Obamacare cost...

[Uncle Ted]

Six.


That's how many people signed up for Obamacare on Day 1, according to CBS News, and no that's not a misprint.


The Obama administration has kept the number of enrollments close to the vest. Its touted the number of visitors to the troubled HealthCare.gov website – 4.7 million – but hasn't released the actual number of enrollments.
[...]

http://news.yahoo.com/day-1-of-obama...233817649.html

[Uncle Ted]

There is a Green Party guy? I thought we hated the environment in America?

Yeah, Ralph Nader. I voted for him once.

[byu71]

The dems keep using Mass. as the example of a slow start and yet finishing with great popularity. Someone should let the dems know the Country as a whole isn't as progressive as Mass. and may not act the same way. What would have been wrong with letting each indifidual state handle health care for their citizens?

[il Padrino Ute]

[LA Ute]

CNN:

Senate Democrats supported rule that led to insurance cancellations

Senate Democrats voted unanimously three years ago to support the Obamacare rule that is largely responsible for some of the health insurance cancellation letters that are going out.

In September 2010, Senate Republicans brought a resolution to the floor to block implementation of the grandfather rule, warning that it would result in canceled policies and violate President Barack Obama’s promise that people could keep their insurance if they liked it.

“The District of Columbia is an island surrounded by reality. Only in the District of Columbia could you get away with telling the people if you like what you have you can keep it, and then pass regulations six months later that do just the opposite and figure that people are going to ignore it. But common sense is eventually going to prevail in this town and common sense is going to have to prevail on this piece of legislation as well,” Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley said at the time.

“The administration's own regulations prove this is not the case. Under the grandfathering regulation, according to the White House's own economic impact analysis, as many as 69 percent of businesses will lose their grandfathered status by 2013 and be forced to buy government-approved plans,” the Iowa Republican said

On a party line vote, Democrats killed the resolution, which could come back to haunt vulnerable Democrats up for re-election this year.

Senate Democrats like Mary Landrieu, Jeanne Shaheen, Mark Pryor, Kay Hagan and Mark Begich – all of whom voted against stopping the rule from going into effect and have since supported delaying parts of Obamacare.

[Uncle Ted]

CNN:

Senate Democrats supported rule that led to insurance cancellations

I refuse to believe this crap until until VirginiaCoug says it is true and it is reported on MSNBC. CNN has been telling lies about Obama lately and I am guessing they have turned on the dems in general. They are as bad as that Fox news network now.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

CNN:

Senate Democrats supported rule that led to insurance cancellations

In other words, the Senate Republicans tried to make sure the Democrats kept their promise and Harry Reid made sure it went nowhere. I'm pretty sure this could count as an example of Republicans trying to operate along the margins of Obamacare -- in other words trying to make some kind of their own contribution.

But all we've heard from the resident moderate on here is how the Republicans have contributed nothing to this discourse. It's almost as if he's either intentionally or unintentionally ignorant of Harry Reid's antics since he's been majority leader. Simply put, virtually nothing coming from Republicans from within the House or Senate gets past Harry Reid until we're in a state of emergency and Reid absolutely HAS to allow some kind of compromise through.

[Jacob]

CNN:

Senate Democrats supported rule that led to insurance cancellations

Wow. I didn't remember that.
And I think it's way too late now to fix the grandfather problem. Insurance companies have already changed all the plans as the law required them. I doubt they can go back and re-write a bunch of new plans to transfer people back on so that they can be grandfathered.

And all we hear from democrats is that this doesn't affect 80% of the people because their employer coverage stays the same. Will someone report on whether that is true. I think Mr. Grassley was right, as quoted in that post.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Wow. I didn't remember that.
And I think it's way too late now to fix the grandfather problem. Insurance companies have already changed all the plans as the law required them. I doubt they can go back and re-write a bunch of new plans to transfer people back on so that they can be grandfathered.

And all we hear from democrats is that this doesn't affect 80% of the people because their employer coverage stays the same. Will someone report on whether that is true. I think Mr. Grassley was right, as quoted in that post.

I think there's also going to be ton of group plans that won't pass ACA muster. I don't think it will be to the same percentage as the individual market, but the number of people on employer-provided coverage is massive. If 50% of the individual policies are cancelled, what is that about 15 million Americans? But if 25% of the group plans are cancelled, then we're talking about a crapload of people. I don't know what that number would be, but it would have to be around 40-50 million people.

And what's really frightening about it is what's going to happen to the individual markets in the year between when Obamacare took effect and when the employer mandate kicks in (fall of 2013 through fall of 2014). Employers are going to be dumping people on the exchanges in droves either because their policies don't qualify under Obamacare -- and that's going to happen after what might be a shitload of adverse selection in the individual pools that's occurring right now through next year.

[Uncle Ted]

I think there's also going to be ton of group plans that won't pass ACA muster. I don't think it will be to the same percentage as the individual market, but the number of people on employer-provided coverage is massive. If 50% of the individual policies are cancelled, what is that about 15 million Americans? But if 25% of the group plans are cancelled, then we're talking about a crapload of people. I don't know what that number would be, but it would have to be around 40-50 million people.

And what's really frightening about it is what's going to happen to the individual markets in the year between when Obamacare took effect and when the employer mandate kicks in (fall of 2013 through fall of 2014). Employers are going to be dumping people on the exchanges in droves either because their policies don't qualify under Obamacare -- and that's going to happen after what might be a shitload of adverse selection in the individual pools that's occurring right now through next year.

Yeah, but this only applies to people stupid enough to be working for themselves (like myself) or for a small company that doesn't offer a plan (or all those people that are being hired but only part-time). The government was smart enough to give large employers an exemption for a year (not to mention all those union workers with their soon to be taxed "cadillac" insurance plans). These large corporations are rich and will never change their insurance coverage so those Americans will be grandfathered under their old plans, right?

[snowcat]

Wow. I didn't remember that.
And I think it's way too late now to fix the grandfather problem. Insurance companies have already changed all the plans as the law required them. I doubt they can go back and re-write a bunch of new plans to transfer people back on so that they can be grandfathered.

And all we hear from democrats is that this doesn't affect 80% of the people because their employer coverage stays the same. Will someone report on whether that is true. I think Mr. Grassley was right, as quoted in that post.

Forbes reported yesterday that the by the administrations own estimates, half of employer-sponsored programs will have to change. I will find the report and post a link.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Yeah, but this only applies to people stupid enough to be working for themselves (like myself) or for a small company that doesn't offer a plan (or all those people that are being hired but only part-time). The government was smart enough to give large employers an exemption for a year (not to mention all those union workers with their soon to be taxed "cadillac" insurance plans). These large corporations are rich and will never change their insurance coverage so those Americans will be grandfathered under their old plans, right?

No, there are still a lot of small employers who offer health insurance and those are group plans. I'm not saying that Exxon, Google and Goldman Sachs are going to be forced to drop their insurance -- I'm talking about the employers that have 25 employees or so and they're able to offer something that is relatively inexpensive to them. There are a ton of people in this country that work for businesses with less than 25 employees.

[snowcat]

"The Departments’ mid-range estimate is that 66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013,” wrote the administration on page 34,552 of the Register. All in all, more than half of employer-sponsored plans will lose their “grandfather status” and become illegal. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 156 million Americans—more than half the population—was covered by employer-sponsored insurance in 2013.

How many people are exposed to these problems? 60 percent of Americans have private-sector health insurance—precisely the number that Jay Carney dismissed. As to the number of people facing cancellations, 51 percent of the employer-based market plus 53.5 percent of the non-group market (the middle of the administration’s range) amounts to 93 million Americans.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...der-obamacare/

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I found this dialogue between Hugh Hewitt and Charles Krauthammer to be quite interesting:

HH: Almost in passing, in an essay called The Inner Man, which is about a lot about Edmund Morris writing on Reagan, you note that in four pages of his book, he blows through the years ’76-’80, and I quote you now. “When Reagan remade American politics,” might we not be at the same place, and I’m not going to call you to say is it Cruz, is it Rubio, is it Christie, but might we not be in the same sort of situation as that, those four years in which Reagan remade American politics?

CK: I do think so. I think we, and I would give one example of a sign that that might be coming. I’m not a prophet here, but I’m looking at the collapse of Obamacare. Obamacare is the great symbol of the overreach of American liberalism. It’s an attempt to add an entitlement at a time in our history when we have to be reducing, slimming, reforming and remaking the entitlements, because it’s devouring the budget and making the country, turning its economy into a stagnant pool. At that time, we get a president whose ideal is the Western Europe and those social democratic states of Europe, adding an entitlement which will be hugely expensive. But now, as it unfolds, is a disaster. I’m not saying it necessarily will be, but if it is, if it continues on this path, I think it will be an event that will set back American liberalism, and the idea of the ever-expanding, ever-intrusive, ever-overprotective, paternalistic state, that will set it back ten years, maybe a generation.

HH: That brings me to a question I wrote when I was on your essay on affirmative action, in which you wrote, “Issues of this magnitude should never be decided by nine robes.” I thought of Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion in Sebelius, which I thought was a masterpiece when it was written, though I was disappointed with the result, and I think increasingly, it’s a work of genius to have stood back, preserved the Commerce Clause jurisprudence, and at the same time, understood that this had to happen if the country was ever going to confront the empty, hollow, tragic demands of progressivism. What do you think?

CK: Well, you know, I do think, all of us would love a shortcut to the policy of outcome that we want. And I write about this, as you’re absolutely right, in affirmative action. What I was writing, a very messy, muddy decision that came, of course, from Sandra Day O’Connor having to do with the Michigan Law admissions, law school admissions. And I said, you know, and the conservatives were in despair over this, and I said, I wrote in the column, look, we could have gotten a decision that would ratify what we want. On the other hand, there would be eternal opposition from the other side, and they would say that we cut short the debate in the same way that the liberals on abortion cut short the debate, took it out of the political arena, and left half of America disenfranchised, and the issue unresolved. So I said, I was writing in praise of the muddy decision, because I said there’s no reason affirmative action is reaffirmed or imposed by this decision. It simply says it’s not legally outlawed. In other words, it leaves the disposition, the future of affirmative action, where it should be, in the hands of the people. Let us over time, and I’m sure we will, let us, over time, come to the collective decision expressed through the ballot box, and through the Congress and the state legislatures, that we want a colorblind society. If we arrive at it in that way, we will have achieved far more, because the other side will see it as a legitimate decision. They will see it as a consensual American response, and they won’t see it as nine robes imposing themselves. So it’s one of those columns which, and I chose a lot of them that are sort of counterintuitive, but trying to show a different way to get to the same vote.

http://www.hughhewitt.com/dr-charles...things-matter/

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I think the end of this year and through 2014 is going to continue to be fascinating. Like Krauthammer, I don't think it's ironclad that Obamacare is going to collapse. However, I think the only way it won't collapse is if the government eventually props up the individual insurance market and I don't think that's an impossibility.

From what I've heard, the insurance companies think they can weather the blow of the first year of Obamacare. But in the past six months, two rather big things have happened: 1) The government pushed off the employer mandate for one year; and 2) The healthcare.gov website has been a charlie foxtrot of epic proportions. This is a website where basically all of the obamacare policies have to be run through for 34 of the states. So, I can't help but wonder if the insurance companies are sweating bullets at these two events -- first off, they're not getting all of the healthy castoffs from the small employer group plans that don't pass ACA muster; and second, the failed launch of the healthcare.gov has allowed for only the most motivated to sign up for insurance and the rest of the visitors think it's a joke.

So, we're looking at a real possibility of the individual insurance markets being in real trouble a year from now due to massive adverse selection. That would coincide with the exchanges being flooded with people that lost their employer provided insurance. The rates will be higher, not lower and that's if the insurance companies haven't totally bailed on the individual market.

If the insurance companies just choose to stick with the more predictable and stable high-priced group plans then we'll eventually have a much more stratified healthcare system. The wreckage wrought by Obamacare could be enormous and it would be just in time for the 2014 elections. If this is all the case then I see one of three results -- 1) Obama and the Democrats work with the Republicans to scale back Obamacare in its entirety and do something to address the damage that has already been done; 2) A portion of the Democrats in the House and Senate, fearing for their reelection either in 2014 or beyond rebel against the Obama Administration and the numbers are so tremendous that Obama may be staring at a veto being overridden; or 3) Obama and the Democrats stick to their guns and the Democrats suffer some significant losses in the midterms but not even close to enough for the Republicans to override a veto. I think #2 is pretty remote (it would take all of the vulnerable Democrats in the Senate plus maybe another ten to pull this off, plus who knows what Reid could do to block such a vote from ever taking place), #3 is the most likely and #1 is what a non-shitty political class could pull off.