Posted on 11/01/2013 9:35:01 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The first month of the new health law’s rollout reveals an unexpected pattern in several states: a crush of people applying for an expansion of Medicaid and a trickle of sign-ups for private insurance.
This early imbalance — in some places, nine out of 10 enrollees are in Medicaid — has taken some experts by surprise. The Affordable Care Act, which expanded Medicaid to cover millions of the poorest Americans who couldn’t otherwise afford coverage, envisions a more even split with an expanded, robust private market.
“When we first saw the numbers, everyone’s eyes kind of bugged out,” said Matt Salo, who runs the National Association of Medicaid Directors. “Of the people walking through the door, 90 percent are on Medicaid. We’re thinking, what planet is this happening on?”
The yawning gap between public and private enrollment is handing Republicans yet another line of criticism against President Obama’s health overhaul — that the law is primarily becoming an expansion of a costly entitlement program.
Supporters, however, caution against reading too much into the early numbers. Some of the states that set up their own exchanges, including Maryland, are suffering Web site glitches similar to those of the national system, and that is delaying private plan enrollments.....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
If only 11 million were uninsured, that’s actually a low number. There have to be more people than that who avoid medical care and pharmaceuticals.
They are not going to be pleased when the result is a bunch of doctors and hospitals who refuse to take Medicaid patients. But that's a detail that's insignificant compared to the larger goal of increasing the number of people dependent on government.
I use the 40 million figure to save time, and prevent debates about the exact percentages, and lists of exceptions, etc.
The “official” number that is now endorsed by the MSM has come way down, by the way.
It was 60 million when the law was passed, and 50 million during the 2012 campaign.
Lately, I've been thinking about two other issues.
What's going to happen when poor and moderate income people can't afford to pay these $6,000 deductibles they have all been signing up for?
For that matter, what happens if someone can't afford to pay his monthly premiums but doesn't qualify for Medicaid?
Will they be denied health care?
Guess again!
When the bill for those two unfunded liabilities comes due the ObamaCare train is going right off the track.
We have yet to experience all the bad that is going to come from this.
Hospitals are already dropping out. Other hospitals will fail.
Doctors and surgeons and nurses will leave the profession.
The entire healthcare infrastructure is going to be damaged beyond recognition.
People will get worse care...and it will cost them more.
Or they may get no care at all. To address your two examples:
What's going to happen when poor and moderate income people can't afford to pay these $6,000 deductibles they have all been signing up for?
For that matter, what happens if someone can't afford to pay his monthly premiums but doesn't qualify for Medicaid?
Whereas, before, hospitals were required to treat emergency cases without compensation. Now, though, it is my understanding that it will be against the law for a hospital or a physician to provide care for "free". If everybody must be insured, everybody must pay.
Accordingly, hospitals have begun to ask for payment up front -- in order to avoid being stuck with an uncollectible charge against the deductible. Many in the middle-class might be insured, but they may not be able to afford Junior's broken leg. Or Daddy's pain in the chest...
For many, it will be worse than no coverage at all. They will have paid out the monthly premium...but can't afford the $6000 deductible.
Obamacare is going to be a disaster. Much of the damage will be irreversible. Thus, the sooner it's ripped out by the roots, the less permanent damage it can do.
The IRS has almost no statutory power to collect ObamaCare “fines” from people who fail to purchase insurance.
About 10 days ago Rush Limbaugh summarized an excerpt from the Congressional “Joint Committee On Taxation” (page 33, paragraph 2)
Link: https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=3673
The IRS can “add” a fine to your tax bill, but its only coercive power to collect the fine is to subtract it from your tax refund, IF and only IF you have a tax refund.
Bad luck for those who get the Earned Income Tax Credit, obviously.
But, for the rest of us, the IRS cannot garnish wages, seize property, impose liens, or send us to jail.
The Congressional summary actually says the IRS cannot file a civil or criminal lawsuit over unpaid fines!
Two Questions:
(1) Does this destroy John Roberts’ ruling that the fine is a tax? (read footnote 68, page 33)
(2) Is there any reason people can't completely ignore the fine and just ask insurance companies to write policies that do not conform to ObamaCare standards, policies that they actually want to buy?
It is my understanding that there is no ruling that the fine is a tax. Roberts simply called it a tax as a means of justifying his ruling that Obamacare was Constitutuional. Since the four liberals joined him in this ruling, Obamacare was declared Constitutional. But nobody joined him by concurring in his "it's a tax" opinion -- which is simply considered advisory.
(2) Is there any reason people can't completely ignore the fine and just ask insurance companies to write policies that do not conform to ObamaCare standards, policies that they actually want to buy?
In all likelihood, the insurance company would be committing a felony if they were to accede to your request.
For confirmation, you could ask any insurance agent.
Stossel did a story a couple years ago about how Hawaii tried to institute statewide universal health care a few years before that. The program went way over budget within a year and was repealed. Problem is states have to keep on budget more or less. The feds don’t and Obama couldn’t care less how much debt he adds on.
Yep, yet Cruz was a terrorist for trying to dodge the bullet the only way we could while the quisling Repubs argued we should let the victim be shot so they can feel the pain and maybe help them get some political benefit out of it. Which one is the terrorist again? The definition of terrorism is to threaten someone with injury in an effort to gain politically.
Once one liberal judge declares that it's an unconstitutional "Jim Crow" style law to create a second-class citizen status where they're not eligible for benefits, that part of the "pathway to amnesty" law will be thrown out and it'll be full amnesty for all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.