Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Anyone can apply for a waiver, but not everyone is in the right 'crony' group that allows them to get one.
Presumably you're talking about the annual limit waivers. Yet 94% of those waiver applications have been approved.
It will almost certainly be up the Supreme Court to give states the ability to opt out because the Annointed One has thus far not seen fit to allow that and he is ignoring a court order to do so.
Opt out of what? States aren't actually required to operate their own exchanges (see "SEC. 1321. STATE FLEXIBILITY IN OPERATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF EXCHANGES AND RELATED REQUIREMENTS") and, as Vinson recognized in his ruling, the Medicaid expansion is optional because Medicaid itself is a voluntary program that states choose to participate in. And if states want out of something like the individual mandate (which, of course, is levied on individuals and not the state itself), they can pursue the waivers for state innovation contained in the law, if they're able to meet the requirements.
If, on the other hand, you're talking about something akin to nullification--that dog won't hunt, Monsignor.
You don't really think you have the ability to manipulate me.....do you?
No, it's become pretty clear that you're manipulable by the Paul Ryans of the world, not those who ask that you think critically for yourself. If you're asking if I think I can convince you to try and support the nonsense you're spouting by drawing from the source material, the answer would have to be no. I'm under no illusions that you'll try and do that.
... and a plan to reform Medicare that's a carbon copy of the exchanges, which he thinks are the greatest evil in human history.
Sets forth provisions governing the establishment and operation of state-based health care exchanges to facilitate the individual purchase of private health insurance and the creation of a market where private health plans compete for enrolles based on price and quality.
Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow a refundable tax credit for qualified health care insurance coverage. [...]
Amends the Public Health Service Act to require the Secretary to supplement the costs of private health insurance for eligible low-income families through the distribution of supplemental debit cards, which may be used for costs associated with health care and provide direct support in accessing health care.
Truth hurts don't it? Idiot!blow me.
Wrong as usual.It strikes me as curious that not a single thing on that list is fact. Our national conscience - and should I say brain - is a missing item today, not only because of the lack of interest in learning the facts, but also in the FACT that nonsense such as this proof-less crap is posted and considered valid. It is believed! How dumb are we as a nation? The same arguments were and are made about Social Security and Medicare by the same ideological and corporate tools, but with just a small bit of tweaking both would be fine. What a nation full of whiners and losers we have today. Rather sad that the nation of 'can do' is now the nation of 'can't do' and constant whining.
Bullshit, you are nsaying this bill will make it so people won't need jobs? You are an idiot. Obamacare is all it's opponents said it is. Nothing more than a big gov't. take over of control.What? Change the subject? I said people should do some research to find the truth. Which if you would have done you would have noticed that there are no real sources of information in the link you posted.
I do not agree with Obamacare no matter what, but what you posted is worthless and the source behind it, even more worthless. That's why I wanted to know if you were ok with that type of "fact".
No dice, Rural Delivery...
You claimed "Every item on that list is either blatantly incorrect or a severe distortion of reality."
But you haven't been able to put your dinero where you put your dinner.
So, with that claim hanging there in the air like the smoke that Obamacare is made of, you waltz on, casually, to 'everybody should go do research...."
The way I see it, I already got my degree, so you can't give me a homework assignment.
Especially when you're making the claims that you seem unable to support.
Isn't that know as 'bait and swithch' or three-card monte....or something?
Silly rabbit, trix are for kids.
"You got your degree?"
With what? An article with no facts or evidence? Time to go back to school it seems.
I'll humor you though. It says this bill "kills jobs". That couldn't be further from the truth. Less people NEED jobs because of this bill does not mean it kills jobs. The jobs are still there for the taking, there are just less people who need them. This has been a persistent distortion of the facts an and outright lie.
Those are better? Idiot.I'd like to know what the improvements were.
It's been a year
What got better?
The full changes are scheduled to be implemented until 2014 but there have been plenty of changes so far.
Implementation Timeline - Kaiser Health Reform
Just in 2010 here is what was put in to place
* Free mammograms and colonoscopies: Health plans years beginning on or after Sept. 23 have to cover a number of preventive services like mammograms and colonoscopies for free. No deductible, co-pay or coinsurance.
* No health insurance rescissions: Health insurance companies cannot drop you from your individual health insurance plan if you get sick.
* Childrens coverage: New individual plans and existing group plans cannot deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.
* No lifetime caps: Insurers cannot place lifetime caps on coverage. Annual limits must be approved by the government.
* Stay on parents plan until age 26: Adult children will be eligible for coverage as dependents on their parents' policies until they are 26, unless they have access to health insurance through a job.
* Appeal denials: New plans must include a way to appeal coverage determinations or claims. An external review process must also be established.
* No lifetime dollar limits: Lifetime dollar limits on essential benefits, like hospital stays, are no longer allowed.
It strikes me as curious that not a single thing on that list is fact. Our national conscience - and should I say brain - is a missing item today, not only because of the lack of interest in learning the facts, but also in the FACT that nonsense such as this proof-less crap is posted and considered valid. It is believed! How dumb are we as a nation? The same arguments were and are made about Social Security and Medicare by the same ideological and corporate tools, but with just a small bit of tweaking both would be fine. What a nation full of whiners and losers we have today. Rather sad that the nation of 'can do' is now the nation of 'can't do' and constant whining.
Emily Miller writes on the day of infamy...I mean anniversary of Obamacare...
Here is the outline.
"These are the top 10 failures of ObamaCare, starting with those that have had the most serious effect already on the economy, jobs, and the American people.
1. Explodes the Budget Deficit
2. Kills Jobs
3. Lose Your Own Doctor and Health Plan
4. States Budget Deficits Grow to Possible Bankruptcy
5. Higher Insurance Premiums:
6. Crushes Businesses
7. Fewer Americans Have Access to Health Insurance
8. Senior Citizens Lose Medicare Coverage:
9. Overburdens Small Business
10. Tax Hikes
Top 10 Failures of ObamaCare After One Year - HUMAN EVENTS
OK, one more opportunity to you Lefties to apologize...
...and genuflecting would be nice.
Waiting.
Every item on that list is either blatantly incorrect or a severe distortion of reality. How sad that people actually believe crap like this rather then do their own research.
Not one of these claims are true. Where do you get this information? Do u ever check sites like Politifact or Fact Check ???Emily Miller writes on the day of infamy...I mean anniversary of Obamacare...
Here is the outline.
"These are the top 10 failures of ObamaCare, starting with those that have had the most serious effect already on the economy, jobs, and the American people.
1. Explodes the Budget Deficit
2. Kills Jobs
3. Lose Your Own Doctor and Health Plan
4. States Budget Deficits Grow to Possible Bankruptcy
5. Higher Insurance Premiums:
6. Crushes Businesses
7. Fewer Americans Have Access to Health Insurance
8. Senior Citizens Lose Medicare Coverage:
9. Overburdens Small Business
10. Tax Hikes
OK, one more opportunity to you Lefties to apologize...
...and genuflecting would be nice.
Waiting.
What is true is that:
A Republican plan to withhold implementation funds for the Democrats new healthcare law would add $5.7 billion to the deficit over 10 years, the nonpartisan congressional scorekeeper said Thursday
This is from a Website called The Hill
I suppose it will be simple enough for you to do so, and prepare a precis that extablishes the veracity of your post....
isn't it?
What's keeping you?
Absolutely not true.
I explain very clearly the several areas where moneys are counted more than once.
The concept of "double counting" has always referred to rhetoric being used by the administration; it doesn't affect the outcome of the CBO score (i.e. the predicted financial impact of the law, as it differs from the baseline).
This is an issue of words, not numbers. Stop parroting Ryan and think a bit.
It means you claim to pay for a program with savings, but the 'savings', etherial that they are, are also, meaning at the same time, being used elsewhere.
They're not being used elsewhere, that's the point. Show me in the score where the CBO has the slowed Medicare cost growth affecting the deficit impact prediction in multiple places. Don't link to me Ryan and don't link me to an administration quote, we're using only primary sources here (that means the actual CBO score).
CBO has not undertaken a comparable quantitative analysis for the PPACA incorporating the managers amendment, but the results would be qualitatively similar. The reductions in projected Part A outlays and increases in projected HI revenues would significantly raise balances in the HI trust fund and create the appearance that significant additional resources had been set aside to pay for future Medicare benefits. However, the additional savings by the government as a wholewhich represent the true increase in the ability to pay for future Medicare benefits or other programswould be a good deal smaller.
The key point is that the savings to the HI trust fund under the PPACA would be received by the government only once, so they cannot be set aside to pay for future Medicare spending and, at the same time, pay for current spending on other parts of the legislation or on other programs.
Trust fund accounting shows the magnitude of the savings within the trust fund, and those savings indeed improve the solvency of that fund; however, that accounting ignores the burden that would be faced by the rest of the government later in redeeming the bonds held by the trust fund. Unified budget accounting shows that the majority of the HI trust fund savings would be used to pay for other spending under the PPACA and would not enhance the ability of the government to redeem the bonds credited to the trust fund to pay for future Medicare benefits. To describe the full amount of HI trust fund savings as both improving the governments ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the governments fiscal position.
The most telling and damning reality of Obamacare is the growing number of Democrats who now realize the damage that it is doing and will do and who agree it needs to be reworked. For them the issue is not whether parts of it need to be repealed and redone but whether it is done piecemeal or just throw the whole thing out and start over as most Republicans favor.
I'm with the GOP on this one. Throw the whole thing out and focus on REAL and GENUINE healthcare reform that IS the prerogative of the Federal government so that the states can deal with it legally and effectively as is best for their people. The Federal government has never in its entire history devised a one-size-fits-all entitlement or social program that has not resulted in more negatives than positives. We don't want the Federal government in control of our healthcare.
Agreed. Throw it out...and interesting that many that supported it are now applying for Waivers from it...
False. Waivers to improve upon it, is not the same as Waivers to be excluded because you are against it which is what you seem to believe and would be incorrect.
Anyone can apply for a waiver, but not everyone is in the right 'crony' group that allows them to get one.
Presumably you're talking about the annual limit waivers. Yet 94% of those waiver applications have been approved.
Opt out of what? States aren't actually required to operate their own exchanges (see "SEC. 1321. STATE FLEXIBILITY IN OPERATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF EXCHANGES AND RELATED REQUIREMENTS") and, as Vinson recognized in his ruling, the Medicaid expansion is optional because Medicaid itself is a voluntary program that states choose to participate in. And if states want out of something like the individual mandate (which, of course, is levied on individuals and not the state itself), they can pursue the waivers for state innovation contained in the law, if they're able to meet the requirements.It will almost certainly be up the Supreme Court to give states the ability to opt out because the Annointed One has thus far not seen fit to allow that and he is ignoring a court order to do so.
If, on the other hand, you're talking about something akin to nullification--that dog won't hunt, Monsignor.
To describe the full amount of HI trust fund savings as both improving the government’s ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government’s fiscal position.
Since you are an expert on the PPACA and have it all in a conveniently searchable database, can you tell where the law gives anyone the authority to grant waivers for any reason?
Let me translate that for you: The concept of "double counting" has always referred to rhetoric being used by the administration; it doesn't affect the outcome of the CBO score (i.e. the predicted financial impact of the law, as it differs from the baseline).
The actual deficit impact of the ACA remains what the CBO calculated; the rhetoric of the administration implied that the deficit is reduced even more than the CBO calculated because their descriptions did suggest savings were being used to do two things simultaneously. The suggestion that this means the CBO score understates the deficit impact is, of course, incorrect.
Here's a tip: my searchable database is called THOMAS.
As for your question, you have to be more specific; there are numerous waiver authorities sprinkled throughout the legislation. If you're talking about the annual limit waivers, you'd want to go to the section of the law that establishes the annual limit restrictions. Or rather, the relevant amendments to that section (see "SEC. 10101. AMENDMENTS TO SUBTITLE A."). In which you'll find:
`(2) ANNUAL LIMITS PRIOR TO 2014- With respect to plan years beginning prior to January 1, 2014, a group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may only establish a restricted annual limit on the dollar value of benefits for any participant or beneficiary with respect to the scope of benefits that are essential health benefits under section 1302(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as determined by the Secretary. In defining the term `restricted annual limit' for purposes of the preceding sentence, the Secretary shall ensure that access to needed services is made available with a minimal impact on premiums.Annual limits weren't completely eliminated, the Secretary was given discretion to ensure the regs developed by HHS include latitude necessary to maintain access or affordability. Hence the regulations that emerged. If Congress wishes to clarify and overturn the rule so as to eliminate mini-med plans, there are mechanisms by which they can do so.
You said that before, and claimed that the CBO never said that there is double counting involved. You then demanded someone link to the CBO actually said there is double counting occurring.
The fact is that the CBO is clearly stating that you cannot count the savings from the PPACA and the Medicare benefits and claim they both reduce the deficit.
Where does that give anyone the authority to grant a waiver?
The waivers being granted exempt the groups that receive them from the law. They have nothing to do with either premiums or access to the required services
Doubled counting involved in what? I've said multiple times now that the claims of double counting refer only to rhetoric, not the actual deficit projections. Your quote from the CBO explicitly supports that, as it criticizes descriptions ("To describe...would essentially double-count"), namely those that imply the deficit reduction will be higher than the CBO projected. If you think the CBO's deficit reduction estimates should be lower because savings were counted in two places, show it in the score (numbers).
That's correct, you can't do that. Yet the premise in this thread is that the CBO's score does do that. And, of course, it does not.
CBO uses unified budget rules; money is money, it's in one giant pot, and thus it can't be counted twice as being in two separate compartments simultaneously. The administration's rhetoric sometimes strayed into trust fund accounting rules territory, in which federal money does exist in different compartments and exists for distinct purposes. CBO was asked about this and responded with that memo, pointing out that indeed you can't do that. And lo, they did not.
The timeline of the annual limit phaseout is determined in the statute. Yet the Secretary is granted rulemaking authority to define certain restricted annual benefits and to ensure that access and premiums aren't significantly affected. Given that the latter is impossible for a certain class of plans, the rule establishes a temporary waiver application process.
The most interesting part is imaging a parallel reality where they didn't grant waivers, and thus were harshly criticized for ignoring their mandate to preserve access and protect premiums. I wonder what side you'd come down on in that reality?
I take it you haven't actually looked at the criteria for receiving an annual limit waiver recently.
Emily Miller writes on the day of infamy...I mean anniversary of Obamacare...
Here is the outline.
"These are the top 10 failures of ObamaCare, starting with those that have had the most serious effect already on the economy, jobs, and the American people.
1. Explodes the Budget Deficit
2. Kills Jobs
3. Lose Your Own Doctor and Health Plan
4. States Budget Deficits Grow to Possible Bankruptcy
5. Higher Insurance Premiums:
6. Crushes Businesses
7. Fewer Americans Have Access to Health Insurance
8. Senior Citizens Lose Medicare Coverage:
9. Overburdens Small Business
10. Tax Hikes
Top 10 Failures of ObamaCare After One Year - HUMAN EVENTS
OK, one more opportunity to you Lefties to apologize...
...and genuflecting would be nice.
Waiting.
