This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Legal Glitch "Has The Potential To Sink Obamacare"
As if the technological problems facing Obamacare were not enough, a potentially major "legal glitch" could cause the healthcare law to unravel in 36 states. As the LA Times reports, The Affordable Care Act proposes to make health insurance affordable to millions of low-income Americans by offering them tax credits to help cover the cost. To receive the credit, the law twice says they must buy insurance "through an exchange established by the state." But 36 states have decided against opening exchanges for now. Critics of the law have seized on the glitch. They have filed four lawsuits that urge judges to rule the Obama administration must abide by the strict wording of the law, even if doing so dismantles it in nearly two-thirds of the states. And the Obama administration has no hope of repairing the glitch by legislation as long as the Republicans control the House..."This has the potential to sink Obamacare. It could make the current website problems seem minor by comparison," noted on policy expert.
...
President Obama's healthcare law also has a legal glitch that critics say could cause it to unravel in more than half the nation.
...
Apparently no one noticed this when the long and complicated bill worked its way through the House and Senate. Last year, however, the Internal Revenue Service tried to remedy it by putting out a regulation that redefined "exchange" to include a "federally facilitated exchange." This is "consistent with the language, purpose and structure … of the act as a whole," the Treasury Department said.
...
But critics of the law have seized on the glitch. They have filed four lawsuits that urge judges to rule the Obama administration must abide by the strict wording of the law, even if doing so dismantles it in nearly two-thirds of the states. And the Obama administration has no hope of repairing the glitch by legislation as long as the Republicans control the House.
...
"This is a problem," said Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University. "This case could have legs," although "it was never the intent of Congress to establish federal exchanges that can't do anything. They were supposed to have exactly the same powers."
Michael Carvin, the Washington lawyer leading the challenge, says the wording of the law is what counts. "This is a question of whether you believe in the rule of law. And the language here is as clear as it could possibly be," he said.
...
"This has the potential to sink Obamacare. It could make the current website problems seem minor by comparison," Cannon said.
Defenders of the law say the courts are being used as part of the political campaign against the law.
"This is definitely heating up. It is now the major focus of the Republican strategy for undoing the Affordable Care Act," said Simon Lazarus, a lawyer for the Constitutional Accountability Center. "The lawsuits should be seen as preposterous," he said, because they ask judges to give the law a "nonsensical" interpretation.
...
"They are betting on getting five votes at the Supreme Court," Lazarus said. "I don't think it will happen."
»
- 34302 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Forget about proofreading, I'd be happy if they just read the legislation.
I remember back in 2001, Russ Feingold was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act, and as far as I have been able to tell, he was the only senator that read it.
In our system there are two full readings of all legislation in the chambers, and two debates, on points of dispute or negociation, before votes are cast. Unfortunately it still it two-party block voting the party line for the most part though.
Only in theory, since the first order of business is always to introduce a "motion to suspend the rule" which is passed by unanimous consent (which isn't always really unanimous) - but I'm winging that since my copies of the actual printed rule books for both chambers are back in the US (and there are minor differences between the two).
Not sure if you realized I was not referring to the US system there, but interesting. Seems a little fly in the ointment, to disregard the actual readings. Why even have a chamber of review, and senators or congress/parliamentarians, at all, if their primary constitutional function, which is to review for poorly drafted legislation, amend loopholes, prevent bad public policy, or illegal implementations, is discarded from the outset, as a matter of course?
How can that possibly be consistent with a constitutional US govt and passing of legislation?
Any self-respecting ingenuous representative body would down-tools and refuse to transact any govt business at all, until that raging gash of a legislative loophole was totally and permanently abolished.
Looks to be a complete sham.
2c
I completely missed that distinction, along with my morning coffee- thanks.
You used "self-respecting" and "US govt" in the same post, that's funny...
Are you referring to the Swiss system?
Watch C-SPAN sometime. They almost always waive the reading of the bill. Can you imagine how long it would take to read out a 5000-page bill aloud?
I heard Obamacare was almost 2000 pages, and I'm pretty sure they didn't read that on the floor of the senate, as it would take weeks to do so.
In the case of the Patriot Act, I actually read much of it. There is section after section that makes bizarre word substitutions in USC statutes, making it virtually impossible to determine the effect of the Act based on a simple reading. They effectively gamed the entire system, and further, made it almost impossible to figure out exactly what the rules are.
Always useful when TPTB wish to interpret and enforce the law in any manner they choose.
It's a feature, not a bug.
Crap and we all wanted to pay two to three times more for crappy health care 75% will never use but the FSA will get for free and camp out in the ER every night for their pain killers....fuck this place
'the' state or 'your' state. State of residence? LOL. 'The' is such a subjective term .
"the state" was what I noticed in the article also. It would imply the Feds have jurisdiction as well as "states".
Legal glitch my ass. There is no law. It's whatever the strongmen say.
It's a banana republic.
"This is definitely heating up. It is now the major focus of the Republican strategy for undoing the Affordable Care Act," said Simon Lazarus, a lawyer for the Constitutional Accountability Center.
Mmmk. Dempubs vs. Redems. That right there says this is a side issue. Let's talk about monetary systems, foreign policy, and the Constitution.
They are both the same on those by what they do.
So, what's up?
http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Plain_Meaning_Rule
Plain Meaning Rule From Judgepedia Jump to: navigation, search Contents[hide]
The Plain meaning rule, also known as the literal rule, is an approach to judicial interpretation favored by some judges. A judge who believes in using the Plain Meaning Rule is someone who believes that statutes and laws should be interpreted to mean what the ordinary meaning of the language suggests that the law means.
In other words, the law is to read and interpreted in a common-sense, ordinary way, without elaborate or sophisticated interpretations that are at variance with what the plain meaning of the law says.
Textualists favor the Plain Meaning Rule.
MeaningWhen legislatures pass laws, they often include within the law a section on "definitions"; these definitions provide an explicit clarification of exactly what is meant by the most important terms in that statute. But some statutes have no section of definitions or, if they do have a section with definitions in it, fail to actually define all the important terms in the statute. Guidance provided by the plain meaning rule attempts to give judges a way to evaluate what an undefined term in the statute means.
According to the plain meaning rule, words must be interpreted according to what is their plain, ordinary and literal meaning. If the words are clear, they must be applied, even if doing so leads to an outcome that is different from what the legislature is known to have intended when they passed the law, or even if the result leads to an outcome that is harsh, or could be perceived as unjust.
The literal rule is what the law says; not what was intended by those who wrote it.
Prof. Larry Solum describes this point as follows:
- Some laws are meant for all citizens (e.g., criminal statutes) and some are meant only for specialists (e.g., some sections of the tax code). A text that means one thing in a legal context, might mean something else if it were in a technical manual or a novel. So the plain meaning of a legal text is something like the meaning that would be understood by competent speakers of the natural language in which the text was written who are within the intended readership of the text and who understand that the text is a legal text of a certain type.[1]
Soft Plain Meaning RuleEven judges who lean strongly in favor of a literal interpretation of laws will oftentimes not stick with a literal interpretation when it leads to a clearly absurd result. The Supreme Court's decision in Chung Fook v. White in 1924 is considered to be when the country's highest court moved away from the most strict literal interpretation into the "softer" version of the plain-meaning rule that urges justices to avoid absurdity.
Where the statute is interpreted according to the ordinary meaning of the language, unless the result would be cruel or absurd, is known as the soft plain meaning rule. An example is the decision in the case of Rector, Holy Trinity Church v. United States in 1892.
Support for the plain meaning ruleProponents of the plain meaning rule says it prevents courts from taking sides in legislative or political issues. They also point out that ordinary people and lawyers do not have extensive access to secondary sources.
Criticism of the plain meaing ruleOpponents of the plain meaning rule say that it rests on the false belief that words have a fixed, plain or obvious meaning. In fact, they believe, words are often imprecise; when a judge says he or she is simply ruling according to the plain meaning of the law, this might be a cover for using personal prejudice to determine what the law really means.
References- ? Legal Theory Lexicon
Retrieved from "http://judgepedia.org/index.php?title=Plain_Meaning_Rule&oldid=683398" Category:What is the exact citation to this supposed glitch in the Unaffordable Healthcare Act ????
Has anyone found it and verified that this entire article is not just a hoax?
Why not post that page of the law here so we can look at it and come to our own conclusions?
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-77922629/
I understand thinking this may be a hoax from the utter vacuum surrounding any coverage of this recent development. We mustn't remove the lips of our shitty media from the cock that is Obamacare.
what in the serious fuck
of course 'shall not be infringed' has been interpreted to mean 'most certainly shall be infringed'
not if you are a member of a well-regulated militia!
And "interstate commerce" as been interpreted to mean any activity or non-activity anyhere.
except this is admin law, the IRS writes the tax regulations.
The courts don't judge on the rule of law, they are political. Sorry if that sounds cynical.
Oh my God.
Lawyers.
ObamaCare enters stage 4.
The vultures are circling the carcass.
Stage 4 cancer? Yes Please! The law is a tumor.
once the hidden hand decides it wants something, it gets it--period.
they don't even bother going through the motions of acting like they care about this country or its people anymore. I'm afraid we worthless eaters have been completely dismissed by the overlords.
Excluding our personal gripes... Tyler is duscussing the fact that states can't (supplant) federal exchange requirements.
The conscript of the law as defined by each individual of the federation of states... In other words, "if the writ of constitutional law can't be reasonably applied" the law remains null and void...
With all due respect, Yen, this has already passed constitutional muster in front of the Supreme Court. It's a done deal. There is no way to pull it back.
Muster? I love that word!
NoDebt you reside on Zero Hedge for one reason, and one reason ONLY! TRUST!
You would be well advised to hold that trust close to your loved ones.
Yes, it has passed. So that raises the question, what does the court do when it has done something that is clearly wrong? I would not put it past Roberts to strike back for the threats to himself and his children that resulted in his former holding, by siding with those making this argument, but will there be 4 other votes?
"It's a done deal. There is no way to pull it back."
With due respect, you are enabling.
You wouldn't believe the power of enablement.
With a due respect to you, the supreme court ruling was only about the mandate. There are two other challenges out there that I know about. One of the legal challenges is what you read here. The other is from the sup court ruling that it is a tax. The bill did not originate in the house (the peoples house) and is therefore in violation of the origination clause of the constitution.
The one with the most teeth is this challenge. Neither of the challenges have the power to kill the whole bill.
There is also the challenge that neither health care or health insurance are in any sense "commerce." We know that the Supremes haven't given a shit about that lately but it is worth fighting. They have simply accreeted barnicle upon barnicle on top of the commerce clause to have the Supremes reading of it be the exact opposite of the plain and historic meaning. The Supreme court generally restricted fed authority over commerce until about the 1920's. Since then, in every case, the idiots look to the decsions of the 20's and 30's as binding even though they are 180 degrees opposite prior rulings and the text of the consitution.
The Dicktator already set precedent with DOMA, Welfare, Immigration and other laws by simply ignoring them. The next president can just ignore this law and make it go away if he chooses to, although I'm not holding my breath.
Since when did these fuckers give a shit what the law says?
I love a happy ending.
You don't get one, Bud...
Fuck The Monkey and his phony Healthcare
Bitches.
These great statesmen will back down on a legal technicality because they are honest and respectful of the law. Ya, right. That retardation reminds me of the morons over at Lucianne and WorldNetDaily who keep pinning their hopes on an Obama impeachment.
Rusty, your Father has great expectations for you.
The best (and also plausible) scenario is that we have reached a head, and there is not outwardly nefarious intent in points of Control.
Pathological Self-Absorption is a bitch, and left unchecked would have led us just right here, on its own.
There is a mess to be cleaned, Control to be dealt with, but maintaining wits and choking up humility in the process is a critical thing.
I heard presentations for both of the lead counsel and each side of the arguement here. The defense side basically said that because of the name of the law it is preposterous to thing that the congress meant this glitch and in doing so restrict healthcare. I thought his comment was preposterous. The law is the law.
YOU GUYS NEED TO REALIZE THAT THIS CASE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MANDATE. THAT WILL STILL BE ENFORCED. IT ONLY HAS TO DO WITH PENALIZING BUSINESSES FOR NOT PROVIDING COVERAGE.
The country no longer believes in the rule of law: OUR rules...YOU must obey! Who said anything about US?
Ask any Huffpo dumbfuck. This is a democracy, not a Republic. The law, is whatever the mob decides is convenient. Currently, the mob wants everyone to pay for their healthcare.
Another perfect crime, because the real "mob" is the insurance industry.
And they are already sucking the cadavers.
United Healthcare States of Amerika
Ask NoDebt. I'm giving him an oportunity to come clean.
+
What law did we avail to invade Libya with?
I cannot find a Gold for Oil Restriction Act Law in the USC.
NoDebt is a SHILL! I knew it from DAY (1).
Jesus Titty-fucking Christ, why don't you two take it to the chat room, and spare us the name calling.
Why don't you grow up you little pussy! Fuck you and your chat crap! Why don't you learn to read a chart!
After all you come to Zero Hedge to sponge trading Ideas? Am I wrong? WoodMizer
So you pussy? Why 2 years and 17 weeks.?
Yen, babe, you know I love you. Don't feed into it.
I'm out I/R. Thanks
I read ZH cause Tyler covers news faster and better than the big name sites. I don't play in the rigged casino they call a market. If the FIRE industries didn't rule the fucking world I wouldn't be here.
Chill the fuck out and get over yourself, you self important douche.
You and your're worthless avatar represent the pussification of this country! You name the time and spot, and I'll pound what's left of your skull into a game of "5 baseball" not softball/ and we'll see who the pussies are?
Real Baseball/ Not pussyball/ Are you game?
P.S. The losers buy beer and don't get shit! The winners get a huge fucking trophy! Still designing it !
Right after 12 hours of felling trees and stacking lumber. I bet you have never even held a hammer much less a chainsaw. Come on out to the sticks and show me how manly you look with your trophy.
You've got to be joking? First of all I was raised in the " High Sierras" You're a pussy.
Come hang out with me in Northern Queensland. I hope you like Crocs ,Inland Taipans, and golden weavers on your porch>
PUSSY! Wood Carver<
This is the first time I have seen threats back and forth on ZH. I kind of like it even though it is meaningless. Is one of you really going to drive/fly to fight the other.
Personally, I think ZH is becoming a hack news site feeding into fears on 30-40% of their articles. I read the site for the other 60-70%.
OMG, I hope we do not have to start a "Less Than Zero Hedge" site.
Welcome to the serdom of Obamacare
"Rule of Law" LOL
The Constitution and Bill of Rights are the "Supreme Law of the Land" and they wipe their ass with that. They now rule by the gun and the gun will be the only way the American people will be able to Restore the Constitutional republic.
An American citizen not a US subject.
The Four Rs
Rejection: Quit paying, quit obeying , quit playing
Revolution: It is inevitable, so prepare, as they are.
Retribution: Is there really any place for these sociopaths and criminals in a restored civil and Constitutional society?!
Restoration: Restore the Constitutional republic.
Revolution is not possible without re-organization.
In other words, you need an organized movement and a large mass of people dedicated to its success.
We are not seeing that, and it will be quite difficult given that the average 'muriken is fat, lazy, and indoctrinated into the "greatest republic" meme. I don't see it happening for another 15-20 years when the disenfranchised become a majority.
"In other words, you need an organized movement and a large mass of people dedicated to its success."
One firebrand leader seizing the moment and coalescing multiple movements into one could do this.
Let me know when a sizeable number of Americans pull the plug on TV and Hollywood. Maybe people will think we are serious in shitting off Operation Mockingbird. Americans traded liberty for a clicker.
A "decentralized organization" would be necessary.
See: Starfish and Spider pdf
Any mass "organization" would be immediately infiltrated and copted and corrupted by the money power and dark, demented, debased government demoniacs.
Resistance must be decentralized, compartmentalized, and populated by people with fire in their bellies.
Good! Fuck you and your fuckin bullshit fascist law.
Reason number 1326 I moved from Debtnecticut to Ohio.
DEFAULT TO FEDERAL EXCHANGE.
http://obamacarefacts.com/state-health-insurance-exchange.php
I'm not so sure...
Remember BHO was going to ride into Syria, and the people said no?
And Putin rode in and gave Obama cover & an out?
ObamaCare is VERY unpopular, and growing in its unpopularity.
Might this be an escape hatch? "Geeze...this tiny detail sunk our dreams...!"
---Socialists hate being shamed.
The days of getting an overpriced miracle drug are over.
http://www.isscr.org/home/resources/learn-about-stem-cells/stem-cell-glossary
Then you have nanospore. Follow the money trail. You can see who & where the monies came from. R01 HG007406; R01 HG006876; R01 HG005115; R01 HG007415; R43 HG007386; R01 HG002776; R01 HG007407; and R43 HG006878.
New NIH awards focus on nanopore technology for DNA sequencing
http://www.nih.gov/news/health/sep2013/nhgri-06a.htm
DNA technology modification exists, just in private hands. :)
Haha.... NPR was already all over this issue on Friday nonchalantly spinning " the state exchanges OR those set up by the federal government if the states decided against setting up the exchanges. " See NPR already fixed it for you.!!
OT: Abe seems determined to stir the pot until he gets a direct conflict with China:
--
The notion seems to be to make Japan much more militant minded, to produce change in national sentiments and direction that remains long after he's gone. Apparently the US also wants a more aggressive Japan to counter the emerging Russia-China fleet combo. Everyone in SEA is also boosting naval forces so looks like all of China's extra-territorial claims are going to be resisted and denied. China's claims are clearly being rejected and everyone in the region is willing to cooperate to block them. It isn't just the US who wants to prevent expansion. It's more a general lack of trust and the indignation that China thinks it can make exorbitant claims and muscle its way to making it stick.
Element respectfully. Japan kampo/postal system is unloading. The trade surplus is disintegrating.
Korea and China are playing catchup. Most manufactures are more concerned with "daylight hours". 12/12 on the equator...
My best to NoDebt___
Points taken Yen, yet it's occurring, always value your input, cheers.
Government couldn't even write the law that they are arguing over correctly.
The laws title not withstanding, this never had anything to do with health care. it was designed as a first step towards the government taking over the entire health care system and establishing a socialist state. The tax credits were intended to redistribute wealth. People with no taxable income have always received heath care, but now they will get large checks from the IRS much like they do now from the so called "earned income credit" which is currently in the news for paying out billions to illegal aliens and others that are not eligible and the IRS says they can do nothing to stop the fraud. All penalties are collected by the IRS, if you have no income you can not be penalized, but i bet that they can still claim the credit.
The real threat is the penalty option. If healthy, responsible Americans say "Fuck You" to Obama by opting to pay the penalty -- the country will crash under the heavy load of slobs that will be signed up at their local Give Me Free Shit center.
At the risk of it being considered a troll I still have to say "Why are the people in the US so scared of 'socialism' when they are taking it up the arse night and day through facisism and crony capitalism".
The US has the most expensive health care on the planet *already* in terms of what tax payers put in, yet also have one of the highest infant death rates in the western world and the highest bankruptcy due to health issues.
I pay a whopping tax of 0.5% of my income that allows me free medical, prescriptions at a max of about $30 a month ($6 if you are on a benefit), free hospital etc etc. I can also *chose* to go private if I wish - and I do - which gives me things like single rooms in hospitals instead of sharing with 3 others.
I wish people in the US would wake up and see there are much better ways of doing things. Yes I understand a lot of people on here are already aware of that but given the comments it seems even a lot on ZH are still stuck in the US bubble world and that the rest of the world (and ways of doing things) don't exist.
Edit to add: My private health insurance premiums, which also cover dental, chiro, optical, physio and others comes to a grand total of $54 a month. Can't you see how much you are getting screwed?
You must live on the other side of tomorow underneath the World.
I certainly pay moar in the land of Great White Socialist Freedom. I can take it. It is fucking snowing right now.
Stack On
OK, I'll bite. You are a troll.
Funny that you tell us how much you pay, but you don't tell us how much it costs. Nor do you tell us where you live.
Maybe Greece? Spain? Portugal? Italy?
Lemme guess. Your country fixes prices that the pharmas can charge? Does your country have any pharma R&D? Who do you think pays for that?
What does the avatar suggest?
The fact that he "can choose to go privat" tells us,
that he is wealthy.
Us lowlifes donT have that "choice".
I pay 15.5%, ... rather, they take it.
Read my post again. I included the price of going private. I am not wealthy by any means.
"Funny that you tell us how much you pay, but you don't tell us how much it costs. Nor do you tell us where you live."
I did. If you took the time to read.
I'll bite, you're not looking at the "American" situation objectively, i.e you're biased.
US citizens are simply not being offered "socialism" as you define it, to think otherwise is delusional. Look at the difference between "capitalism" as you define it and what is offered to the American citizenry i.e what you define as "facisism and crony capitalism"
As the case of Switzerland demonstrates, what Obama promised the fools is possible and deliverable, but it sure as fuck is not what they're receiving.
Take all the Africans that you Europeans loaded us up with out of your statistics and then take a second look at them.
Oh, and when the U.S. is no longer serving as the Grand European Continential Army, let's see how much you spend on "defense" as compared to us.
And the Stupidty continues with the so called Greatest Minds.
Great news for the DOW.
The assumption is that Obama will follow the law ... he won't ...
Sully
Joe (bursts in to girly man cave): "Boss, boss, the healthscam law is collapsing!"
Bath House: (Finishes lip-to-lip shotgun toke with Reggie): "Dammit, Joe, quit interrupting. Call The Beard. It's her fault. I didn't build that."
The real legal question is - What is the meaning of the word "state". For example, the "state" of Florida or the "state" of confusion. The current "state" of the Federal Government. As long as the are many ways to define "state", it must be whatever Obama wants it to be.
If the Stupreme Court can ignore that CONgress has no power under Article 1, Section 8 to pass laws concerning sick treatment or insurance, that Article 1, Section 7 requires "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives" and Article 1, Section 9 that " No...direct Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census," then give up on any federal court overturning this monstrosity. The NSA must have photos of Roberts **cking his goats for him to ignore these glaring violations.
It's up to the states to nullify unconstitutional Acts of CONgress as null, void and without substance.
Were those two asterisks because you didn't want to write out profanity or because you are undecided whether Robert's is a goat fucker or a goat sucker?
As if the technological problems facing Obamacare were not enough, a potentially major "legal glitch" could cause the healthcare law to unravel in 36 states.
This so called "legal glitch" is nothing more than a failed extortion attempt on the part of the Federal Government i.e. set up state run health care exchanges or lose the Federal tax credits. 36 states (72%) called their bluff and refused to set up exchanges. This is a glitch only in the sense that the horse head in the bed did not obtain its intended result for the Feds. The Feds were then forced to scramble scramble scramble to set up exchanges for the uncooperative states resulting in a totally fucked up Federal Exchange that couldn't be modified/expanded/re-created in time for the October 1st launch. (Fixing by the end of November is a pipe dream.)
Does the health care law allow for tax credits in states that did not set up their own exchanges? No. Does the law even authorize (appropriate monies for) the Federal Government to expand the Federal Exchange for the states? I'm not sure.
How to not pay it:
"The penalty applies --" this is for not having insurance. "The penalty applies to any period the individual does not maintain minimum essential coverage and is determined monthly. The penalty is assessed through the Code," the tax code, "and accounted for as an additional amount of federal tax owed." So it's tax.
"However," look at me. "However, it is not subject to the enforcement provisions of subtitle F of the Code. The use of liens and seizures otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty. Non-compliance with the personal responsibility requirement to have health coverage is not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay [the fine] in a timely manner."
Therefore, the only way that they can collect the penalty or the fine is by taking money from your refund. If you are not owed a refund, they cannot get money from you. They can't issue a lien. They can't garnish your wages. They can't use any of the normal procedures available to them if you owe them money, even though the Supreme Court has said it's a tax.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/10/24/opt_out_obamacare_penalty_c...
===================================================
Too,
How To Opt Out of ObamaCare Without Paying the Fine
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/24/How-to-opt-out-of-oba...
And lastly, don't forget to always structure yourself correctly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_law
"In the United States the tax law allows trusts to be taxed as corporations, partnerships, or not at all depending on the circumstances, although trusts may be used for tax avoidance in certain situations"
Over.
Burn it down. Throw all the branches in the fire.
Obamacare or No Obamacare, the end results are the same; a total BOON for the Insurance companies as they raise rates no matter what.
It was never supposed to work. It was supposed to fail. Fix is single payer. next question?
Yep. Destroy everything then build it back the "right" way. (have to spell out the game plan for us special needs readers)
The minute they decided that anyone wishing to look at costs had to enetr all of their personal financial and health info beforehand is the minute they exacerbated the crash. Let's face it, this and the other major govt programs are nothing but a crooks dream: those who illegally commit fraud (system users and scammers) and those who legally commit fraud (politicians, insurance companies etc).
More Obamashock! Glitches Hit Paper, Phone Applications; Obamacare Glitch Great Quotes
“We’re going to do a challenge. I’m going to try and download every movie ever made and you are going to try to sign up for Obamacare — and we’ll see which happens first.” — Jon Stewart to Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on "The Daily Show," Oct. 7
Very sadly, John Roberts will rule that "surely the law meant to say state exchanges = federal exchanges" therefore no problem.
His July 2012 Obamacare ruling was the most damaging in many years. Stunning.
This is why NSA spies on everyone. Like old Hoover but done with Algos. John you're going to go along with the plan or we're just going public with all your dirt. No one gets high in power without the capability to be manipulated.
With all the things Wrong with "Obama Care" you would think the smart thing to do for Repubicants instead of making an ass of themselves constantly they would just STFU and enjoy the FAIL. Wingers make the next election a cake walk for Hillary even if wingers ran Jebus Christ.
25 October 2013, by Diana Furchtgott-Roth (MarketWatch)
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/court-could-block-obamacare-subsidies-in-34-states-2013-10-25
Tired - SO TIRED - of media parroting the word "glitches".
These are not "glitches". They are inherent, substantial, systemic, deep flaws in virtually every aspect of this product development. A "glitch" is a hiccup - a blip on a radar screen - an aberration in an otherwise functioning system or product.
Continued use of the word trivializes the magnitude of the failure, and is a DELIBERATELY planted word by TPTB to alter the perceptions of less than awake dimwits.
It should be challenged and corrected every time it is uttered.
Really??? Pinning your hopes to the republicans in congress?
Pinning your hopes to republicans in congress...not doing anything. Not too far of a leap there, bucko.
Awesome!! Up Arrow, you got me. Thanks
Legal glitch? How about the fact that the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional...as a penalty, and thus declared it a tax.
How about the fact that Obamacare, a tax, didn't originate in the House, as it is required by the Constitution to be? Remember, the senate forced it through on Christmas Eve 2009 before Scott Brown got sworn into Ted Kennedy's, I mean the people's, seat?
It didn't pass the house until March 21st, 2010.
We live in a post-Constitutional world. The Constitution wasn't put together just because, it was drafted to allow an ordered society. As we unravel the consitution, we unravel the order that bound us together.
Lead, bitchez!
All I hear about on the edge of the ghetto is the useless eaters talkin bout how they gets the Obamacare money.
They think they will just get a check for ten grand to buy insurance and if they buy a $5k plan they can keep the rest.
The ghetto welfare queens think Obamacare is more free money they can use to buy flat screen TVs and Xbox games for their kids.
My sister works at a doctor's office next to a housing project. We call it the Safari. You never see a parent, but there is usually 30 kids on bikes terrorizing people in the parking lot. Like a true nature preserve, if something happens to one of the kids, nobody is there to help. I saw a 15 year old smash into and run over a four year old girl with his bike. The pack just moved to another part of the project parking lot and left the girl screaming on the ground. I didn't stick around to see if a parent ever showed up, I doubt it though.
There is going to be hell to pay when the Obamanites find out they don't get a new round of Obamacash. They will just invade doctor's offices and demand care, like they do at Emergency Rooms. They are sick of having to go to hospitals for headaches because they have to wait two hours at an ER.
The real reason for Obamacare was to allow the ghetto mamas to invade suburban medical centers because they would have real health insurance.
Frack u, monkeyboy, u lying saxk of kenyan sack of colonic detritus.
' "This is definitely heating up. It is now the major focus of the Republican strategy for undoing the Affordable Care Act," said Simon Lazarus, a lawyer for the Constitutional Accountability Center. '
Ironic that the guy's name is Lazarus.
Obamacare, the "GOLD STANDARD" of nigger rigged software.
The good thing about this latest legal angle is that, unlike the personal mandate, which could be clearly traced to a single legal question and to one man (Roberts, who was a coward about it and crapped his panties), on the other hand these legal issues are in 4 different lawsuits, in various different States, regarding a wide range of complicated legal details, all of which are hard to control or to pin on just one person. Remember, one of Salinski's famous rules for practicing Communism in non-communist countries is to isolate and pressure the person who is reisisting the communist direction. That has worked well for Obama, and perfectly in the coward Robert's case, but might not be applicable in this current situation.
Sure would be nice to see this thing strangled and killed. It might kill itself anyway the way the systems are set up. I know from a professional career in systems design that the worse designed an unworkabled system starts out, the worse and worse it becomes. (spaghetti code, anyone?) Unless there's a shining knight of rare abilities who is in a position to alter the project's entire course, but I can't see such a person or anyone being in such a position in the Obamascare case. One way or the other this thing will die, and go down in history as the reason why you don't cram hated laws through a totally divided government body at midnight on Christmas Eve.
Canadian officials fired IT firm behind troubled Obamacare website
http://washingtonexaminer.com/canadian-officials-fired-it-firm-behind-tr...
"Canadian provincial health officials last year fired the parent company of CGI Federal, the prime contractor for the problem-plagued Obamacare health exchange websites, the Washington Examiner has learned.
CGI Federal’s parent company, Montreal-based CGI Group, was officially terminated in September 2012 by an Ontario government health agency after the firm missed three years of deadlines and failed to deliver the province’s flagship online medical registry."
"...after the firm missed three years of deadlines and failed to deliver..."
Obamacare is going to be the US fiasco of this century. Read these two outstanding expose' columns:
How Badly Will ObamaCare Screw You? Answers Here!
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=225369
Excerpt:
First, if you're "27", the average premium is $266.20/month or $3,194.40 per year. How many 27 year olds have an extra $3,200 to spend on this? Remember, this is the price that virtually every uninsured 27 year old must be willing -- and able -- to cough up in order to prevent the model this system is predicated on from collapsing.
If those 27 year olds don't show up, and they won't, then the system collapses instantly. If they do show up because the government threatens them with fines the economy collapses as $3,200 a year exceeds the average 27 year old's disposable personal income after mandatory expenses (e.g. food, shelter, etc.) Remember, there are always exceptions but these premiums are averages and over large pools of people the statistical averages are what matters -- not the ends of the barbell.
It gets better. The "average" 50 year old premium, again, for single coverage, is $452.87, or $5,434.44/year. How many 50 year olds will find that attractive compared against what they're paying now? Probably more of them, especially if they're already sick. But how about the healthy ones?
Here It Comes (ObamaCare ALREADY Detonating)
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=225427
Excerpt from second column:
"This is (thus far) anecdotal, but if it plays out anywhere near what I'm hearing reports of this law is done and so is the Federal and State budget process.
Specifically, I am hearing that of the (few) people who have managed to actually (1) create an account on the federal health care system exchanges and (2) go through the process nearly all of them are winding up referred to Medicaid. What's nearly all? There are reports that it is in the 90% range in many if not most area!
Got that? Almost none of the so-called "enrollees" are actually paying customers.
What's worse is the rest of the screwjob that is being foisted off on those who do look at the plans -- there is further (anecdotal, again, as this information is extremely hard to find) evidence developing that the "in-network" lists -- that is, which doctors and hospitals are "accepted" by these plans are effectively identical to the choice that Medicaid patients have -- in other words, half or more of the medical facilities and physicians, including probably your current doctor, will not accept these plans.
I was utterly unable to find, without registering, exactly what was "in-network" in this area among the "plans" offered for this county. Of course I have not provided any personal information, but this is one of the key shopping points for people who are buying "health insurance" -- they want to know where they can use it!"
what fucking button can i push to relieve myself from ever reading another shit-filled blog entry by yen cross? PLEASE!!! he is worse than chinese water torture! what a cunt.
what fucking button can i push to relieve myself from ever reading another shit-filled blog entry by yen cross? PLEASE!!! he is worse than chinese water torture! what a cunt.
"Equal Justice for All" is a Pipe Dream.
Why does Lady Justice where a blindfold? So the weak can believe there is justice, when in fact, the American justice system is more like the Italian mafia, except the attorney uses the law instead of a gun to get what they want from the weak.
I think some dumb shit once said, "we have to pass it so we can learn what's in it". Well Nan, I hope all that botox can keep your face straight when you get this shoved up your ass. However, President Goebbels will probably just ignore it, just like he has on so many other things. How did Amerika survive and prosper all these years before Chalky?
http://vegasxau.blogspot.com
Isn't this how Obamacare was passed by the Demoncrats? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHK-ioV8UE8
Walking around blindly, following orders...not knowing what they do....
Legal bitchez are not minor glichez or should I say minor bitchez are not legal glichez.
Too bad no one had time to "read the bill to know what is in it."
This is no legal glitch. They purposefully put in that subsidies would go only to people regestering through state exchanges in hopes it would force the states to opt in, or be left out. Whoops! big backfire here. If the GOP is smart it will not let them correct this presure point.
Maybe at some point one of the states' attorneys general may realize that the healthcare exchange website FORCES people to divulge private information to Experian, which can then be sold, mostly to creditors to track them down. This happens EVEN IF YOU DO NOT PROVIDE YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER.
So I decided to see what kind of insane rate I would qualify for under the program and went on the website. Found out I had to create a profile so I already knew the whole episode was fucked. I filled out my info and then told them to kiss my ass when they asked me for my SSN, my wife's name, or her SSN. It didn't make much of a difference. Even with the limited shitty information I gave them they pulled up to "verification" questions to ask me. Both were multiple choice and asked me: which of the following is a valid former address for you? And, which of these is a former phone #? The information they pulled was very obviously from my credit report.
So I did a little digging... turns out in the healthcare.gov disclaimer they tell you pretty plainly that they are sharing your information with all sorts of 3rd parties... here's a fun one: DHS! I'm sure the DHS guys can really help qualify you for insurance!
https://www.healthcare.gov/individual-privacy-act-statement/
Any application provided to any of the credit bureaus is stored and added to your file, that's just simply how they work. This is why when you apply for a car loan after you've changed addresses you start getting the same bullshit junk mail at your new address. Experian/Equifax/Transunion sell your address, phone number, credit history, self-reported income level... anything you've ever put on a credit application anywhere. It seems there's a bit of irony that the poorest people in the country are going to fill out apps for shitty health insurance and in so doing will alert every creditor they've ever had to where they're currently living, what their phone # is... etc.