difference between good and evil?

The basic concept of work as a positive, admirable activity to be lauded, and one which sows the seeds of its own rewards is lacking. Some may see this as the harping of a last generation, capitalist hanger on, but such an assumption blames the cart for the path taken by the horse. Capitalism is not some evil construct of the bourgeoisie to force work upon the masses. It was the result of a society which worked its way toward growing prosperity and success. But we have, in large numbers, lost track of that ideal and too often see work as a nuisance required for survival or an impediment to recreation.

Crime should not be an inherent trait in civilized man, yet we find it on every street in every town. Man, it seems, can breed into himself a weakness of spirit if the environment is sufficiently corrupt. We all know from an early age that stealing is wrong… not wrong because there is a rule forbidding it, but because it simply is the wrong thing to do. But if enough others around us are doing it with impunity and without facing serious consequence, the natural tendency to shrink from it is diminished.

Criminal behavior, sloth, hatred, a tendency toward unhealthy or destructive lifestyles and choices… these are all traits which apparently flourish in a society where such things are tolerated, if not rewarded. And no action by the government we construct can do more than put temporary bandages over such wounds. Assuming there is still time and the will to do so, the only answers to these problems will be found not by way of more or better government, but by looking to ourselves and reviewing how we guide our families and interact with and support the families around us. It would involve rebuilding how we participate in and internally police our communities and supporting some sense of faith, be it in God by name or a simple acknowledgement of shared moral propriety and a group intolerance for the lack of same. The government can not change these things because we are the government. When we heal ourselves, the government will heal without effort, and it will happily find itself with far less work to do.

This depressing essay should close with a reminder from a scholarly man:

A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circlue of our felicities.

And with that, go forth and enjoy the day.

•  Share on Facebook

Tags: america, individual

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Oh, by the way: Obama just quietly suspended ObamaCare’s individual mandate until 2016

Oh,bytheway:Obamajustquietlysuspended

Oh, by the way: Obama just quietly suspended ObamaCare’s individual mandate until 2016

Oh,bytheway:Obamajustquietlysuspended

DemocratssettoturnonObamaifHealthcare.gov

Democrats set to turn on Obama if Healthcare.gov isn’t ready next week

posted at 3:41 pm on November 25, 2013 by Allahpundit

Pure, sweet, schadenfreudean goodness from Politico. See now why I think there’s a chance that those new Iran sanctions pass with veto-proof majorities?

Turns out, after three years and a half years of development plus two months of frantic triage to Healthcare.gov, Democrats are finally ready to hold the White House accountable for its giant O-Care fark-up. A little.

“The president and his team have repeatedly assured us that the system will be working by Dec. 1. That’s when I start looking at what we have to do in our oversight function to hold the administration accountable for making it work.” Rep. Bruce Braley, an Iowa Democrat who is running for an open Senate seat said Thursday, adding that he’s contemplating whether to ask the president to fire members of his staff. “I’m thinking about those options. But my biggest concern is fixing the system and making it work.”…

[A] big-city lawmaker predicted oversight hearings are “going to be ugly” come next month. “The more we find out about this implementation of the ACA, the worse it looks. The Congress did our job. We passed the ACA. It’s up to the administration to implement the law.”…

“At this point, I don’t think there is anyone that would express any confidence in the administration’s ability to right the ship,” said [a House Democratic] source, adding that members seem to be “bracing for another tidal wave when Dec. 1 comes and goes and we are still dealing with a dysfunctional website, or ‘broken computer’ as the old-timers have been calling it.”…

One Democratic House member, asked by text message whether he was worried that there didn’t seem to be a Plan B at the White House, wrote back, “Yes!!!”

What does it mean for Democrats to turn on O, apart from some angry grandstanding at the next round of congressional hearings on ObamaCare? Well, there may or may not be floor votes to extend the enrollment period or delay the mandate, depending upon how loyal Reid is feeling to Obama these days. Another piece at Politico notes a schism between congressional Democratic leaders who feel they need to protect O on the one hand and Democratic strategists and backbenchers who need to protect the party (read: themselves) next November on the other. Al Franken’s job approval stands at 51/42 and he’s running next year in a famously blue state, and even he’s erring on the side of delay. No one is safe, at least for now.

If Reid sides with rank and file and those floor votes on delay happen, that’ll raise a new dilemma for the White House. Does O sign the bill(s), knowing that giving people more time to enroll next year could make the adverse selection problem for insurers worse, or does he veto it/them on grounds that it’s too early to know if an enrollment extension is necessary and that we should avoid one if possible? As with Iran sanctions, I don’t know if a veto-proof majority is out of the question. In fact, precisely because a veto override would be a dramatic way to distance congressional Dems from Obama, some Democratic fencesitters may end up tilting in favor of the bills. Even if it’s bad policy for O-Care fans, it’s good optics for the panicky Democrats who passed it.

Speaking of the website and Democratic schadenfreude, carve out three minutes for this NYT piece from Saturday about the special blend of arrogance and incompetence that led HHS to think it could manage a project as sophisticated as the Healthcare.gov build. Here’s what House Democrats will be ostentatiously pounding the table over at the next hearings:

CGI and other contractors complained of endlessly shifting requirements and a government decision-making process so cumbersome that it took weeks to resolve elementary questions, such as determining whether users should be required to provide Social Security numbers. Some CGI software engineers ultimately walked out, saying it was impossible to produce good work under such conditions…

Another sore point was the Medicare agency’s decision to use database software, from a company called MarkLogic, that managed the data differently from systems by companies like IBM, Microsoft and Oracle. CGI officials argued that it would slow work because it was too unfamiliar. Government officials disagreed, and its configuration remains a serious problem…

[HHS technology officer Henry] Chao had to consult with senior department officials and the White House, and was unable to make many decisions on his own. “Nothing was decided without a conversation there,” said one agency official involved in the project, referring to the constant White House demands for oversight. On behalf of Mr. Chao, the Medicare agency declined to comment…

A pattern of ever-shifting requirements persisted throughout the project, including the administration’s decision late last year to try to redesign the site’s appearance and content to make it more informative to consumers, according to many specialists involved. The administration also decided to reconfigure it as a national site, instead of one where each state had its own front page, after many states decided not to open their own exchanges.

Things were so far behind in late summer, per the Times, that HHS had no choice but to drop nearly 30 features that had wanted for the site — including a system to transmit subsidies for individual consumers’ policies to insurers. A predecessor at HHS warned Chao this summer that you can’t build a system like this overnight, to which Chao allegedly replied, “I know. But I cannot talk them out of it.” Anyone out there still think President Bambi was a blissfully ignorant little fawn about all this?

Repairs are being made, though. Even inveterate website critic Bob Laszewski reports that there have been improvements to the crucially important back end of the site, which routes information on applicants between insurers and the federal data hub. Roughly five percent of the information that’s being received by the industry, though, is still garbled or incomplete. If that rate isn’t reduced, the White House’s target of seven million enrollments by next April would mean … 350,000 botched applications that would need to be corrected. Somehow.

Tags: delay, Democrats, enrollment, healthcare.gov, individual, mandate, obama, ObamaCare, premiums

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Herewego:HHSannouncespilotprogramin

Here we go: HHS announces pilot program in three states to encourage direct enrollment in ObamaCare plans via insurers

posted at 6:41 pm on November 22, 2013 by Allahpundit

In case there was any shred of doubt left that they’re deeply worried about Healthcare.gov breaking down under the crush of traffic next month, this ought to take care of it. First they moved the deadline for enrollment back, now they’re lining up insurance companies to start handling enrollments directly as December 23rd approaches.

Kitchen-sink time:

Another one of those options is allowing insurers to sign up consumers from start to finish —called, “direct enrollment.” If consumers choose to directly enroll in a Marketplace plan through an insurance company, they still will be able to compare products, and choose the one that offers them the best value for their dollar. Consumers will be informed that they can compare and select other plans on HealthCare.gov, and prior to buying a health plan, consumer’s application will be securely routed to HealthCare.gov to assess their eligibly for coverage along with potential discounts on premiums and cost sharing. Consumers must have their eligibility verified through the Data Services Hub – regardless of which path they use to enroll.

The option of direct enrollment has been there from the start, and although some issuers have already begun using this option, it has been limited by recent problems with the website. However, we recently announced that we have put in place fixes for more than two-thirds of the high priority bugs related to the website. For this reason, today, we are announcing that issuers in Florida, Texas, and Ohio are ready to participate in a pilot program using this direct enrollment feature, which will help inform our efforts to make this option work better for issuers and consumers in the coming weeks. Under the new pilot program being launched today, issuers utilizing direct enrollment in these three states will provide detailed feedback on their experiences to feed into our real-time work to make improvements for both consumers and issuers. This will help make direct enrollment a viable option for all issuers that wish to use this feature.

Insurers have been pressing them to do this for weeks. The big problem to date was that there were too many privacy concerns involved in giving insurance companies access to federal data hubs about Americans in the name of verifying eligibility. Sounds like they’ve solved that problem somehow — or maybe they just think they’ve solved it. Despite tech experts testifying before Congress that Healthcare.gov presents “critical” security risks, newly-legendary tech moron Kathleen Sebelius says she’s confident it’s fine. Could be they’re rolling this out as a pilot program precisely because they don’t know how secure it’ll be in practice. Good luck, America.

But never mind all that. Isn’t there a bigger problem? Here’s how the Times described the logistical challenges in its story about direct enrollment 10 days ago:

The main stumbling block for some consumers is the need to determine their eligibility for subsidies, and the amount. Insurance companies can now only estimate the amount for them. It is up the government to verify eligibility, using personal financial information from tax returns and the like.

“The question is, can they create a separate direct pathway so consumers can get that information on their subsidies?” asked one industry official. “If they don’t have Healthcare.gov up and running by the end of the month, direct enrollment is critical.”

Actually, insurance companies don’t need to estimate the subsidies an applicant is eligible for because … you can’t get subsidies if you don’t enroll through an exchange. Remember? Read this post to refresh your memory. Sebelius herself is sufficiently worried about people being unwittingly disqualified from subsidies by enrolling directly with insurers that she took care to say a few days ago that only people who know they earn too much income each year to qualify for help from Uncle Sam should consider going that route. And yet, the issue isn’t mentioned in today’s HHS press release. Could be, I guess, that the reference to “potential discounts on premiums and cost sharing” is a veiled reference to subsidies. If so, is HHS suggesting that … they will allow people to apply for subsidies even if they enroll outside an exchange? That would be the third highly illegal move Obama’s made in the name of doing triage on this policy car crash. First was delaying the employer mandate, second was his declaration that insurers can go ahead and un-cancel plans if they like, and now this. Maybe the press release is simply written ambiguously, and what they really have in mind is insurers gently informing lower-income people who qualify for subsidies that they’ll just have to be patient and wait until the website’s working. But either way, I want to know. Either they’re breaking the law or they’re encouraging a de facto two-tiered enrollment system for the lower and middle classes, respectively.

Exit question: Chin up, Democrats. What could go wrong?

I was at yesterday's off-the-record session with #PresidentObama. Can't report it, but can say: he's all in on ACA.

— Howard Fineman (@howardfineman) November 22, 2013

Tags: adverse selection, Al Franken, delay, healthcare.gov, individual, mandate, ObamaCare, risk pool

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair