the cRATS knew ALL along that O' was BS'ing

[sammy the sage]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/17/Gillibrand-we-all-knew

Well at least one ....Actually came out and ADMITTED as such...not gonna help w/this next election...

[Clocker]

In 2010, the administration published an estimate in the Federal Register that approximately 93 million people would eventually lose their current policies by the time that the law was fully implemented.

[FantasticDan]

In 2010, the administration published an estimate in the Federal Register that approximately 93 million people would eventually lose their current policies by the time that the law was fully implemented.It's kind of confusing, but I believe that estimate was just for how many people's plans might change enough to lose grandfather status, but did not include the prospect that they might still meet the new minimum requirements:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/13/sean-hannity/hannity-says-government-predicted-massive-loss-hea/

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by Clocker
In 2010, the administration published an estimate in the Federal Register that approximately 93 million people would eventually lose their current policies by the time that the law was fully implemented.
Reply by Fantastic Dan
It's kind of confusing, but I believe that estimate was just for how many people's plans might change enough to lose grandfather status, but did not include the prospect that they might still meet the new minimum requirements:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...ssive-loss-hea/
Politifact is way too kind to Hannity. He knew what the report said but misrepresented it to make it seem that all those people would lose their coverage. Clocker, as is typical, parrots the party line never bothering to vet anything he hears on his favorite righty blogs.

[Clocker]

Clocker, as is typical, parrots the party line never bothering to vet anything he hears on his favorite righty blogs.


I am sure that you will dismiss the following analysis of the CBO and HHS projections as propaganda since it comes from that righty blog Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/31/obama-officials-in-2010-93-million-americans-will-be-unable-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/). I suggest you look at the numbers and their source instead. The estimate of 93 million is the midrange of the estimates given by the administration.

Mid-range estimate: 51% of employer-sponsored plans will get canceled

Section 1251 of the Affordable Care Act contains what’s called a “grandfather” provision that, in theory, allows people to keep their existing plans if they like them. But subsequent regulations from the Obama administration interpreted that provision so narrowly as to prevent most plans from gaining this protection.

“The Departments’ mid-range estimate is that 66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013,” wrote the administration on page 34,552 of the Register. All in all, more than half of employer-sponsored plans will lose their “grandfather status” and become illegal. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 156 million Americans—more than half the population—was covered by employer-sponsored insurance in 2013.

Another 25 million people, according to the CBO, have “nongroup and other” forms of insurance; that is to say, they participate in the market for individually-purchased insurance. In this market, the administration projected that “40 to 67 percent” of individually-purchased plans would lose their Obamacare-sanctioned “grandfather status” and become illegal, solely due to the fact that there is a high turnover of participants and insurance arrangements in this market. (Plans purchased after March 23, 2010 do not benefit from the “grandfather” clause.) The real turnover rate would be higher, because plans can lose their grandfather status for a number of other reasons.

How many people are exposed to these problems? 60 percent of Americans have private-sector health insurance—precisely the number that Jay Carney dismissed. As to the number of people facing cancellations, 51 percent of the employer-based market plus 53.5 percent of the non-group market (the middle of the administration’s range) amounts to 93 million Americans.



The following was based on the law that said the employer mandate would go into effect on 1/1/14. Since Obama unilaterally changed that law, the effective date is now 2014.

http://4-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2013/11/580x251xFederalRegister0921-600x260.jpg.pagespeed.ic.r4oKPSZCAb.jpg

[mostpost]

I am sure that you will dismiss the following analysis of the CBO and HHS projections as propaganda since it comes from that righty blog Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/31/obama-officials-in-2010-93-million-americans-will-be-unable-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/). I suggest you look at the numbers and their source instead. The estimate of 93 million is the midrange of the estimates given by the administration.



The following was based on the law that said the employer mandate would go into effect on 1/1/14. Since Obama unilaterally changed that law, the effective date is now 2014.

http://4-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2013/11/580x251xFederalRegister0921-600x260.jpg.pagespeed.ic.r4oKPSZCAb.jpg
As soon as I saw the author of the Forbes article, I knew exactly what it was going to say. Avik Roy is a fellow at the Libertarian Manhattan Institute. He writes for the National Review Online which is a "righty" blog. And he was an adviser to Mitt Romney on healthcare. So we know where he is coming from and where he is coming from is wrongville.

Roy said that a total on 93 million plans would need to meet the new standards. That is true, but what neither Roy nor the report he quoted ever took into account was that many of those plans which are offered by employers already met those standards.

[Clocker]

As soon as I saw the author of the Forbes article, I knew exactly what it was going to say. Avik Roy is a fellow at the Libertarian Manhattan Institute. He writes for the National Review Online which is a "righty" blog. And he was an adviser to Mitt Romney on healthcare. So we know where he is coming from and where he is coming from is wrongville.



As I predicted, you attack the messenger without regard to the message.

neither Roy nor the report he quoted ever took into account was that many of those plans which are offered by employers already met those standards.

The report he quoted was done by Health and Human Services based on CBO data. Attack them.

[mostpost]

As I predicted, you attack the messenger without regard to the message.



The report he quoted was done by Health and Human Services based on CBO data. Attack them.
It is not attacking the messenger to point out his point of view. That is necessary to understand his message. If the messenger uses a biased view of a subject to misrepresent and lie, then I have a duty to point that out.

Using a convenient shorthand, Avik Roy claims that any change to a nonqualified plan will result in it loosing grandfathered status. However, if you read the rule in the June 17, 2010 issue of the federal register you find the changes occur only after the changes exceed certain limits. You also learn that HHS acknowledges that some insurers may opt to spread changes among several different aspects of their plan so that no one change results in loss of grandfathered status. In other words they may combine an increase in premium with a drop in copay or coinsurance.

Another thing you learn by reading the June 17 2010 issue of the National Register is that the report refers to predicted changes which will occur between 2011 and 2013 based on data form 2008 and 2009. In other words this has already happened.

[dartman51]

It's amazing, all this arguing over a law that is illegal, to begin with. IF, you believe in the CONSTITUTION, and know what it says, then you know this to be true. But, then, Libs, for the most part, don't believe in the Constitution. The Constitution says that ANY law that raises revenue,(TAXES), which this law does, MUST originate in the HOUSE. This law originated in the Senate. Therefore, it is ILLEGAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and a PILE OF CRAP.......PERIOD :ThmbUp:

[dartman51]

It is not attacking the messenger to point out his point of view. That is necessary to understand his message. If the messenger uses a biased view of a subject to misrepresent and lie, then I have a duty to point that out.

Using a convenient shorthand, Avik Roy claims that any change to a nonqualified plan will result in it loosing grandfathered status. However, if you read the rule in the June 17, 2010 issue of the federal register you find the changes occur only after the changes exceed certain limits. You also learn that HHS acknowledges that some insurers may opt to spread changes among several different aspects of their plan so that no one change results in loss of grandfathered status. In other words they may combine an increase in premium with a drop in copay or coinsurance.

Another thing you learn by reading the June 17 2010 issue of the National Register is that the report refers to predicted changes which will occur between 2011 and 2013 based on data form 2008 and 2009. In other words this has already happened.

I didn't see you point out the LIES, and the MISREPRESENTATION of Obama's biased view of HIS healthcare program. :eek:

[Clocker]

Another thing you learn by reading the June 17 2010 issue of the National Register is that the report refers to predicted changes which will occur between 2011 and 2013 based on data form 2008 and 2009. In other words this has already happened.

How can it have already happened? This was a forecast of the effect of the employer mandate, scheduled to go into effect on 1/1/14. Obama delayed that for a year. It was in all the papers. If he delayed it, it didn't happen yet.

You are tap-dancing all around the issue: CBO forecast that 39% to 69% (midrange forecast 51%) of current employer plans would not be qualified plans when the mandate was effective.

[TJDave]

It's amazing, all this arguing over a law that is illegal, to begin with. IF, you believe in the CONSTITUTION, and know what it says, then you know this to be true. But, then, Libs, for the most part, don't believe in the Constitution. The Constitution says that ANY law that raises revenue,(TAXES), which this law does, MUST originate in the HOUSE. This law originated in the Senate. Therefore, it is ILLEGAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and a PILE OF CRAP.......PERIOD :ThmbUp:

An interesting theory. I understand there are 40 house members who are backing this petition which will probably guarantee that a federal judge will hear it. I don't think the Supremes would overrule themselves, though. It wouldn't look good. :lol:

The time for raising an objection was when the Senate sent over its sham amended bill. Probably too little, too late.

[JustRalph]

They wouldn't be over-ruling themselves. They would ruling on a different subject. They weren't asked to rule on this matter.

On Meet the Press yesterday.

Sen. Gillibrand: “We all knew” that insurance plans were going to get cancelled

[mostpost]

It's amazing, all this arguing over a law that is illegal, to begin with. IF, you believe in the CONSTITUTION, and know what it says, then you know this to be true. But, then, Libs, for the most part, don't believe in the Constitution. The Constitution says that ANY law that raises revenue,(TAXES), which this law does, MUST originate in the HOUSE. This law originated in the Senate. Therefore, it is ILLEGAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and a PILE OF CRAP.......PERIOD :ThmbUp:
You are misinformed, again. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act began as HR 3590. HR stands for House Resolution. When the ACA was passed it was passed as HR 3590.

The Constitution does say that revenue related bills must originate in the House. It does not say that those bills can not be amended, by the House or the Senate. The bill is not illegal, it is not unconstitutional and the only pile of crap around here is your opinion.

[TJDave]

They wouldn't be over-ruling themselves. They would ruling on a different subject. They weren't asked to rule on this matter.


So, you're suggesting that Roberts didn't consider the origination clause when crafting, out of whole cloth, his original ruling?

Next time it'll be different? :lol:

[JustRalph]

So, you're suggesting that Roberts didn't consider the origination clause when crafting, out of whole cloth, his original ruling?

Next time it'll be different? :lol:

Roberts will try to save his legacy if he ever gets another whack at it. Let's hope so anyway

[mostpost]

How can it have already happened? This was a forecast of the effect of the employer mandate, scheduled to go into effect on 1/1/14. Obama delayed that for a year. It was in all the papers. If he delayed it, it didn't happen yet.

You are tap-dancing all around the issue: CBO forecast that 39% to 69% (midrange forecast 51%) of current employer plans would not be qualified plans when the mandate was effective.
From the June 17, 2010 issue of the Federal Register.
Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
IV. Economic Impact and Paperwork Burden
5. Estimates of Number of Plans and Employees Affected
a. Methodology for Analyzing Plan Changes Over Time in the Group Market
in the second paragraph of IV)5)a) we find:
"Because the level of uncertainty becomes substantially greater when trying to use this data to predict outcomes once the full range of reforms takes effect in 2014 and the exchanges begin operating, substantially changing market dynamics the Departments restrict our estimates to the 2011-2013 period and use the existing data and a range of assumptions to estimate possible outcomes based on a range of assumptions concerning how plans' behavior regarding cost sharing changes may change relative to what is reflected in the 2008-2009 data."

If you bothered to read the chart you pasted a copy of you will see that the dates on the top are 2011-2012-2013.

This is NOT about the individual mandate. This is about qualified and non-qualified plans. It effects plans sold on the exchanges, plans sold in the small groups markets and plans sold through large employers.

[mostpost]

In one of my posts above, I erred. I said National Register. Of Course it should be Federal Register. Mea Culpa.

[Clocker]

The administration has confirmed that a majority of employer group health plans will lose their grandfathered status. As those plans expire, they will have to be transitioned to qualified plans or the employers will have to pay penalties under the employer mandate in 2015.

On October 17, the Obama Department of Health and Human Services, represented by the Obama Justice Department, submitted a brief to the federal district court in Washington, opposing Priests for Life’s summary judgment motion. On page 27 of its brief, the Justice Department makes the following remarkable assertion:The [ACA’s] grandfathering provision’s incremental transition does not undermine the government’s interests in a significant way. [Citing, among other sources, the Federal Register.] Even under the grandfathering provision, it is projected that more group health plans will transition to the requirements under the regulations as time goes on. Defendants have estimated that a majority of group health plans will have lost their grandfather status by the end of 2013.



Full story here. (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/364176/obamas-5-percent-con-job-andrew-c-mccarthy) Any libs attacking the source should also attack the quote from the DOJ brief to be taken seriously.