Obamacare ‘mastermind’ sends chills down spines with totalitarian ‘fix’ to failing health care law

[rangerrebew]

Obamacare ‘mastermind’ sends chills down spines with totalitarian ‘fix’ to failing health care law
October 27, 2016 | Tom Tillison | Print Article   

    SHARE9 TWEET6 PIN0 PLUS0 EMAIL

    9
    6
    0
    0

MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, widely seen as the architect of Obamacare, was asked Monday how to fix the collapsing health care mandate and like a true liberal, the professor prescribed more of the same bad medicine.

In response to reports that health care premiums will go up sharply next year, Gruber was asked by CNN host Carol Costello for one fix that could be applied to Obamacare that would drive premiums down.

“There’s no sense in which this has to be fix… the law’s working as designed,” he said. “However, it could work better and I think probably the most important thing experts would agree on is that we need a larger mandate penalty.”

Read more: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/10/27/obamacare-mastermind-sends-chills-spines-totalitarian-fix-failing-health-care-law-405102#ixzz4OICGUzlT

[rangerrebew]

Obamacare Is Dying. House Republicans Have the Fix.
President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and senior staff react as the House passes the health care reform bill. Wikimedia Commons/The White House

There should be no celebration until we see improved access to care, better health outcomes and decreasing costs.
Juliana Darrow

October 26, 2016
TweetShareShare
Printer-friendly version

President Obama and his administration use every opportunity to boast about his flagship domestic legislation, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as “Obamacare.” These near-weekly public relations efforts aim to convince the American public that the program has been a success. The administration frequently references the increased number of people with insurance in these efforts, despite the fact that enrollment numbers are not even half of the original projections, and still emanate primarily from the law’s Medicaid expansion. The number of people enrolled into a government program is not the right basis for judging success. Health care systems are intended to treat and heal people, so what fundamentally matters, and what the administration has said little about, is how the people who need health care are being treated. Access to care, medical outcomes, and cost are the metrics that matter, and on these fronts, although Obamacare is just a few years old, the administration has little to brag about.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/obamacare-dying-house-republicans-have-the-fix-18193

[rangerrebew]

New Video Exposes Democrats For Their “Broken Promises” On Obamacare – And NAILS IT!
27 Oct, 2016 by Sierra Marlee
Print this article
Font size -16+

    0SHARES Share Tweet

With premium hikes so high that many families are wondering how they can possibly afford their own insurance, Obamacare has become a heated topic of discussion. Obama himself has acknowledged that his healthcare plan isn’t exactly doing the best job, but still arrogantly blames his failures on the Republicans.

A new video has been released that absolutely BLASTS Democrats for their lies about “affordable” healthcare, mixing in proud Democratic lawmakers bragging about their choice to support the law and news reports of continual rate increases.

http://rightwingnews.com/top-news/new-video-exposes-democrats-broken-promises-obamacare-nails/

[mountaineer]

 Democrat Response To Obamacare’s Death Spiral Proves They Lied To SCOTUS
Once again, the Affordable Care Act’s imaginary tax becomes a penalty.
By David Harsanyi
October 28, 2016

Sure, more Americans will have coverage under the Affordable Care Act — it’ll be mandated and subsidized, after all — but we’re going raise a bunch of taxes, probably kick you off that plan you love, drive your premiums higher, sue obstinate nuns who refuse to chip in for condoms, and penalize everyone who decides they don’t want to participate. Sound good, America?

One imagines an honest pitch for Obamacare wouldn’t have worked six years ago, but this is where we stand today. Because the law has failed to deliver on its promise of lower premiums, not only for consumers on subsidized state exchanges but for everyone else, millions of young Americans have decided that it makes more sense for them to pay a “tax” than to buy substandard health insurance they won’t use.

This reality has prompted a number of liberals to argue that one way to “fix” Obamacare is to raise the mandate “tax” even higher to compel holdouts to participate. Which is interesting, considering this argument confirms two big lies that helped make Obamacare a reality.

First of all, if the health of your “marketplace” hinges, not only on mandating the product but imposing severe fines to force the issue, your experiment is not successful — not in any way that Democrats promised it would be, and certainly not in any way a healthy “market” functions.

Actually, calling Obamacare “a market” is itself a deception  ...

Rest of article at The Federalist.

[Jazzhead]

Some easy fixes,  from someone who's written a book on the subject:   

Get rid of the employer mandate.   People can only afford health care if they're working full time.

Allow real competition in the ACA exchanges, not just as to copays and deductibles for gold-plated coverage,  but also options for more limited coverage including catastrophic-only coverage.   

Allow insurers more latitude to price policies based on age  (the current 3 to 1 ratio forces the young to subsidize the old,  and the cost of coverage causes many young people, quite rationally, to decline coverage).   

Encourage simple employer health reimbursement accounts to allow employees to purchase individual health coverage in the ACA exchanges.   That's the single most effective means for getting younger lives into the individual insurance marketplace and curbing the current premium death spiral.  It also lets employers get out of the health insurance business and get back to making widgets. 

DON'T mandate, as many conservatives want,  competition across state lines.  The states should retain their traditional sovereignty to regulate the insurance marketplace.   But at the same time, free up the states to allow less costly, less comprehensive options in their ACA exchanges.   

And, of course, the no-brainer  -  medical malpractice/tort reform.     

[Taxcontrol]

If only someone SOMEONE had called this out ahead of time.  If some group had gone to the American people and told them before Obamacare was passed that this would be the end result.  If only we Americans had been warned .... /sarc

[Taxcontrol]

I am of the opinion that ANY form of National healthcare CAN NOT BE FIXED.  Not Obamacare, or Hillarycare or Romneycare or Trumpcare.  There is no "FIX" where the government remains engaged in the selection control or participate in healthcare.  Burn it down, salt the earth and never let it raise it's ugly head again.

[Sanguine]

I'm not even going to argue whether it can or can't be fixed; it's unconstitutional, un-American, bad for people and is an opportunity for an overbearing government to become even more overbearing and intrusive.

[skeeter]

The answer to the collapsing 'Affordable Care Act' is a higher mandate penalty.

Perfect statist response from a lard-assed bureaucrat. Its all about the money.

When I hear stuff like this I remember how the Romanians dealt with their's.

[Jazzhead]

I am of the opinion that ANY form of National healthcare CAN NOT BE FIXED.  Not Obamacare, or Hillarycare or Romneycare or Trumpcare.  There is no "FIX" where the government remains engaged in the selection control or participate in healthcare.  Burn it down, salt the earth and never let it raise it's ugly head again.

That's where you're wrong.  It can be fixed - see my post above for a taste of what can easily be done.   The primary purpose of the law is allow folks to obtain affordable private insurance without regard to health status.   That's a laudable goal, even if the law is fundamentally flawed.  I'd much rather fix the ACA than replace it with single payor.   

And by the way -  the regulation of the insurance business has always been a traditional function of government.   You cannot in any practical way get the government out of the insurance business - regulation is necessary to curb fraud and ensure the financial solvency of insurers.     

[skeeter]

   

And by the way -  the regulation of the insurance business has always been a traditional function of government.   You cannot in any practical way get the government out of the insurance business - regulation is necessary to curb fraud and ensure the financial solvency of insurers.     

Mandating on penalty of a fine that people purchase a particular product, aside from auto insurance which is understandable if one wants to use public roads, has never been the job of any government. Nor should it be.

[Oceander]

The penalty thing is a bit of a red herring.  For the most part it could be accomplished using the carrot of a tax deduction or refundable credit for having the right kind of government approved insurance.  The democrats really effed up on that part through a lack of intelligence and an innate desire to subjugate rather than serve people. 

Giving tax deductions or credits to incentivize desired behavior is frequently done and almost impregnable to challenge.   Look at how the GOP is getting into the game with the child credits. 

[r9etb]

The democrats really effed up on that part through a lack of intelligence and an innate desire to subjugate rather than serve people.

Good point.  One of the defining characteristics of the liberal mindset (though maybe not just the liberal mindset, but perhaps the aristocratic/technocratic mindset of whatever political bent) is a smug assurance of superior intelligence that permits them to know what's good for other people.  They will impose rules and regulations on others "for their own good," since the lesser minds obviously cannot see clearly enough to recognize their true best interests.

It is therefore necessary to exercise control over those unruly people who would rather decide for themselves.

[dfwgator]

If only someone SOMEONE had called this out ahead of time.  If some group had gone to the American people and told them before Obamacare was passed that this would be the end result.  If only we Americans had been warned .... /sarc

If only someone had explained that to Chief Judas Roberts.

[Jazzhead]

If only someone had explained that to Chief Judas Roberts.

Justice Roberts decision was correct from the standpoint of a conservative jurist.   It's not the court's perogative to substitute its judgment for that of the legislature.    ObamaCare, for good or for ill,  was a product of the representative democratic process, and as such the tax it imposed should be accorded deference by the courts.   The way to overturn or fix ObamaCare is by legislation.  Relying on the courts to fix mistakes is an undemocratic cop-out.

An "activist" court is not conservative,  even if its activism is in pursuit of outcomes that conservatives favor.   I applauded Roberts' decision at the time, and still do.   Unelected judges should not second guess the decisions made by the peoples' elected representatives.   

Is ObamaCare a disaster?  Of course.  So let Republicans and Democrats get together and fix the damn thing.   

[r9etb]

Justice Roberts decision was correct from the standpoint of a conservative jurist.   

You and I may be the only people on this entire forum who believe that.

[Jazzhead]

You and I may be the only people on this entire forum who believe that.

Thanks, r9etb.   Too much power accorded to unelected judges is antithetical to a representative democracy.   Too many folks decry courts' "activism" except when it produces outcomes they favor.   

[skeeter]

Thanks, r9etb.   Too much power accorded to unelected judges is antithetical to a representative democracy.   Too many folks decry courts' "activism" except when it produces outcomes they favor.

What I decry are courts eschewing "activism" only when the result would not benefit the statists. Otherwise activism seems to always win over.

[Jazzhead]

What I decry are courts eschewing "activism" only when the result would not benefit the statists. Otherwise activism seems to always win over.

So you're okay with activist courts when it's an outcome you favor.   Well, that's at least an honest response.  But it's one with which I disagree.   The courts should be "activists" only when the peoples' representatives' legislation tramples on one's Constitutional rights  (e.g., Heller).   You may not like ObamaCare, but it is perfectly Constitutional as Roberts said.   It's not the courts' job to fix bad laws, just unConstitutional ones.

(The reason the ObamaCare tax is Constitutional is illustrated by yesterday's NYTimes article decrying that so many people are choosing to pay the tax rather than purchase insurance they cannot afford and/or don't need.   The tax operates to encourage favored behavior (like a lot of tax laws, unfortunately), but it's not confiscatory and millions of us are rationally deciding to pay it rather than purchase insurance.   If Gruber gets his way and the tax is jacked way up,  then it may cross the threshold into the area where it compels behavior, and on that basis may be unConstitutional.)     

[skeeter]

So you're okay with activist courts when it's an outcome you favor.   Well, that's at least an honest response.  But it's one with which I disagree.

And you're OK with progressives making conservatives live up to the rules while breaking them every time it benefits their statist agenda.

I don't know what the answer is. I simply said I'm tired of it.

[r9etb]

So you're okay with activist courts when it's an outcome you favor.   

That's not what he said.  I believe his point is that the courts have a propensity to rule in favor of statist solutions.  They're free to rule "conservatively" when a decision would do little or nothing to advance statist interests; but when a ruling does advance such interests, the court can generally be counted upon to issue an activist ruling.

[skeeter]

That's not what he said.  I believe his point is that the courts have a propensity to rule in favor of statist solutions.  They're free to rule "conservatively" when a decision would do little or nothing to advance statist interests; but when a ruling does advance such interests, the court can generally be counted upon to issue an activist ruling.

Scolding those constantly on the losing side of today's activist courts as hypocrites when they complain is the icing on the cake.

But then I've seen my healthcare premiums nearly quadruple and have had three policies pulled out from under me in the past three years, and currently am without insurance and am looking at a penalty this year, so I'm really not the right audience for songs of praise for Obamacare.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Some easy fixes,  from someone who's written a book on the subject:

Nice, do you have a link?

[r9etb]

But then I've seen my healthcare premiums nearly quadruple and have had three policies pulled out from under me in the past three years, and currently am without insurance and am looking at a penalty this year, so I'm really not the right audience for songs of praise for Obamacare.

I doubt that any of us are singing any songs of praise for Obamacare. 

My take on Roberts' ruling is that it was correct from a legal/constitutional perspective.  Unfortunately, the Constitution permits Congress to pass idiotic laws -- of which the ACA is an excellent, if disastrous example.  And the courts have no power to reject a law merely because it's stupid.

I've found it very interesting that conservatives seem to have given up on the possibilities of legislative remedies for a lot of things -- Obamacare, same-sex marriage, and so on -- in hopes that the courts will save us from ourselves.  In many ways we have fallen into the same rut as the liberals: counting on the courts to do our bidding because the legislatures will not.

It's not to say that the courts are unnecessary -- they're not.  But as a general rule across the entire political spectrum, they've become the de facto first line of defense.  I'm pretty sure that's not how its' supposed to work.

[skeeter]

I don't see conservatives as having given up all other legislative recourse in favor of court rulings. Why would we? Courts haven't given us any reason for optimism - even less so than has congress.

Its more like the optimism inherent the human soul. Like the stage 4 cancer victim heading to Mexico to drink peach pit juice or Col Travis at the wall straining for a glimpse of the promised relief column. Maybe we'll win one of those big life changing cases one day.

Concerning Obamacare, there was the matter of the penalty being a tax AND a fee, depending upon the argument being made at the time and to whom, or the very legitimate question of the Constitutionality of the fedgov forcing its subjects under threat of fine to buy any particular product. If the SCOTUS can see penumbras and emanations enough to see a constitutional right to abort a baby surely you wouldn't begrudge a conservative the hope that the court would find such a law beyond the pale? But beyond the impact the law has had on me personally I'm probably not qualified to make those arguments.