Obamacare delayed- To help elect democrats

[PokerGuy]

Typical hypocritical scum at work. First they bring us the steaming pile of crap of obummercare, and then when it becomes obvious that it's going to be a disaster they seek to avoid repercussions.

 

[sportage]

is the dailymail also on your do not read list of news sources?

I doubtest mucho much that Faux News qualifies as a news source.
Or was this gem another Glenn Beck brainstorm?

 

[michal1980]

I doubtest mucho much that Faux News qualifies as a news source.
Or was this gem another Glenn Beck brainstorm?

Was there a fox news link in the OP?

 

[BlueWolf47]

If they were doing it for political reasons, why would they postpone the business mandate and not the individual mandate?

 

[glenn1]

If they were doing it for political reasons, why would they postpone the business mandate and not the individual mandate?

Who knows, maybe that's next.

And I really don't get the complaints about it being done for "political reasons." Complaining that another politician did something for political reasons is a losing argument to voters. Better to argue that Democrats are incompetent to govern, even to the point of being unable to implement their top agenda item given 5 years lead time to prepare. Implementing it badly would allow voters to conclude "it's complicated and had a rough start, but Democrats are working to fix it." Delaying it beyond an election (especially given the 5 years prep time beforehand) would allow voters to conclude "it's completely unworkable, otherwise why would they have postponed something they fought so hard for?"

 

[poofyhairguy]

If they were doing it for political reasons, why would they postpone the business mandate and not the individual mandate?

Because most employers (especially large employers) already provide health care. Once the business mandate hits, the provisions that require certain floors for care and all the paperwork to prove you provide the care will increase the costs of health insurance for these employers. At least a certain percentage of the cost will be passed on to employees, which in many cases are the baby boomers that drive elections in donations and votes.

The personal mandate mostly harms younger Americans who as a demographic barely vote and certainly don't give money to campaigns.

 

[sactoking]

This notice certainly elicited a strong reaction in the office yesterday and has left us with more questions than we have answers.

Officially, the employer mandate was delayed by a year because the reporting requirements on business were too cumbersome. We know that isn't fully true; the Treasury blog post said:

Here is some additional detail. The ACA includes information reporting (under section 6055) by insurers, self-insuring employers, and other parties that provide health coverage. It also requires information reporting (under section 6056) by certain employers with respect to the health coverage offered to their full-time employees. We expect to publish proposed rules implementing these provisions this summer, after a dialogue with stakeholders - including those responsible employers that already provide their full-time work force with coverage far exceeding the minimum employer shared responsibility requirements - in an effort to minimize the reporting, consistent with effective implementation of the law.

Once these rules have been issued, the Administration will work with employers, insurers, and other reporting entities to strongly encourage them to voluntarily implement this information reporting in 2014, in preparation for the full application of the provisions in 2015. Real-world testing of reporting systems in 2014 will contribute to a smoother transition to full implementation in 2015.

Read between the lines and it's clear that the federal reporting hub that employers were supposed to use to report their insurance coverage and which insurers were supposed to confirm that coverage is nowhere close to being ready. The line of "business asked for it, so they got it" is a thin ruse over the truth of "we just won't be ready".

This raises some serious concerns. The employer mandate was the lynchpin of the ACA. Yes, I know that something like 90+% of large employers already provide health insurance and ~97% of employers not providing insurance aren't subject to the mandate, but that's not a key factor. Here are the key factors:
1. While 90+% of employers may currently provide health insurance, it's not 90+% that provide ACA-compliant health insurance. If you're missing an EHB item, or have an annual/lifetime limit, or maybe you offer a mini-med plan (like a fast food chain) that's not ACA-compliant.
2. The ACA was designed to push people into employer-sponsored insurance, the individual mandate was just a backstop program. That's why employers are required to provide insurance and an individual can only buy a policy if the employer fails in its duty.

Without the employer mandate, how do the other dominoes fall? How can you ensure that an individual applying for a subsidy is actually eligible, meaning that the employer doesn't offer affordable minimum essential coverage, if you get no reporting from the employer? If the federal data hub for employer reporting is so far behind scehdule that "real-world testing" cannot possibly be done by 10/1/13, how can we be sure that the data hub will be running for individual enrollments is time? And with adequate and proper testing? Could the individual mandate dominoe fall as well? What would be worse, delaying the mandate or a complete disaster for the first open enrollment?

I've heard the speculation about political motives and this is my take:
This is not purely a political move. There has been rampant speculation for months that the data hub was behind schedule but that they would push it live no matter what; the political fallout from a delay would be too great. For them to play the delay card means that the cost/benefit of delay versus disaster was certainly indicating that disaster was on the horizon. That being said, I cannot rule out politics as a partial factor. In 2012 CMS punted on the Essential Health Benefits to the states, giving a deadline of September 30 to declare their benchmark plans. The states delayed choosing, waiting for the rules (at least a proposed version, not even final) on how the EHB would work. After all, how can you pick a proper EHB package if you don't know how the rules will work? Well, the deadline for selection came and went without any proposed rules from CMS, forcing many states to default in their choice. The proposed rules didn't come out until late November and early December, too late to be of any use. Oh, did I mention that 2012 was an election year? So the states needed the rules in August/September to make an informed decision but they didn't come out until after the November election. Upon review of the revision history of the rules and signature dates it was determined that CMS had the rules ready by early September, in time for the states to make their decision, but held them until after the election. The administration has already shown that they are willing to sabotage implementation for political reasons.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well Sanctoking it follows that when something is done poorly "blame shifting" occurs. Take actions which dump responsibilities onto others then point fingers at them. That a delay occurred anyway suggests real trouble. HIPAA is an example I go to again and again. It was a regulatory cluster that forced a high cost of compliance and had nurses carrying charts to the bathroom for fear of someone seeing them and they being fired or subject to the draconian penalties put in place. It's still so awful that providers really don't know what to believe, and with private agencies hired by the state to literally going into the dumpster on fine fishing expeditions, there's little basis for belief in good will. It's been a long time since HIPAA went into effect and it's still a headache. Now we've adopted something infinitely more complex and abstruse. I know a few MDs who have been out in practice a few years leaving medicine because they feel like they are shackled now and we expect based on a consistent past history that it's going to get worse.

Lawyers and politicians make worse physicians.

 

[woolfe9998]

It was fairly obvious that this bill WAS politics. Instead of a rational systematic approach to real reform we got this... thing. I'm sorry but lawyers are no more able to tackle the real problems any more than I could win an argument before the SCOTUS.

I'm assuming this is not political. I'm figuring this is a regulatory cluster.

Yes, obviously we disagree about the ACA. I view it as a reasonable effort to tackle a complex issue, and I expect there to be kinks which need to be ironed out. You expect perfection right off the bat. I think you should know better, and should be giving this time rather than leaping on every opportunity to confirm your original opinion and declare rhetorical victory.

Currently I am a supporter of this law, and nothing occurring so far has convinced me otherwise. In a few years time I could change my mind but certainly not at this juncture.

 

[Jhhnn]

The personal mandate mostly harms younger Americans who as a demographic barely vote and certainly don't give money to campaigns.

Based on what? The premise that they'll never get old?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yes, obviously we disagree about the ACA. I view it as a reasonable effort to tackle a complex issue, and I expect there to be kinks which need to be ironed out. You expect perfection right off the bat. I think you should know better, and should be giving this time rather than leaping on every opportunity to confirm your original opinion and declare rhetorical victory.

Currently I am a supporter of this law, and nothing occurring so far has convinced me otherwise. In a few years time I could change my mind but certainly not at this juncture.

You are entitled to your opinion, however mine isn't based on what I read on the internet. This is my area, my field and my judgement comes from many years in the field on my experience. You don't like it and so be it, but at least I know not to argue law with a lawyer based on years in practice.

 

[Jhhnn]

Who knows, maybe that's next.

And I really don't get the complaints about it being done for "political reasons." Complaining that another politician did something for political reasons is a losing argument to voters. Better to argue that Democrats are incompetent to govern, even to the point of being unable to implement their top agenda item given 5 years lead time to prepare. Implementing it badly would allow voters to conclude "it's complicated and had a rough start, but Democrats are working to fix it." Delaying it beyond an election (especially given the 5 years prep time beforehand) would allow voters to conclude "it's completely unworkable, otherwise why would they have postponed something they fought so hard for?"

Deflect!

Then rant about how Dems aren't fit to govern in the face of total obstructionism & backstabbing by Repubs.

Maybe budget cuts & forced layoffs/ retirements rings a bell?

I figure that's why Righties love to rave, so that they can't hear that little tinkle in the back of their minds over the noise of their emotions.

Sometimes things take longer than expected with your feet nailed to the floor.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Deflect!

Then rant about how Dems aren't fit to govern in the face of total obstructionism & backstabbing by Repubs.

Maybe budget cuts & forced layoffs/ retirements rings a bell?

I figure that's why Righties love to rave, so that they can't hear that little tinkle in the back of their minds over the noise of their emotions.

Sometimes things take longer than expected with your feet nailed to the floor.

So why did the lefties fight a more examined and professional approach? The Reps hadn't a clue. The Dems didn't but their hubris didn't stop them.

If no one believes anything else they should know this. Once a program is invested with sufficient political hay, time and money it will never be dismantled. The foundation is impervious to substantial change so "it's a beginning" is also "it's now the blueprint and you are stuck with it."

There was a moment like Bush had with 9/11. Bush gave us the Axis Speech. Obama had the ear of the public with the notion of health care reform. We got Obamacare. I'm tired of banality. Unoriginal thinking. Politics as usual. Oh, we deserve it as a nation, but I don't have to like it. There was something I pointed out which has real possibilities. New medicines without the legal patent sniping. What happened? The administration was so hostile that those involved in the project said that at least Bush's people would listen. Innovation not done here.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Based on what? The premise that they'll never get old?

We are talking about the political benefit applying to a single election cycle. Current youths can't grow up in that timeframe.

 

[glenn1]

Deflect!

Then rant about how Dems aren't fit to govern in the face of total obstructionism & backstabbing by Repubs.

Maybe budget cuts & forced layoffs/ retirements rings a bell?

I figure that's why Righties love to rave, so that they can't hear that little tinkle in the back of their minds over the noise of their emotions.

Sometimes things take longer than expected with your feet nailed to the floor.

Let me summarize your points:

1. Democrats aren't able to implement Obamacare on their own efforts, unless they receive Republican cooperation or at least compliance.

2. Democrats aren't able to implement Obamacare due to insufficient staffing, more workers are required to develop the rules and systems needed.

3. Democratic feet are "nailed to the floor," thus we shouldn't expect them to implement Obamacare in a timely fashion.

So in response to me suggesting this represents Democratic incompetence to govern, your response is that Democrats are perfectly competent so long as they have minimal political opposition, can hire more bureaucrats, and get more time in order to perform? Wow, I'm sure the American people will be lining up to vote for that. Indeed, you should pitch yourself that way in your next job interview: "I do great work as a manager - so long as our company has no competitors, I have unlimited staffing budget, and no deadlines for my projects."

 

[Zebo]

until costs of medical care is addressed we are all fucked. You know in 1980 medicare cost 85b and today it's 800b? At 10% traditional rise evey year it will be 14b in another 30 years. If you think this model is sustainable you need your head examined while you can still afford it. Until we move to Canadian-style system we will fail.

 

[Jhhnn]

We are talking about the political benefit applying to a single election cycle. Current youths can't grow up in that timeframe.

In other words, what you offered falls apart when we look past the end of our noses. It's the instant gratification of Right Think that's really important, after all.

 

[Jhhnn]

Let me summarize your points:

1. Democrats aren't able to implement Obamacare on their own efforts, unless they receive Republican cooperation or at least compliance.

2. Democrats aren't able to implement Obamacare due to insufficient staffing, more workers are required to develop the rules and systems needed.

3. Democratic feet are "nailed to the floor," thus we shouldn't expect them to implement Obamacare in a timely fashion.

So in response to me suggesting this represents Democratic incompetence to govern, your response is that Democrats are perfectly competent so long as they have minimal political opposition, can hire more bureaucrats, and get more time in order to perform? Wow, I'm sure the American people will be lining up to vote for that. Indeed, you should pitch yourself that way in your next job interview: "I do great work as a manager - so long as our company has no competitors, I have unlimited staffing budget, and no deadlines for my projects."

Heh. So, uhh, if Repubs are so sure that the ACA will fail, why are they doing their damndest to block implementation?

Along with pretty much everything else, while they're at it. Basically, if they can't govern, if the people won't choose them, then they won't let anybody else do it, either.

It's one thing to cope with a loyal opposition, entirely another to cope with modern Republicanism. Even before the ACA was passed, Repub leaders swore they'd make it Obama's Waterloo, entirely for political expediency. That hasn't changed. The most amazing part of it all is that the ACA is Romneycare writ large, based on a proposal from Heritage in response to Hillarycare. It's their idea in the first place, but when Obama likes it too, then it must be stopped!

 

[Balt]

Maybe it was delayed because it's an overly complicated/bloated piece of crap.

We looked at other proven systems around the world that work much better and for lower cost and said "nah, let's not do that".

The compromises made to get the ACA pushed through turned it into garbage.

 

[buckshot24]

Heh. So, uhh, if Repubs are so sure that the ACA will fail, why are they doing their damndest to block implementation?

Maybe they don't want it implemented because its going to fail?

Along with pretty much everything else, while they're at it. Basically, if they can't govern, if the people won't choose them, then they won't let anybody else do it, either.

So you want them to bend over and spread em instead?

It's one thing to cope with a loyal opposition, entirely another to cope with modern Republicanism. Even before the ACA was passed, Repub leaders swore they'd make it Obama's Waterloo, entirely for political expediency.

Get it through your thick fucking skull that the people who don't like Obamacare don't like it because of what it is. Not because of who they could pin it on. The bill is a piece of shit and its going to cause more problems than it solves.

That hasn't changed. The most amazing part of it all is that the ACA is Romneycare writ large, based on a proposal from Heritage in response to Hillarycare. It's their idea in the first place, but when Obama likes it too, then it must be stopped!

The problem is you think of winning and losing politically as the end all be all. This bill, no matter who proposed it, is a fucking disaster.

 

[Fern]

-snips-

I don't see how delaying implementation helps congress people get re-elected, because having it implemented in 2014 will not entail any new votes. By having it implemented 2015 it will still be a hot-ticket item to discuss during debates, people could say that if THEY get elected they will pass new laws to counter implementation.

Seriously?

There have been claims that under Obamacare many/some employers will drop HI coverage and just pay the fine instead.

If that were to happen next year the Dems can kiss their election hopes good bye come November.

Looks to me like the Dems are afraid the dropped coverage just might happen and don't want to take the chance.

Or it could be that premiums will rise etc. or the Dems just don't want to risk the possible negatives of Obamcare leading up to the elections. heck, some Dems in Congress are already on record calling it a train wreck. They're worried.

If they were doing it for political reasons, why would they postpone the business mandate and not the individual mandate?

See above.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Maybe it was delayed because it's an overly complicated/bloated piece of crap.
-snip-

It is.

And aside from some practical aspects sactoking mentions (and I admit to not fully understanding), delaying isn't going to do much.

As a tax CPA when we have a new complicated tax law (and they're waaay less complicated than Obamacare) it takes years after enactment before it's fully understood.

Pushing off enactment pushes off understanding. Until you start actually applying the law and get feedback (IRS regulations, Advance Rulings, Private Letter Rulings, Revenue Rulings, audits and appeals, court case decisions etc.) you can't fully understand the new law. Until the shizz actually begins, all you have are opinions and we all know the old expression about a-holes and opinions.

Fern

 

[Balt]

It is.

And aside from some practical aspects sactoking mentions (and I admit to not fully understanding), delaying isn't going to do much.

As a tax CPA when we have a new complicated tax law (and they're waaay less complicated than Obamacare) it takes years after enactment before it's fully understood.

Pushing off enactment pushes off understanding. Until you start actually applying the law and get feedback (IRS regulations, Advance Rulings, Private Letter Rulings, Revenue Rulings, audits and appeals, court case decisions etc.) you can't fully understand the new law. Until the shizz actually begins, all you have are opinions and we all know the old expression about a-holes and opinions.

Fern

Oof, I wasn't even thinking about that part. Good luck to the seasonal employees at the IRS who try to make sense of that crap, and better luck to the taxpayers and businesses who take their word for it.

 

[Jhhnn]

Maybe they don't want it implemented because its going to fail?

Or perhaps because it's going to succeed, just like Medicare & SS.

So you want them to bend over and spread em instead?

I want them to recognize that it's the law of the land, achieved through entirely democratic means. I want them to recognize that it was achieved by the legitimate representatives of the people.

Get it through your thick fucking skull that the people who don't like Obamacare don't like it because of what it is. Not because of who they could pin it on. The bill is a piece of shit and its going to cause more problems than it solves.
The problem is you think of winning and losing politically as the end all be all. This bill, no matter who proposed it, is a fucking disaster.

People who don't like the ACA are generally convinced of that from sources they trust, not sources who are telling the truth or actually have any expertise beyond reading the script handed to them by their employers. Taken individually, the provisions of the law enjoy widespread support, other than the individual mandate. Oh, wait- we weren't talking about that, were we?

Winning and losing politically? How quaint you'd offer that, given that the ACA is Romneycare, and the personal mandate is from the Heritage institute nearly 20 years ago. It was Repubs' idea in the first place, but now they hate it, because Obama likes it.

Who's playing politics?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/06/obamacare-and-conservative-self-delusion.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheri-and-allan-rivlin/public-opinion-will-swing_b_1643144.html

Delusion and denial are a self fulfilling prophesy on the Right.

 

[Jhhnn]

Seriously?

There have been claims that under Obamacare many/some employers will drop HI coverage and just pay the fine instead.

If that were to happen next year the Dems can kiss their election hopes good bye come November.

Looks to me like the Dems are afraid the dropped coverage just might happen and don't want to take the chance.

Or it could be that premiums will rise etc. or the Dems just don't want to risk the possible negatives of Obamcare leading up to the elections. heck, some Dems in Congress are already on record calling it a train wreck. They're worried.



See above.

Fern

It is.

And aside from some practical aspects sactoking mentions (and I admit to not fully understanding), delaying isn't going to do much.

As a tax CPA when we have a new complicated tax law (and they're waaay less complicated than Obamacare) it takes years after enactment before it's fully understood.

Pushing off enactment pushes off understanding. Until you start actually applying the law and get feedback (IRS regulations, Advance Rulings, Private Letter Rulings, Revenue Rulings, audits and appeals, court case decisions etc.) you can't fully understand the new law. Until the shizz actually begins, all you have are opinions and we all know the old expression about a-holes and opinions.

Fern

First, spread the FUD. Then follow up with a decent post to maintain credibility, reinforce the FUD. Nice trick.