by | ARTICLES, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, QUICKLY NOTED
Last week, I reported that the whitehouse.gov website section pertaining to Obamacare still had the “if you like your plan, you can keep it” Promise. I checked out whitehouse.gov on November 6, a few days after Obama gave a speech during which he explained that the Promise actually had qualifiers.
Obama’s new Promise during that speech was: “Now, if you have or had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law passed”. This Animal Farm-esque change drew outcries from around the county.
Back to whitehouse.gov. On November 6, the “Health Reform” section on Obamacare included the very bold statement:
“For those Americans who already have health insurance, the only changes you will see under the law are new benefits, better protections from insurance company abuses, and more value for every dollar you spend on health care. If you like your plan you can keep it and you don’t have to change a thing due to the health care law”
And the screenshot from November 6:
Checking back a week later to see if whitehouse.gov has updated that section to include the new Promise made by Obama, an interesting thing occured ont the website. The same original Promise is still there. But the IT guys for whitehouse.gov did manage to edit that section by adding a new line after the original Promise. That line reads “The President addressed concerns from Americans who have received letters of policy cancellations or changes from their insurance companies in an interview with NBC News, watch the video or read a transcript”
Here is that screenshot of the same section, with the new line added:
Because the whitehouse.gov included a link to Obama’s interview and transcript, I clicked on it to see what Obama had to say about his Promise.
From the transcript:
“Well — first of all, I meant what I said. And we worked hard to try to make sure that we implemented it properly. But obviously, we didn’t do enough — a good enough job — and I regret that. We’re talking about 5% of the population — who are in what’s called the individual market. They’re out there buyin’ health insurance on their own.
A lot of these plans are subpar plans. And we put in a clause in the law that said if you had one of those plans, even if it was subpar — when the law was passed, you could keep it. But there’s enough churn in the market that folks since then have bought subpar plans. And now that may be all they can afford. So even though it only affects a small amount of the population, you know, it means a lot to them, obviously, when they get — this letter cancelled”…
and further…
“You know — I regret very much that — what we intended to do, which is to make sure that everybody is moving into better plans because they want ’em, as opposed to because they’re forced into it. That, you know, we weren’t as clear as we needed to be — in terms of the changes that were takin’ place. And I want to do everything we can to make sure that people are finding themselves in a good position — a better position than they were before this law happened”.
Obama regrets that “we weren’t as clear as we needed to be”, but still has the original Promise in plain text right on the whitehouse.gov website. It still says, clear as day,
“If you like your plan you can keep it and you don’t have to change a thing due to the health care law”
The same Promise he repeated previously at least 29 times.
What’s worse, not only is the original Promise still on the page mentioned above, it is also on ANOTHER page of the Obamacare section on whitehouse.gov. Head on over to the section on “Quality Affordable Health Care for All Americans, and you can see the text:
“For Americans with insurance coverage who like what they have, they can keep it. Nothing in this act or anywhere in the bill forces anyone to change the insurance they have, period”
Here’s that screenshot as well:
And at the bottom of the page when you scroll down, whitehouse.gov urges Americans to continue on to the page entitled “If You Like the Insurance You Have, Keep It“. That is the name of the actual page.
On that page, it boldly proclaims:
“If You Like the Insurance You Have, Keep It:
Nothing in the proposal forces anyone to change the insurance they have. Period.”
So whitehouse.gov continues to peddle the original Promise that Obama has to explain away. Whitehouse.gov can take the time to update their website to add the explanations, but can’t edit the Promise.
If Obama regrets not being clear as he said in the interview, why hasn’t the White House updated the Promise to the new explanation in order to be clear? How can the White House be “clear” when their own website says one thing in several places, and the President is running around explaining it in a different way? How is this transparent?
Despite the regrets Obama expressed in his latest remarks on the Promise, it is clear that the Obama does not want to be clear.
by | ARTICLES, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS
Oopsies!
The White House website (whitehouse.gov) still shows the original “If you like your health plan, you can keep it” promise. See the text here on www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform/healthcare-overview:
Health Care that Works for Americans
On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, putting in place comprehensive reforms that improve access to affordable health coverage for everyone and protect consumers from abusive insurance company practices.
For those Americans who already have health insurance, the only changes you will see under the law are new benefits, better protections from insurance company abuses, and more value for every dollar you spend on health care. If you like your plan you can keep it and you don’t have to change a thing due to the health care law.
For the uninsured or those who don’t get their coverage through work, a key component of the Affordable Care Act will take effect on October 1, when the new Health Insurance Marketplace open for business, allowing millions of Americans to comparison shop for a variety of quality, affordable plans that best meet their health care needs”.
And the screenshot:
This is different than the speech he gave just a few days ago, where he gave qualifiers on the “if you like your plan, you can keep it.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Now, if you have or had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law passed. So we wrote into the Affordable Care Act, you’re grandfathered in on that plan. But if the insurance company changes it, then what we’re saying is they’ve got to change it to a higher standard. They’ve got to make it better, they’ve got to improve the quality of the plan they are selling. That’s part of the promise that we made too. That’s why we went out of our way to make sure that the law allowed for grandfathering.
After the speech above, The Daily Caller reported that Obama made the original promise at least 29 times. Does this make 30?
Perhaps the same IT guys in charge of maintaining healthcare.gov are in charge of updating Whitehouse.gov.
UPDATE, NOV 7: Foxnews is showing another page of whitehouse.gov’s healthcare reform section, which also currently states this:
“For Americans with insurance coverage who like what they have, they can keep it. Nothing in this act or anywhere in the bill forces anyone to change the insurance they have, period.”
Too bad Obama doesn’t read his own website.
by | BLOG, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, QUICKLY NOTED
In Animal Farm, the most important of the Seven Commandments of Animalism was the “All Animals Are Equal” Commandment. Upon this, Animalism was supposed to thrive.
Later, Napoleon gains power, drives out Snowball, moves into Mr. Jones white house, sells Boxer to the glue factory, and enjoys whiskey while the animals work. Animalism is struggling to survive and suddenly, the maxim is changed. It becomes:
“All Animals are Equal, But Some are More Equal Than Others”
In a strikingly similar way during this new age of Obamacare, we were repeatedly told that “if you like your plan, you can keep it”
Now, today we get the Animal Farm version:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Now, if you have or had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law passed. So we wrote into the Affordable Care Act, you’re grandfathered in on that plan. But if the insurance company changes it, then what we’re saying is they’ve got to change it to a higher standard. They’ve got to make it better, they’ve got to improve the quality of the plan they are selling. That’s part of the promise that we made too. That’s why we went out of our way to make sure that the law allowed for grandfathering.
I guess Obama expects that we won’t remember what he said. After all, he is our leader of Obamacarism. He has nothing to really apologize for. The Obamapology blames everyone else.
Surely it is the fault of the “bad apple” insurers who had such terrible plans to offer to begin with. Surely it is our fault because we couldn’t possibly have known any better or even really truly liked the plans we had picked.
Now, all insurance plans are equal. But some are more equal than others. (And those that aren’t equal will be canceled).
by | ARTICLES, OBAMA, OBAMACARE
As each day passes, the various facets of Obamacare are getting implemented in order to be fully operational by January 1, 2014. But we are hearing about the difficulties in the implementation caused primarily by either 1) the website fiasco; 2) low number of enrollees; and 3) people wanting to pay the penalties in order to avoid having to pay for intentionally overpriced health “insurance”.
In order to achieve adequate and targeted enrollment in Obamacare those representing the Government have begun to be aggressive. They are choosing to use all methods at their disposal to pressure, cajole, and otherwise push people to “do the right thing” and buy the mandated insurance product. This began in earnest last spring, as the Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was given millions at her disposal to dispatch “navigators” and “in-person assisters” to help enroll more Americans into Obamacare. But the very act of doing so may be rendering Obamacare unconstitutional.
It is worthwhile to remember that the only way in which the law of Obamacare was saved from being declared unconstitutional was the that that there is no penalty associated with Obamacare, which would have made it subject to the Commerce Clause. It was ruled to be a “tax” derived from not purchasing the mandated health coverage. In reaching his conclusion, Justice Roberts accepted the Administration’s argued position that there is absolutely no negative interference whatsoever on anyone opting to pay the “tax” rather than buy the product.
Therefore, any attempt by the administration or any of the implementing bodies to pressure, threaten or even imply some sort of wrongdoing by those choosing to not buy insurance would be clearly unconstitutional.
If those implementing Obamacare are properly following the Supreme Court’s mandate, they should be telling prospective insurance purchasers that they should be deciding for themselves whether they would be better off with the insurance or the penalty. We know this is not happening. At the macro level, governors have been hustled to implement the exchanges in their states. And at the individual level, Obamacare officials are pushing for more enrollees to ensure a steady flow of premiums paid by healthy patients in order to cover those who are high-risk and high-cost.
Just a few recent examples:
1) The LGBT Community created an Out2Enroll campaign to encourage LGBT to enroll in Obamacare after “the Obama administration called a meeting of LGBT leaders in mid-September. Nearly 200 from across the country met with the White House to talk about the potential impact of Obamacare. It also looked at what LGBT leaders could do to spread the word.”
2) Latinos with green cards were pushed to enroll in Obamacare at a recent forum marketed on the Get Covered America website. “Get Covered America is the nonprofit publicity and recruitment arm of “Enroll America,” which aims to ‘maximize the number of uninsured Americans who enroll in health coverage made available by the Affordable Care Act,’ according to its website”. Enroll America also has people going door-to-door with clipboards to sign people up, according to the Washington Post.
3) Hollywood celebrities teamed up with the White House to learn how to help shill for Obamacare. “Back in July, a group of Hollywood stars gathered at the White House to strategize a push for registration after the October 1 rollout of the Affordable Care Act. Among others, Amy Poehler, Jennifer Hudson, Kal Penn, and representatives for Oprah Winfrey, Alicia Keys, and the Funny or Die team offered their influence during a meeting with senior aide Valerie Jarrett and, briefly, President Obama himself”.
4) Government-funded Navigator Grants are setting up neighborhood centers for Obamacare enrollment. According to this story about a center with ties to former ACORN execs, “The government has given out $67 million in Navigator grants to help with the controversial rollout of ObamaCare. It was not clear if Local 100 got a grant of its own, but it has set up a help center with Southern United Neighborhoods, a charity founded in March 2010 with many former ACORN members, to enroll people in ObamaCare. Southern United Neighborhoods received a Navigator grant of $486,123”
5) The White House kicked off a 6 month ad campaign a week before the October 1 starting sign-up date. The objective of the ad blitz is “to encourage millions of Americans to sign up for health coverage under ‘Obamacare’ an effort in which the president and other political celebrities promote the law’s promise of subsidized health coverage”.
Are these government-backed and/or funded pushes to enroll in Obamacare violating the constitutionality of Obamacare with regard to negative interference?
The SCOTUS ruling hinged on the government not implying that people are doing anything wrong by not signing up. It is a tax that citizens are allowed to pay in lieu of enrollment. But with such a massive effort touting Obamacare, the government is directly interfering in the choice. There is no neutrality. It amounts to coercion, and creates the implication that by not enrolling, citizens are doing a bad thing. Does this contradict the Supreme Court decision?
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS
Eye-opening words of HHS Secretary Sebelius yesterday:
“This is no longer a political debate; this is what we call the law,” Sebelius told a group that includes Democrats and Republicans, elected officials, political appointees and bureaucrats. “It was passed and signed three years ago. It was upheld by the Supreme Court a year ago. The president was re-elected. This is the law of the land.”
Except when it is not.
If this is the law of the land, why is our President of the United States picking and choosing the parts of law that he wants to implement and/or delay?
Just this morning, Forbes is reporting “that another costly provision of the health law—its caps on out-of-pocket insurance costs—will be delayed for one more year”.
Recently, there was a delay in the employer mandate.
Before that, “there was the announcement, buried in the Federal Register, that the administration would delay enforcement of a number of key eligibility requirements for the law’s health insurance subsidies, relying on the “honor system” instead”
And for starters in April 2012, there was a delay of Obamacare’s Medicare cuts until after the election.
Oh, and don’t forget the security flaws and delays recently revealed. Deadlines for security safeguard have been missed, and the date to implement that system has been moved to September 30 (one day before the exchanges open).
Here’s the problem. Sebelius and the Obama Administration want to use the argument “It’s the law of the land!” when they are criticizing Republicans for questioning Obamacare. At the same time, they are not followign the “law of the land” when they are moving deadlines, delaying implementation of the law, and using the honor system.
Michael McConnell wrote an excellent piece last month in the WSJ entitled ” Obama Suspends the Law: Like King James II, the president decides not to enforce laws he doesn’t like. That’s an abuse of power”
He points out the simple fact that “Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution states that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This is a duty, not a discretionary power. While the president does have substantial discretion about how to enforce a law, he has no discretion about whether to do so”.
Indeed. When Obama decides to pick and choose the parts of the law he wishes to execute, he is not upholding “the law of the land”.
Is Obama using Obamacare to set up a series of precedents for which he easily dispenses with troubling or inconvenient laws or statutes, in order to expand his Presidential powers?
There are many reasons why Americans should continue to be wary of Obamacare. These include:
Fiscal — Staggering costs of the system, rising costs of premiums, etc
Medical — Not being able to keep your doctor or healthplans as promised. Concerns about rationing, death panels, etc.
Personal — Your information is, at this time, not secure, and is overseen by unregulated “navigators” (think TSA)
Operational — Obamacare was signed into law in March 2010. It was expected to be fully implemented January 1, 2014. Yet in those almost four years, Americans have seen delays, missed deadlines, cost changes, and more. If Obamacare can’t even be implemented without substantial missteps along the way, what confidence does the public have that it will run efficiently and properly?
Constitutional — Obama is ignoring deadlines contained in the law and delaying parts that are problematic
Americans will have varying opinions as to which of these concerns above is most acute. However, the Constitutional aspect might very well be the most troublesome. Invoking the “law of the land” when chastising your political opponents, while simulataneously ignoring the “law of the land” is the height of executive hubris. An expansion of power by the Executive Branch undermines our entire American system of government.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, OBAMA, OBAMACARE
Reuters is reporting today that Obamacare is in dire straits down for another reason: security. The government has missed important deadlines for implementing the proper measures in order to safeguard our information.
“CMS – the agency within HHS that is running Obamacare – had set a May 13 deadline for its contractor to deliver a plan to test the security of the crucial information technology component.
A test was to have been performed between June 3 and 7. But the delivery deadline slipped and the test – assessing firewalls and other security elements – is now set for this week and next”
The new deadline for implementing the system is September 30, precisely one day before the October 1st implementation date.
So the big questions to come away from this announcement are:
1) If the security system is not ready for the October 1 deadline, will Obamacare still proceed?
a) If so, will citizen data be safe? How?
b) If not, how will that affect consumers?
2) This is one of several examples of Obamacare issues (including running out of money prematurely and delaying Obamacare for businesses, among others). If the government has been able to get right the mere IMPLEMENTATION of a law of this size and scope, how are we supposed to be confident in its ability to adequetely and effectively run Obamacare come January 2014?
by | ARTICLES, OBAMA, OBAMACARE
Staggering costs. Gross mismanagement. Delays. If these current problems with Obamacare aren’t enough to persuade you to support its full repeal, maybe this latest revelation will: The Federal Data Services Hub
What is this Hub, and how is it related to Obamacare? According to the folks over at Rare.com
“The Data Hub is a comprehensive database of personal information being established by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to implement the federally facilitated health insurance exchanges. The purpose of the Data Hub, according to a June 2013 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, is to provide “electronic, near real-time access to federal data” and “access to state and third party data sources needed to verify consumer-eligibility information.”
As Rare.com astutely points out, “in these days of secret domestic surveillance by the intelligence community, rogue IRS officials and state tax agencies using private information for political purposes, and police electronically logging every license plate that passes by, the idea of the centralized Data Hub is making lawmakers and citizens nervous”.
What kind of information will be stored in the Federal Data Services Hub? Why sorts of your…data. This inlcudes “income and financial data, family size, citizenship and immigration status, incarceration status, social security numbers, and private health information. It will compile dossiers based on information obtained from the IRS, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the Veterans Administration, the Office of Personnel Management, the Social Security Administration, state Medicaid databases, and for some reason the Peace Corps”
And who will be in charge of your secure info? The government has it all figured out. They even have a catchy name: “Navigators”: “The hub will be used on a daily basis by so-called Navigators, which according to the GAO are “community and consumer-focused nonprofit groups, to which exchanges award grants to provide fair and impartial public education” and “refer consumers as appropriate for further assistance.” Thousands of such people will have unfettered access to the Data Hub, but there are only sketchy guidelines on how they will be hired, trained and monitored”
So there you have it. A completely intrusive, centralized information database combining health, financial, and citizenship information, overseen by officials no more professional than the current TSA. If Obama can artibrarily ignore the PPACA starting date of January 1, 2014 for businesses, than the House and Senate need to takes the reigns and push for a delay (or better yet — a full repeal) of Obamacare for individuals as well.
There is too much to risk — financially and personally — to keep Obamacare on the books.
by | ARTICLES, OBAMA, OBAMACARE
Three major Unions, including James P. Hoffa of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, wrote a letter to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid this past week. In the letter, they echoed the sentimeng of millions of Americans who are concerned about Obamacare.
The opening salvo is scathing. “When you and the President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act, you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is under threat,” letter said. “Right now, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour workweek that is the backbone of the American middle class.”
The reason why this letter is attention-grabbing is the fact that the Unions have been the staunchest supporters of Obama through thick and thin. And interestingly, they acknowledge that in this letter. They write, ” We have also been strong supporters of you. In campaign after campaign we have put boots on the ground, gone door-to-door to get out the vote, run phone banks and raised money to secure this vision. Now this vision has come back to haunt us.”
Ouch.
If you don’t want to read the letter in its entirety, Wall Street Cheet Sheet does a quick little analysis. “The letter lists three complaints. First, that the law creates an incentive for employers to keep workers’ hours below 30 hours per week. Second, that millions of Americans, including a great majority of union members, are covered by nonprofit health insurance plans. But with the implementation of Obamacare, union workers will be “treated differently and not be eligible for subsidies afforded other citizens.” Finally, the letter argued that while union, nonprofit plans will not receive the same subsidies, they will be taxed to pay for those subsidies”
The interesting questions is — will Obama respond? Will changes happen? The Unions don’t seem too sure. In fact, they charge that “Unless changes are made, however, that promise is hollow”.
This strongly worded letter is all too revealing. Obama used the Unions to get elected, and how he’s folding on them since they’ve outlived their usefulness. For the Unions to deride Obamacare in this fashion is encouraging. If even the big Unions refuse to get behind Obamacare anymore, it gives more weight for Congress to work with, especially in the Senate, when considering the law and its repeal.
by | FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE
Obamacare was sold to the public as universal health insurance. Insurance, in and of itself, is an exchange of a premium payment in return for a guarantee against specific loss criteria — such as damage or death. Prime examples of this are home and life insurance. And yet, health insurance in our country is not merely a guarantee against loss due to ill health; it encompasses much, much more. In this way, health insurance doesn’t follow the examples of other insurance industries, and therein lies a major reason for Obamacare’s growing economic difficulties ($1.85 trillion) and growing opposition.
Typical health insurance plans nowadays function by providing both insurance and coverage of certain medical costs. With ObamaCare comes the individual mandate, which most people understand the meaning to be that everyone is required to purchase for themselves a health insurance policy (hence the idea of “universal coverage”). The rationale in favor of the individual mandate is to safeguard against societal calamity — that if someone doesn’t have health insurance and they get into an accident or get sick, he doesn’t become a burden on society.
A mandate to buy health insurance might not sound so terrible on the surface to some, because it dictates the purchase of something that just about everyone wants to buy anyway since it is sensible to do so. But what makes Obamacare’s individual mandate so odious is that it it forces people to buy a product comprised of both insurance and a slew of pre-selected, prepaid medical care – which includes paying for stuff they don’t need. This intentionally misuses people’s ability to buy their own reasonably priced insurance. And because the mandate requires coverage to be universal, you have to include everything and everyone, such as preexisting conditions, high risk, etc. Therefore, the individual mandate requires an-insurance-that-is-not really-just-insurance, making reality very different than what it is thought to be.
From an economic standpoint, the individual mandate is a terrible idea because its sole purpose is to obfuscate the true cost of caring for those persons whose circumstances or risk, such as preexisting conditions or age, would result in paying more for health insurance. By controlling the prices through artificial means instead of private competition, the individual mandate creates a misallocation of resources, which is a failure of the fundamental principles of Economics 101.
A second major problem with the individual mandate as it is written is that you can forgo coverage in lieu of paying a penalty and then if you develop a condition, you can still get coverage without being denied due to a pre-existing condition. Unfortunately, this only serves to make prices more expensive for those who are healthy because there must be funds to cover those who are not.
I would argue that having health insurance coverage should not be a mandate in the strict sense of the word; i.e, one should not be required to purchase it. That being said, I also think that people should regard the ownership of a health insurance policy (a “true insurance”) as a basic necessity for proper living. The attitude toward health insurance coverage –- by citizens, legislators, and insurance companies alike —- truly needs a paradigm shift if health care is to be reformed for the better. The health insurance sector must be restructured to resemble other insurance industries such as life, fire, and home; in doing so, they will create a more competitive and dignified system as well as fulfill the purpose of safeguarding against an unforeseen disaster. Therefore, the actual components of what comprises “health insurance” (currently insurance and pre-paid medical care) must change.
The idea of helping everyone to carry health insurance sounds like a lofty goal. However, the individual mandate is the wrong way to attain this. From human point of view, the idea that all persons have coverage may be good, but imposing the mandate is bad for liberty. Turning basic economics on its head, it incentivizes the wrong things and creates most expensive health care possible.
The government has never been efficient with other people’s money. The economics of the current health care law will only serve to reduce the quality of health care for our citizens because it lacks free market competition. A health care reform solution could be focusing on providing a ” true insurance” product that everyone could have – one that protects against having an extraordinary event happen whose economics is more than can be afforded. Obamacare is not an insurance; it is pre-paid medical care system whose product provides for all at all costs. Imposing an individual mandate for such a program is ultimately economically unsustainable. The current health care law should be overturned for the sake of the economic health of this country.
by | ARTICLES, CONSTITUTION, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
As each day passes, the various facets of Obamacare are getting implemented in order to be fully operational by 2014. And we are beginning to hear about difficulties in the implementation caused primarily by either 1) people or companies trying to avoid the “penalties” or 2) people wanting to pay the penalties in order to avoid having to pay for intentionally overpriced health “insurance”.
In order to achieve adequate and targeted enrollment in Obamacare those representing the Government have begun to be aggressive. They are choosing to use all methods at their disposal to pressure, cajole, and otherwise push people to “do the right thing” and buy the mandated insurance product. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has millions now at her disposal to dispatch “navigators” and “in-person assisters” to help enroll more Americans into Obamacare. But the very act of doing so may be rendering Obamacare unconstitutional.
It is worthwhile to remember that the only way in which the law of Obamacare was saved from being declared unconstitutional was the that that there is no penalty associated with Obamacare. It was ruled to be a “tax” derived from not purchasing the mandated health coverage. In reaching his conclusion, Justice Roberts accepted the Administration’s position that there is absolutely no negative interference whatsoever on anyone opting to pay the “tax” rather than buy the product.
Therefore, any attempt by the administration or any of the implementing bodies to pressure, threaten or even imply some sort of wrongdoing by those choosing to not buy insurance would be clearly unconstitutional.
If those implementing Obamacare are properly following the Supreme Court’s mandate, they should be telling prospective insurance purchasers that they should be deciding for themselves whether they would be better off with the insurance or the penalty. We know this is not happening. At the macro level, governors have been hustled to implement the exchanges in their states. And at the individual level, Obamacare officials are pushing for more enrollees to ensure a steady flow of premiums paid by healthy patients in order to cover those who are high-risk and high-cost.
What can be done? If we are vigilant in not allowing individuals and businesses into being compelled to buy Obamacare, can we starve the beast? Are the tactics and funding unconstitutional? If so, Obamacare may just die of its own deficiencies.
