The Democrats' Obamacare Gambit and Jonathan Chait
Still think it's awesome? Well, for the Obamacare media shills, who have been fairly quiet lately unable to spin the cascading bad news of Obamacare, there's been a sputter of revival. Take Jonathan Chait, who puts forth his assertion: Obamacare Isn’t ‘Crazy,’ and It’s Not Dying," on October 7, 2016, http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/10/7-reasons-to-stop-freaking-out-about-obamacare.html, trying to "explain" away Bill Clinton's remarks that Obamacare is, "The craziest thing in the world," http://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/2016/10/yep-bill-clinton-called-obamacare.html.
First, in explaining away the higher premiums and lower coverage, Chait goes on to protect the only thing that counts to him, the law, not the people impacted by it.
Unbelievably he believes that Obamacare's "problem" is that it doesn't "provide help for people just out of range of qualifying for its subsidies." So he's saying that the law should pick up the tab for the 15 percent of enrollees on exchanges who fall outside income parameters for Obamacare entitlements?
The law already allows for millionaires who can fudge their incomes to fall within the parameters to get government entitlement money because it lacks an assets test.
The law has already MISTAKENLY paid out money to millions of people who weren't eligible for handouts because the verification, including employer verification that insurance wasn't available requirements under the law were not enforced.
The law has already FORGIVEN those wrongful payments deciding it was too hard to collect them.
The law has already been expanded how much the government will pay out when the government went to court to PAY OUT MORE in order to keep the abysmal enrollment from dropping further in King v. Burwell.
So, Chait goes further than Obama and Clinton who both want to INCREASE payouts to people on exchanges in order to keep them as enrollees, but haven't yet insisted on removing all barriers in the form of income parameters regarding who would get those increased payments? That's what he seems to be saying in whining that Obamacare "failed to provide help for people just out of range of qualifying for its subsidies."
Apparently when it comes to spending money on preserving Obamacare Democrat fanboys go further in preserving the life of a law than that of people affected by it. After all, this is the same Administration that adopted the END OF LIFE COUNSELING provisions that PAY physicians to tell people that the cost of their care and the odds of it working make spending money on a chance of survival not worth it. But no amount of dollars should be spared in preserving Obamacare? Disgraceful.
Then Chait argues that Obamacare is a "tremendous success," arguing the fake number of who got health insurance because of Obamacare to 20 million because exchanges have ONLY enrolled this year between 9.4 and 11.1 million people of the 49 million uninsured, others gaining health insurance through MEDICAID, which already existed and expanded MEDICAID and through their parents paying their insurance. Maybe some "smart" Democrats are still fooled, but most smart people aren't--Obamacare exchanges have disappointed in enrollment every year.
Chait tries to slip in that "the federal government is spending less on health care now," which is a number far fewer SMART people cheer for when they realize that in an environment of increasing prices for medical services and care that the government has managed to reduce how much it spends per person for that care by covering less and that WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY THE GOVERNMENT IS DUMPING INTO MAINTAINING OBAMACARE because the government doesn't COUNT how much they spend on Obamacare, just on how much they lay out as a payer for benefits for entitlement programs like Veterans benefits, Medicaid and Medicare:
CBO Publication 49892, 1/15/15, page 1, “…estimates address only the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA and do not reflect all of the act’s budgetary effects…because the provisions of the ACA that do not relate directly to health insurance coverage generally modified existing federal programs (such as Medicare) or made various changes to the tax code, determining what would have happened since the enactment of the ACA had the law not been in effect is becoming increasingly difficult.”
So, Chait's resurrecting the old and disproven argument that these savings on what the government pays on behalf of insureds is a GOOD thing for consumers is ridiculous because A-It omits the amounts spent in administering Obamacare, which are not counted, and B-in the face of increasing prices for medical care and services is based on the government paying less on behalf of its insured leaving individuals paying more for services that are covered. Hardly a consumer victory.
Using last year's numbers, omitting the tremendous increases in premiums this year that are easily verifiable and ignoring the fact that insurance companies are dropping out of Obamacare exchanges, Chait argues that premiums are lower than they were projected to be. So is enrollment.
Chait's being oh so last year, ignoring this year's astronomical premium increases because of the essential weakness of Obamacare--the cost of Obamacare plans is BASED ON THE COST OF NON-OBAMACARE PLANS (the second cheapest silver in a region) and though those prices went through the roof first, now that the bribes or incentives or whatever you call the payoffs to insurers who participated on exchanges risk reinsurance and risk corridor payments which expire this year [http://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/2016/09/10-ways-obamacare-worsened-health-care.html].
Chait argues that the death spiral is unlikely--I'll ignore Chait's drivel here and agree because our government always comes up with money to dump into its pet projects [http://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/2016/09/congress-can-function-when-it-chooses.html].
Still lying after all these years…The death panel, which doesn't get full authority until 2019 under Obamacare IS in the Affordable Care Act and in his August 2016 JAMA article President Obama put his full support behind it, Finally, regarding the death panel, note the President's historical snickering stops as he underscores his support of this panel, "In addition, Congress should not advance legislation that undermines the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which will provide a valuable backstop if rapid cost growth returns to Medicare," that's right, the death panel, http://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/2016/08/president-obamas-jama-article.html. This panel answers to no one if the government spends over its established allocated amounts, they enact cuts and they go through.
The kitchen sink--Jonathan Chait goes down in a smoldering pile of recycled garbage as he argues it's the Republicans' fault that Obamacare doesn't work because Democrats want to fix it--Yeah, Clinton wants to up payouts from government for exchange enrollees and wants to allow illegals to enroll in order to keep enrollment up and offer exchange enrollees only a $5,000 tax credit, dumping more of our taxpayer money into this entitlement program that at its best covers a small percentage of Americans.
Finally Chait addresses how much he hates Republicans arguing with faux nobility that Democratic allegiance to Obamacare is somehow about the poor. This is a persistent and UNTRUTHFUL assertion--Obamacare is NOT about the poorest Americans or else it's the worst attempt EVER to help the poorest among us-- http://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/2016/07/obamacare-court-case-is-not-about.html, where Obamacare INCOME parameters for subsidies are outlined in Act, leaving out unemployed Americans, where Obamacare exemptions from penalty for non-insurance include the homeless, those paying huge medical bills, those who were evicted--the poorest Americans, where Obamacare which had its mandatory Medicaid expansion provisions stricken down by the Supreme Court in 2012, did NOTHING to make sure that hospitals that previously served the poorest patients would continue to do so by also changing the provisions of Obamacare that slashed DSH (Disproportionate Hospital Share payments), leaving these provisions in place.
Chait also weakly puts forth another lie that Obamacare's idea of a single risk pool has resulted in a single risk pool-- "Republicans want to restore the ability of healthy and wealthy people to buy cheap plans that don’t cross-subsidize the sick and the poor — the very features of the insurance system that Obamacare was designed to stop." Nonsense or else again--worst plan ever.
After all, even the fanciful Chait can't change the claim by insurance companies that they're not getting enough young-healthy to "balance" out the sick in certain plans' risk pools and these are core problems with Obamacare's reliance on forcing people to purchase health insurance so that young healthies would be forced to participate in the single risk pool because there are OTHER OPTIONS for young-healthies who can't afford to pay more to even things out for the older-sick including the option of purchasing catastrophic plans only until they're 30, having their parents purchase insurance for them until they're 26, being exempt from having to purchase insurance if they live in a non Medicaid expansion state and are unemployed, purchasing the cheapest plans on exchanges, the bronze.
First, in explaining away the higher premiums and lower coverage, Chait goes on to protect the only thing that counts to him, the law, not the people impacted by it.
Unbelievably he believes that Obamacare's "problem" is that it doesn't "provide help for people just out of range of qualifying for its subsidies." So he's saying that the law should pick up the tab for the 15 percent of enrollees on exchanges who fall outside income parameters for Obamacare entitlements?
The law already allows for millionaires who can fudge their incomes to fall within the parameters to get government entitlement money because it lacks an assets test.
The law has already MISTAKENLY paid out money to millions of people who weren't eligible for handouts because the verification, including employer verification that insurance wasn't available requirements under the law were not enforced.
The law has already FORGIVEN those wrongful payments deciding it was too hard to collect them.
The law has already been expanded how much the government will pay out when the government went to court to PAY OUT MORE in order to keep the abysmal enrollment from dropping further in King v. Burwell.
So, Chait goes further than Obama and Clinton who both want to INCREASE payouts to people on exchanges in order to keep them as enrollees, but haven't yet insisted on removing all barriers in the form of income parameters regarding who would get those increased payments? That's what he seems to be saying in whining that Obamacare "failed to provide help for people just out of range of qualifying for its subsidies."
Apparently when it comes to spending money on preserving Obamacare Democrat fanboys go further in preserving the life of a law than that of people affected by it. After all, this is the same Administration that adopted the END OF LIFE COUNSELING provisions that PAY physicians to tell people that the cost of their care and the odds of it working make spending money on a chance of survival not worth it. But no amount of dollars should be spared in preserving Obamacare? Disgraceful.
Then Chait argues that Obamacare is a "tremendous success," arguing the fake number of who got health insurance because of Obamacare to 20 million because exchanges have ONLY enrolled this year between 9.4 and 11.1 million people of the 49 million uninsured, others gaining health insurance through MEDICAID, which already existed and expanded MEDICAID and through their parents paying their insurance. Maybe some "smart" Democrats are still fooled, but most smart people aren't--Obamacare exchanges have disappointed in enrollment every year.
Chait tries to slip in that "the federal government is spending less on health care now," which is a number far fewer SMART people cheer for when they realize that in an environment of increasing prices for medical services and care that the government has managed to reduce how much it spends per person for that care by covering less and that WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY THE GOVERNMENT IS DUMPING INTO MAINTAINING OBAMACARE because the government doesn't COUNT how much they spend on Obamacare, just on how much they lay out as a payer for benefits for entitlement programs like Veterans benefits, Medicaid and Medicare:
CBO Publication 49892, 1/15/15, page 1, “…estimates address only the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA and do not reflect all of the act’s budgetary effects…because the provisions of the ACA that do not relate directly to health insurance coverage generally modified existing federal programs (such as Medicare) or made various changes to the tax code, determining what would have happened since the enactment of the ACA had the law not been in effect is becoming increasingly difficult.”
So, Chait's resurrecting the old and disproven argument that these savings on what the government pays on behalf of insureds is a GOOD thing for consumers is ridiculous because A-It omits the amounts spent in administering Obamacare, which are not counted, and B-in the face of increasing prices for medical care and services is based on the government paying less on behalf of its insured leaving individuals paying more for services that are covered. Hardly a consumer victory.
Using last year's numbers, omitting the tremendous increases in premiums this year that are easily verifiable and ignoring the fact that insurance companies are dropping out of Obamacare exchanges, Chait argues that premiums are lower than they were projected to be. So is enrollment.
Chait's being oh so last year, ignoring this year's astronomical premium increases because of the essential weakness of Obamacare--the cost of Obamacare plans is BASED ON THE COST OF NON-OBAMACARE PLANS (the second cheapest silver in a region) and though those prices went through the roof first, now that the bribes or incentives or whatever you call the payoffs to insurers who participated on exchanges risk reinsurance and risk corridor payments which expire this year [http://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/2016/09/10-ways-obamacare-worsened-health-care.html].
Chait argues that the death spiral is unlikely--I'll ignore Chait's drivel here and agree because our government always comes up with money to dump into its pet projects [http://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/2016/09/congress-can-function-when-it-chooses.html].
Still lying after all these years…The death panel, which doesn't get full authority until 2019 under Obamacare IS in the Affordable Care Act and in his August 2016 JAMA article President Obama put his full support behind it, Finally, regarding the death panel, note the President's historical snickering stops as he underscores his support of this panel, "In addition, Congress should not advance legislation that undermines the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which will provide a valuable backstop if rapid cost growth returns to Medicare," that's right, the death panel, http://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/2016/08/president-obamas-jama-article.html. This panel answers to no one if the government spends over its established allocated amounts, they enact cuts and they go through.
The kitchen sink--Jonathan Chait goes down in a smoldering pile of recycled garbage as he argues it's the Republicans' fault that Obamacare doesn't work because Democrats want to fix it--Yeah, Clinton wants to up payouts from government for exchange enrollees and wants to allow illegals to enroll in order to keep enrollment up and offer exchange enrollees only a $5,000 tax credit, dumping more of our taxpayer money into this entitlement program that at its best covers a small percentage of Americans.
Finally Chait addresses how much he hates Republicans arguing with faux nobility that Democratic allegiance to Obamacare is somehow about the poor. This is a persistent and UNTRUTHFUL assertion--Obamacare is NOT about the poorest Americans or else it's the worst attempt EVER to help the poorest among us-- http://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/2016/07/obamacare-court-case-is-not-about.html, where Obamacare INCOME parameters for subsidies are outlined in Act, leaving out unemployed Americans, where Obamacare exemptions from penalty for non-insurance include the homeless, those paying huge medical bills, those who were evicted--the poorest Americans, where Obamacare which had its mandatory Medicaid expansion provisions stricken down by the Supreme Court in 2012, did NOTHING to make sure that hospitals that previously served the poorest patients would continue to do so by also changing the provisions of Obamacare that slashed DSH (Disproportionate Hospital Share payments), leaving these provisions in place.
Chait also weakly puts forth another lie that Obamacare's idea of a single risk pool has resulted in a single risk pool-- "Republicans want to restore the ability of healthy and wealthy people to buy cheap plans that don’t cross-subsidize the sick and the poor — the very features of the insurance system that Obamacare was designed to stop." Nonsense or else again--worst plan ever.
After all, even the fanciful Chait can't change the claim by insurance companies that they're not getting enough young-healthy to "balance" out the sick in certain plans' risk pools and these are core problems with Obamacare's reliance on forcing people to purchase health insurance so that young healthies would be forced to participate in the single risk pool because there are OTHER OPTIONS for young-healthies who can't afford to pay more to even things out for the older-sick including the option of purchasing catastrophic plans only until they're 30, having their parents purchase insurance for them until they're 26, being exempt from having to purchase insurance if they live in a non Medicaid expansion state and are unemployed, purchasing the cheapest plans on exchanges, the bronze.
0 Response to "The Democrats' Obamacare Gambit and Jonathan Chait"
Posting Komentar