Daily Archives: March 4, 2015

Another Obamacare Supporter Just Got A Hard Dose Of Reality – Chicks on the Right

This time from Covered California – Another Obamacare Supporter Just Got A Hard Dose Of Reality – Chicks on the Right. Poor Melissa Klein of San Francisco discovers the unfortunate reality that the government is decades behind Amazon.

Another liberal learns the hard lesson of big government bureaucracy. Click on the link to get the details. This paragraph sums it up regarding expectations for Obamacare exchange subsidies and health care nirvana…

I find a number of things absolutely fascinating about her story – not the least of which that she expected government healthcare exchanges to work with the same fluidity of ordering a product from Amazon or some other private online retailer. I hesitate to use the tired old analogy of standing in line at the DMV but – the same people who make a trip to the DMV utterly painful are the same people you have running government healthcare! 

It’s sad that it’s taken THIS long for people to get it – but until government regulations actually affect your life, you keep buying into the washed-out academic theories that haven’t been proven, even though those theories have had plenty of time to show their merits. That is, if they had any merit to begin with.

Welcome to Reality Town, Melissa. You won’t enjoy your stay.

Earth to enlightened liberals and progressives, it’s PRIVATE industry that can build websites and fulfillment systems such as Amazon. To expect that of your government, especially once a dose of politics is mixed in, is well, how should I say it…. Un effing realistic.


King v Burwell: What does the plain text of the Obamacare law say?

The Plain Text of ObamaCare – WSJ.

The problem…

Unlike the 2012 ObamaCare cases, King v. Burwell is not a challenge to the constitutionality of the health law. To the contrary, the plaintiffs are asking the Justices to vindicate the law’s plain text and uphold the statute that Congress passed in 2010, rather than the version the Administration rewrote. (emphasis added)

How the law was drafted?

The law’s Democratic drafters wanted the states to participate and assumed all of them eventually would, much as with Medicaid and many other familiar programs under cooperative federalism. Conditioning subsidies on state action was meant to give Governors and legislatures an irresistible incentive to contribute to ObamaCare’s implementation and lend political legitimacy. In return, their constituents were eligible for benefits.

This routine legislative arrangement turned out to be an epic political miscalculation. The opposition to ObamaCare failed to ebb as liberals expected, and 36 states refused the invitation to create exchanges. In those states, the law provides for a federal exchange fallback—without subsidies.

What will the judges decide?

In King, the High Court will scrutinize this IRS decree using the traditional canons of statutory construction. The English language is clear: Congress wrote that subsidies would be available on state exchanges only, so Washington cannot deputize itself as the 51st state—especially when the black-letter law is as consistent, tightly worded and cross-referenced as the Affordable Care Act.

To take one example, the Secretary of Health and Human Services was empowered to grant unlimited sums of money to states to establish exchanges. But the law appropriated not a penny for the federal exchanges, and HHS raided internal slush funds to build them. If there is no legal difference between the federal and state exchanges, why did HHS need this budget ruse?

It turns out that in prior drafts, Federal exchanges were eligible for subsidies but that text was purposely removed…

As the Mountain States Legal Foundation and other amici briefs point out, previous versions of the Affordable Care Act extended subsidies to the federal exchanges too. But that language was deleted in the secret negotiations to combine various Senate bills. After Scott Brown’s Massachusetts special election ended the Democratic supermajority, Democrats accepted and President Obama signed the final Senate bill as the last helicopter out of Saigon.

The President cannot now unilaterally revise those details because they are politically inconvenient. Blessing this lawless behavior sets a dangerous precedent, handing the bureaucracy a license to reshape statutes without the consent of Congress. King is an opportunity for the Court to rebuke this growing merger of legislative and executive power.

NOTE: the emphasis added in all the above quotes are from the poster.

And the last paragraph sums up it. Can the President unilaterally revise the details of the law? Lately it seems that he can, what will the Supremes decide?


From the commenter Alan Wolfe:

The language of Obamacare is clear.  Subsidies are available only through exchanges established by the state.  SCOTUS should be true to their oath and declare subsidies granted through federal exchanges illegal.

If the insurance industry and the health care industry are turned upside down as a consequence, so be it.

Americans need to learn that laws have consequences, and to hold their legislators responsible for getting it right. The progressive left, in their ideological haste to write a comprehensive change to health care got it wrong.  Now let them pay the price for their hubris. (emphasis added, what a surprise?)

I couldn’t agree more, except I don’t believe there is a price to pay on the Progressive side. In fact, if the Republican’s aren’t prepared to “run the gauntlet” perfectly, they will be the ones paying the price.


‘I am going to stab a bitch’; Liberal journalist discovers the joys of Obamacare

The wonderful auto-renewal system at Connect for Health Colorado failed for liberal journalist Laura Krantz –  ‘I am going to stab a bitch’; Liberal journalist discovers the joys of Obamacare | Twitchy. As you might guess, her solution is single payer but that’s to be expected.

Others apparently have the same problem, which is no surprise. There’s not an easy way to post the tweets except by screen capture so I recommend reading the whole thing.

All you had to do to “break” Connect for Health’s auto-renewal system was log in and look at alternate plans. I put “break” in quotes as this is how the system was designed. That said, it’s not clear that’s what happened in this case and why would her 2014 coverage be cancelled?