2014***ObamaCare***2014

Liberals are quick to point out the rare exceptions to the awful Obamacare and act as if their postings are the main stream results. They are not. The mass majority of people who are being forced to accept Obamacare are paying higher premiums with higher deductibles, and that is a fact. They are being forced to pay these asinine, bankrupting amounts in order to fund Obamacare. But you don't have to take my word for what I have pointed out, because as time goes by, the REAL truth about this mass rip off will be obvious to everyone- even the liberals.

Count me in on the group who thinks Obamacare is not what it should be. As Moore stated it is up to us to fix it. In my opinion the fix will be to turn it into a single payer system, which is what Moore seems to advocate.

Yes Doc we know everyone else is not quite as perceptive and intelligent as you. You really should run for office and get this mess straightened out. You are wasting your talent here.

It is a step backwards one of the harder hitting facts in the article:

Tutontow- making light of me and what I have said is not going to change the reality of the expense of Obamacare to the average person. You will get your taste- I would like to be there when you finally accept the truth. Enjoy your current reality.

Many on the left side consider Obamacare to be more "fair" and the word "fair" seems to be thrown around quite a bit lately. But who decides what is "fair". I don't trust our politicians to do so.

Yes - I think Health Care insurance like Auto insurance should be available to everyone at a rate that won't drive one bankrupt. However, is it "fair" that a 52 year old woman with cancer pay LESS than a healthy couple?

With Auto Insurance, the young pay MORE because they are statistically a higher risk. You also pay more if you have had accidents, DUI's, or speeding tickets. However, you cannot be denied auto insurance and you are required by law to have it. People with high risk may not be able to get insurance on their car but they must have insurance to protect others they might injure in an accident. If high risk people have an accident, they must pay to replace THEIR car because nothing is free. Finally, Auto insurance is also sold across state lines by cavemen, Geckos, Flo, Pigs, and friendly neighbors and this capitalistic competition helps keep prices low. If you don't have insurance, you pay steep fines if caught.

I believe Health Care coverage should follow the same principles. It should be CHEAPER for young people as they are statistically a lower risk. Older people and people with High Risks should pay money but should not be denied insurance. Maybe they will only qualify for a catastrophic high deductible plan (nothing paid until > $15,000) however, they should not be denied coverage. Insurance should be sold across state lines and people who do not pay their bills and do not have insurance should be fined significantly.

Wow - I did that in < 2000 pages and you can read it before you pass it. What a concept!

I'm sure single payer would somehow be far more complicated and bloated.

Paying 40% of their gross income is not affordable

Hmm, . . . no one answered DonDiego's question.

In accordance with the standard of Old English Law that "silence betokens consent" everyone apparently agrees with the Attorneys General that a President cannot unilaterally change a Law.

[Incidentally, here's the letter sent to HHS - not the White House: Letter to HHS]

* * * * *
Ok, . . . on to New Business, . . . . Insurance Subsidies:

The Federal Judiciary is currently hearing four cases against the Internal Revenue Service for implementing policies of the Obamacare Law which are, in fact, not in the Law.

"One such [IRS] decision extended subsidies provided by Obamacare for lower-income individuals and families (those making up to four times the povery level) to people in the 36 states served by the federally-operated exchange, HealthCare.gov.
But the law spells out clearly that such federal subsidies will be granted 'through an exchange established by the state" - not that they can be granted by the federal government.' "
[emphasis added - DD]

The reader likely remembers the then Speaker of the House remarking that Congress had to pass the legislation to see what was in it. Well, it did and they have.
But what was in it is not what the IRS has decided to do.

"The Justice Department claims that not issuing subsidies in states with federal-run exchanges would defeat the purpose of the law and run contrary to what Congress intended.
But there's no better indication of congressional intent than what the law actually says. And as folks in Virginia, Oklahoma, Indiana and around the country are discovering, the administration's preference for implementing Obamacare as it wishes is leading to real harm."

So, what did Congress intend?
One might think they intended the subsidy to be available through State Exchanges and the Federal Exchange as well - even though that is not what the Law states.
But if the case is heard by higher courts it is possible that testimony may be heard that Congressional Democrats intentionally excluded the Federal Exchange subsidy to put pressure on the State Governments to create their own exchanges, because their citizens would not be offered a subsidy through the fallback Federal Exchange.

Anyway, the interested reader, . . . if any, . . . can read about it in The New York Daily News. Oh, and there's some interesting analyses about how the IRS extending the subsidies to the Federal Exchange can actually cause some citizens harm.

So, . . . what about it?
Can the IRS "invent" provisions for implementing Obamacare that are explicitly not found in the Law?

DD - the Constitution places the responsibility to create laws in Congress, not the White House. Clearly the actions by our President are in violation with the Constitution, but with this Presidency this is nothing new.

At the risk of sounding "racist" to our friends on the left - How far our great nation has fallen!

Auto insurance like health insurance is regulated by the states. Each company must be registered in each state to sell policies in that state and each must follow the rules for that state. As such, there is no real competition across state lines. Just like Blue Cross, Aetna and Kaiser are national in scope for Health Insurance they don't really compete across state lines.