Mandate Lifted

NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior MemberPosts: 10,118 Senior Member
Apparently this law is being written or un-written as we go along. Depends on how you look at it I guess.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-20/obama-aides-say-more-to-gain-coverage-under-aca-than-canceled.html

Replies

  • Scott ButnerScott Butner Senior Member Posts: 3,918 Senior Member
    there seems to be a common misunderstanding between law and regulation. Not sure if it's the case here but typically the "law" as passed by Congress lays out goals, objectives and targets -- the regulations/rules as enacted by the administration set deadlines, specific technical details, etc.
  • dryfliedryflie Senior Member Posts: 1,442 Senior Member
    there seems to be a common misunderstanding between law and regulation. Not sure if it's the case here but typically the "law" as passed by Congress lays out goals, objectives and targets -- the regulations/rules as enacted by the administration set deadlines, specific technical details, etc.

    You got it Scott. The administration has pretty broad leeway when it comes to execution. In many ways the people implementing the ACA are reacting to problems as they develop. I don't see anything wrong with that.
    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 10,118 Senior Member
    there seems to be a common misunderstanding between law and regulation. Not sure if it's the case here but typically the "law" as passed by Congress lays out goals, objectives and targets -- the regulations/rules as enacted by the administration set deadlines, specific technical details, etc.

    Except the mandate is a law. There is no grey area. So much so, that it went to the SC to be decided if it was lawful.

    http://www.npr.org/2013/10/11/230851737/faq-understanding-the-health-insurance-mandate-and-penalties-for-going-uninsured

    This is nothing more than the administration realizing that more people have lost insurance than gained and now they are trying to play CYA.
  • Brian D.Brian D. Senior Member Posts: 4,011 Senior Member
    joekrz wrote: »
    Except the mandate is a law. There is no grey area.

    Except that the implementation of the mandate is largely delegated to the Executive Branch in said law. So there's actually a truckload of grey area, and you don't really know what you're talking about here.

    One might legitimately criticize the Administration on the basis that these last-minute changes after the insurance carriers have started selling policies creates a hazard of destabilizing the market. This stuff thrives on predictability, and I suppose a bunch of actuaries out there may be having a heart attack.

    But this conservative talking point that Obama is just going around "unwriting" a law passed by Congress is kind of stupid. That's not what's going on.

    bd
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 10,118 Senior Member
    Brian D. wrote: »
    Except that the implementation of the mandate is largely delegated to the Executive Branch in said law. So there's actually a truckload of grey area, and you don't really know what you're talking about here.

    Effective January 1, 2014 the law states that you must carry insurance or pay a fine.

    I'm not a lawyer, but am willing to try and underatand here how there can be a grey area and how the administration can just decide to lift that which is required by law.



    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
  • Brian D.Brian D. Senior Member Posts: 4,011 Senior Member
    Cite the part of the statute which establishes the 1/1/14 deadline.

    bd
  • Brian D.Brian D. Senior Member Posts: 4,011 Senior Member
    Sigh. Okay, let me try again. Cite it, and then f'king ACTUALLY READ it. The section includes a provision giving the Secretary of HHS broad power to grant a hardship exemption to basically anyone who would have difficulty obtaining coverage under a qualified health plan - which is exactly what happened here. Basically, Congress gave the Executive Branch a way of letting people off the hook so they won't get stuck paying the penalty if they can't get the coverage.

    bd
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 10,118 Senior Member
    Saw that. But it's pretty sad that the hardship itself was created by the this law. Don't you think?

    The term "hardship" is being thrown around a little loosely in my opinion.
  • swiperswiper Senior Member Posts: 396 Senior Member
    The hardship in many cases came not from the law, but rather the way insurers reacted to it by raising rates and sending threatening letters out to constituents at the end of 2013. The folks that enacted the law didn't anticipate that.

    However, as I have posted before, this will all settle out eventually. Once co-ops are established, they will hold costs down and shopping for insurance will be cheaper and we will all have more options.

    One is already up an running in New York (new option) and on the NY State Health Exchange as an option:
    Health Republic is a non-profit consumer operated and oriented health insurance plan serving the people of New Jersey, New York, and Oregon.

    https://www.healthrepublic.us/

    This is one of many ways the ACA will improve health care.
  • swiperswiper Senior Member Posts: 396 Senior Member
    Let's not be confused about health care in America. Who ruined it? The government by mismanaging Medicare. Not by enacting the ACA. More so however, it has been ruined by the insurance and pharmaceutical industry/lobbies.
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 10,118 Senior Member
    mikgaes wrote: »
    The hardship in many cases came not from the law, but rather the way insurers reacted to it by raising rates and sending threatening letters out to constituents at the end of 2013. The folks that enacted the law didn't anticipate that.

    Actions have consequences.

    Did the administration actually think that insurers were going to offer all of the mandatory benefits required by the law at the same or lower cost? The hardships were created by the law and middle class people making $45-$50k are the ones taking it in the **** right now through cancelled policies and in some cases doubled premiums.

    As it stands right now, the law is actually hurting more people than it is helping.
  • mikgaes wrote: »
    The hardship in many cases came not from the law, but rather the way insurers reacted to it by raising rates and sending threatening letters out to constituents at the end of 2013. The folks that enacted the law didn't anticipate that.

    However, as I have posted before, this will all settle out eventually. Once co-ops are established, they will hold costs down and shopping for insurance will be cheaper and we will all have more options.

    One is already up an running in New York (new option) and on the NY State Health Exchange as an option:



    https://www.healthrepublic.us/

    This is one of many ways the ACA will improve health care.


    Generally speaking, this is bullsh-t. If insurers have to cover more conditions and aren't allowed to age rate properly, rates will go up. Insurers "reacted" properly and as expected. The Obama administration and the Congressional Dems were warned from the very beginning.

    Co-ops won't do sh-t. There are already plenty of mutuals that don't have stockholders and are supposedly owned by their insureds. Adding a few more won't matter squat. New York only looks good under Obamacare because the state was so effed up (take all comers without a mandate) that Obamacare was an improvement.

    Joe's absolutely right, the hardship that Obama is now citing was caused by the unintended consequences of a bad law. Meanwhile the insurers that agreed to participate on the exchange will not get the number or diversity of insureds for which they priced. Look for bigger rate increases next year.
  • tim_stim_s Senior Member Posts: 1,964 Senior Member
    damned doctors pretending to understand healthcare
    Fly Fishing in Maine - www.flyfishinginmaine.com
  • tim_s wrote: »
    damned doctors pretending to understand actuarial tables

    Fixed for you.
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 9,973 Senior Member
    I think the main result of the law and its companion regulations may turn out to be the improvement in access to routine health care by the poor, financed by a little income redistribution from the rest of us.

    It also is a Godsend for those who formerly could not get affordable coverage - or any at all - because of preexisting conditions.

    All the arguments and to-do about the porcine rut of a roll-out says nothing about the long term effects.
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • This thread isn't about the rollout, but the actual affect of the law on people and insurers.

    Here's another problem. The catastrophic coverage on the exchanges is priced for people under 30. If a 55 year-old can now buy it at the same price, it's just more a disaster waiting to happen.

    Obamacare is, at its heart, income re-distribution. It will fail, as all such attempts do, without the full force and power of the federal government enforcing it - and Obama doesn't seem to have the will.
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 10,118 Senior Member
    I believe you are correct. I also don't believe the intent of the "hardship" exemption was meant due to a hardship created by the law. But Kathleen seems to have spun it that way. Couple of interesting articles.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-george/is-obama-backing-away-fro_b_4492796.html


    Offering further clarification in June 2013 about what would qualify a person for a “hardship” exemption, CMS said a person could get a hardship exemption if he or she:
    • becomes homeless;
    • has been evicted in the past six months, or is facing eviction or foreclosure;
    • has received a shut-off notice from a utility company;
    • recently experienced domestic violence;
    • recently experienced the death of a close family member;
    • recently experienced a fire, flood, or other natural or human-caused disaster that resulted in substantial damage to the individual’s property;
    • filed for bankruptcy in the last 6 months;
    • incurred unreimbursed medical expenses in the last 24 months that resulted in substantial debt;
    • experienced unexpected increases in essential expenses due to caring for an ill, disabled, or aging family member;
    • is a child who has been determined ineligible for Medicaid and CHIP, and for whom a party other than the party who expects to claim him or her as a tax dependent is required by court order to provide medical support. We note that this exemption should only be provided for the months during which the medical support order is in effect; or
    • as a result of an eligibility appeals decision, is determined eligible for enrollment in a QHP through the Marketplace, advance payments of the premium tax credit, or cost-sharing reductions for a period of time during which he or she was not enrolled in a QHP through the Marketplace, noting that this exemption should only be provided for the period of time affected by the appeals decision.
    With this latest change, a new circumstance is added to this list:
    • Your individual insurance plan was cancelled and you believe other Marketplace plans are unaffordable.

    http://swampland.time.com/2013/12/20/obamacare-mandate-delay/
  • I think we can all agree that we shouldn't be passing things to know what's in them in the future.
  • jbillyjbilly Senior Member Posts: 5,261 Senior Member
    mikgaes wrote: »
    The hardship in many cases came not from the law, but rather the way insurers reacted to it by raising rates and sending threatening letters out to constituents at the end of 2013. The folks that enacted the law didn't anticipate that.

    Threating letters? Is this in reference to insures sending out letters to people letting them know their current plan is no longer being offered because it doesn't meet the laws new standards? How is this the insurers fault?

    Maybe the folks that enacted the law if they didn't anticipate that are even dumber than we even imagined. How could they do anything but anticipate that? Didn't they in fact pass the legislation requiring these so called "junk plans"be upgraded to their new minimum standards? Who the hell did they think was going to pay for all this the tooth fairy?
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 10,118 Senior Member
    Stay tuned jbilly...the rules of the law change daily.

    Latest one is that another 24 hours has been added to the sign up deadline for effective January 1 coverage.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
  • jbillyjbilly Senior Member Posts: 5,261 Senior Member
    joekrz wrote: »
    Stay tuned jbilly...the rules of the law change daily.

    Come one now, we are being to harsh, we just aren't embracing it and loving it because we don't understand it...
    mikgaes wrote: »
    If you don't support the Affordable Care Act, then you don't understand it.

    http://forums.flyfisherman.com/showthread.php?10871-For-your-listening-pleasure&p=141019


    With as much as it changes how could anyone ever understand it?

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.