Obamacare is Here....let's review

[SDHornet]

This has gotten comical. And with EVERY delay, every extension the republicans in congress are proved right and the donks in congress look more and more stupid.

Pretty much. Love how Obama had to extend the employer mandate to after this election cycle...like we all didn't see that coming.

[houndawg]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/36 ... -john-fund





This is absurd. Just..absurd.

These are the same assnecks who would claim that mustard makes legitimate BBQ sauce.

Probably some pencil-neck from Carolina.


If it isn't vinegar based it isn't BBQ sauce.

[houndawg]

Bet BDK had no issues with Obamacare when it was the idea of the Heritage Foundage.

Sauce that weak is a sign of desperation.

kalm is right as usual but only on a technicality - BDJRKWD was probably in diapers then.

When I read the bleating, whimpering and hand-wringing of he and his litter-mates here I'm reminded of back in the day when Medicare and Medicaid were implemented. Same chicken-little response from the same crowd.

And look here 40 years later: Even tea party half-wits don't want the govmint messing with their Medicare/Medicaid ...

[CAA Flagship]

If it isn't vinegar based it isn't BBQ sauce.

You are correct. And that is quite a feat for a dead guy.

[Ibanez]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101397231" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There is so much uncertainty about Obamacare that Aetna, the U.S.'s third-largest insurance provider, may be forced to double its rates or opt out of the program, the company's CEO, Mark Bertolini, told CNBC on Thursday.

What action Aetna will take is still up in the air, but the company doesn't plan to set its 2015 Obamacare rates until May 15. Between now and then, though, Bertolini said he's trying to get the necessary information from the Obama administration to properly price its insurance products.

I think in the end analysis, pulling out is always the last resort

[BDKJMU]

What number change is this? 15? 15 changes without congressional approval, maybe they should've read it before they passed it.

27.
http://www.galen.org/topics/at-least-27 ... obamacare/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My question is, under what legal authority can a POTUS unilaterally change a law that Congress has passed?

[Baldy]

What number change is this? 15? 15 changes without congressional approval, maybe they should've read it before they passed it.

27.
http://www.galen.org/topics/at-least-27 ... obamacare/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My question is, under what legal authority can a POTUS unilaterally change a law that Congress has passed?

When it's a Conk president, never.
When it's a Donk president, whenever the fuck he wants.

[houndawg]

27.
http://www.galen.org/topics/at-least-27 ... obamacare/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My question is, under what legal authority can a POTUS unilaterally change a law that Congress has passed?

When it's a Conk president, never.
When it's a Donk president, whenever the **** he wants.

When there is a conk president its called a "signing statement".

[Baldy]

When it's a Conk president, never.
When it's a Donk president, whenever the **** he wants.

When there is a conk president its called a "signing statement".

Obama uses them too, and Clinton issued many more than Bush. It seems odd, but the same crowd who bitched about signing statements are extremely silent about Obama's decrees.

[houndawg]

When there is a conk president its called a "signing statement".

Obama uses them too, and Clinton issued many more than Bush. It seems odd, but the same crowd who bitched about signing statements are extremely silent about Obama's decrees.

Obama is dead to me. I voted for Willie Nelson in '12.

[Ibanez]

The Obama administration has decided that the sequester's mandatory spending cuts no longer apply to part of Obamacare.

The health care law provides subsidies to help low-income people cover some of their out-of-pocket costs. Last year, the administration said those subsidies were taking a 7 percent cut because of the sequester, which imposed across-the-board reductions in federal spending.

But now, the White House has changed its mind. It removed the cost-sharing subsidies from its list of programs that are subject to the sequester, eliminating the 7 percent cut for 2015.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which noticed the change, said the reversal would likely restore about $560 million to the subsidies—and require $560 million in cuts to other programs to make up for it.

The cost-sharing subsidies are expected to total $8 billion this year and $156 billion over the next decade.

Who benefits from the change? The low-income families who qualify for these subsidies, as well as the White House and insurance companies.

Some consumers have complained about high out-of-pocket costs in the plans they've purchased through the health care law's exchanges. This change will help reduce those costs, at least for low-income families. And because the subsidy is paid directly to insurance companies, the change means more money for insurers as well.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-c ... e-20140313" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ASUMountaineer]

The Obama administration has decided that the sequester's mandatory spending cuts no longer apply to part of Obamacare.

The health care law provides subsidies to help low-income people cover some of their out-of-pocket costs. Last year, the administration said those subsidies were taking a 7 percent cut because of the sequester, which imposed across-the-board reductions in federal spending.

But now, the White House has changed its mind. It removed the cost-sharing subsidies from its list of programs that are subject to the sequester, eliminating the 7 percent cut for 2015.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which noticed the change, said the reversal would likely restore about $560 million to the subsidies—and require $560 million in cuts to other programs to make up for it.

The cost-sharing subsidies are expected to total $8 billion this year and $156 billion over the next decade.

Who benefits from the change? The low-income families who qualify for these subsidies, as well as the White House and insurance companies.

Some consumers have complained about high out-of-pocket costs in the plans they've purchased through the health care law's exchanges. This change will help reduce those costs, at least for low-income families. And because the subsidy is paid directly to insurance companies, the change means more money for insurers as well.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-c ... e-20140313" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Will the next president have the unilateral authority to change any law, item, or requirement that is part of or subject to the ACA? If so, we could be in for an interesting ride come 2016. This is madness.

[Ibanez]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-c ... e-20140313" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Will the next president have the unilateral authority to change any law, item, or requirement that is part of or subject to the ACA? If so, we could be in for an interesting ride come 2016. This is madness.

Only if he/she is a Democrat.

[YoUDeeMan]

Wasn't Obamacare labeled a tax by the Court?

How can the President alter any part of a tax?

[Ibanez]

http://www.10news.com/news/local-couple ... a-03282014" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

local couple called 10News concerned after they received an envelope from the state's Obamacare website, Covered California. Inside was a letter discussing voter registration and a registration card pre-marked with an "x" in the box next to Democratic Party.

The couple – who did not want their identity revealed – received the letter and voter registration card from their health insurance provider Covered California, the state-run agency that implements President Obama's Affordable Care Act.

[Ibanez]

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/ ... e-Websites" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Maryland will spend an additional $40 million to save its website, which has already cost $90 million. Nevada has spent $50 million to date and will decide in the coming weeks how much more it will spend on repair efforts. Massachusetts will pour an additional $121 million into fixing its severely troubled state portal, while also using the federal portal as a back up plan. - See more at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/ ... vGhXl.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm struggling to understand how it can cost so much for a website... A WEBSITE?!

[YoUDeeMan]

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/ ... e-Websites

Maryland will spend an additional $40 million to save its website, which has already cost $90 million. Nevada has spent $50 million to date and will decide in the coming weeks how much more it will spend on repair efforts. Massachusetts will pour an additional $121 million into fixing its severely troubled state portal, while also using the federal portal as a back up plan. - See more at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/ ... vGhXl.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm struggling to understand how it can cost so much for a website... A WEBSITE?!

It is a GOVERNMENT website.

No competition...lots of jobs for dolts who do nothing (including management), and no accountability for results (we'll just hire more people and purchase more stuff without getting rid of the old stuff or existing staff...it will eventually work, right?).