Obamacare: Say goodnight, Gracie...

[actaeon277]

So if Congress is unwilling or unable to do something, what should the Executive Branch do? Nothing? That doesn't seem like a smart plan either. So, take Executive action and force Congress to act.


That was about the ACA.
And about just changing the law by decree from the Executive Branch.
I was not reading anything into it.
It's right there.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I turned 60, on July 10, 2016 .....

I now have "Tricare" for life ..... IF bho, doesn't screw me out of that !!!!!

And at 65 your Tricare For Life reverts to secondary insurance and you go on Medicare. A bit over $100/month (billed quarterly) for "government healthcare for the 'elderly'." And you get damned little for your money.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Not at all. Dude, that must be a YUUUUGE pile of tea leaves to read that deeply into my post.



And the Senate is SUPPOSED to hold hearings on SCOTUS nominees, but they aren't doing that, are they?

My point is that if Congress is unwilling to do something, force their hand. There's really nothing stopping Obama from swearing in Garland. It would be challenged by the Senate, or perhaps a Circuit court, but since it would be an EXEC vs. LEG battle, it would go to SCOTUS at some point for resolution.

Now (pay attention here) SCOTUS would have 2 options: hear the case or let the appointment stand. I'm guessing their involvement in the 2000 election would make them leery to hear the case, and given the current makeup, a 4-4 vote seems likely. As such, the appointment would stand. If a Circuit court is involved, the court passes an injunction to halt the appointment, and the case goes to SCOTUS. Again, refuse to hear or 4-4, and the appointment stands.

BTW, nothing in my post was about Obama "making law". It's about getting the Senate to fulfill its Constitutional duty.

Let me put it this way: if Trump wins in November, but the DEMs take the Senate, we won't see a SCOTUS nominee hearing until 2020.

Perhaps you misunderstand the original purpose of the Senate - as, apparently, most Senators do today. The original purpose of the Senate was to delay the approval of legislation; to slow down the pace of lawmaking. It's purpose was to blunt the "rule of the mob" (The House) and to stand up for the interests of the individual sovereign (ha) states, and, in combination with the House, act as a brake on the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch.

 

[Ericpwp]

 

[david890]

to slow down the pace of lawmaking

Slow down is one thing; outright refusal to do what other Senates have done - and what is mandated by the Constitution - is quite another.

 

[david890]

And about just changing the law by decree from the Executive Branch.

So, why didn't Congress challenge the changes? Are they powerless?

Perhaps it has more to do with giving more power to the presidency in the hopes their guy would win in 2016 (and they never thought that guy could be Trump).

 

[actaeon277]

So, why didn't Congress challenge the changes? Are they powerless?

Perhaps it has more to do with giving more power to the presidency in the hopes their guy would win in 2016 (and they never thought that guy could be Trump).

People always seem to be okay with giving away power and breaking the rules. Always assuming "their guy" or "their party" will always be in power.

 

[david890]

People always seem to be okay with giving away power and breaking the rules. Always assuming "their guy" or "their party" will always be in power.

No one believes their party will *always* be in power. However, most people want to be able to play the game the same, or more loosely, than those who came before them.

No one's stopping a party from pushing an amendment to outlaw executive orders. Why? Because they will want to issue EOs when their party gets in power.

 

[pudly]

"Rampant Fraud" Exposed In Obamacare Exchanges: 100% Of Fictitious Enrollees Obtained Subsidies | Zero Hedge

The GAO did some fact-finding and submitted 15 fraudulent applications. Every one was approved even with fraudulent follow-up documentation worth $60,000/year. It was a small sample size, but with a 100% failure rate, it wasn't worth spending more on the investigation. Aren't you glad you are paying so much for health insurance?

Direct link to GAO report: https://www.scribd.com/embeds/323859555/content

 

[jedi]

Pudly how did you photoshop that report?
No way this can be true...
Sorry my purple marker has run out.

All i can say is "Da Chicago Way!"

 

[Ericpwp]

Did they get registered to vote too?

 

[jedi]

Did they get registered to vote too?

Nope.
I say that because this was a GAO operation and while .gov is corrupt to a point at all levels both local, state and federal it is this agency that has issued and done other operations like this to see what .gov is actuallyy doing.

Their goal,for,this was,to see if,obamacare is secure.
Sadly they cannot take any action,on it. They just report wrongdoing.

 

[pudly]

Duh... Duh... Duh... Another one bites the dust...

17th Obamacare Co-Op Exits Due to “Hazardous Financial Condition”, Only 6 Left

 

[bwframe]

Wonder if the rest of these Co-Ops will see the light sooner than later. Wonder if it wouldn't be advantageous for them to pull out before the election and, or Open Enrollment (Nov 1.)

 

[david890]

Every one was approved even with fraudulent follow-up documentation worth $60,000/year.

Granted, the potential for fraud is disturbing. However, it should be noted that subsidies are paid in one of two ways: directly to the insurer each month, or in a lump-sum claim on the person's tax return. If the money goes to the insurer, then I hope they would know if the "insured" were fictitious or not. They require quite a bit of documentation before issuing a policy. If the insurer isn't sure of the existence of a policy holder, then they're really bad at their jobs! They're the ones getting the money and should be held liable. I mean, it's not like an insurance company would lie about a fictitious person and just keep the money, would they?? If the IRS doesn't catch it, then it's not the entire fault of the exchange, is it?

There's fraud and abuse in every govt program (see also, "F-35"). The govt is not cutting checks to individuals each month for their subsidy.

 

[david890]

Wonder if it wouldn't be advantageous for them to pull out before the election and, or Open Enrollment (Nov 1.)

I think such a move would be used by the Dems to push for a single-payer system (garnering lots of votes from those paying huge premiums), so the GOP would get them to hold off until after the election. Don't want to rock the boat.

Aetna pulled out only because their plans to buy out both Cinga and Humana were blocked.

 

[pudly]

Granted, the potential for fraud is disturbing. However, it should be noted that subsidies are paid in one of two ways: directly to the insurer each month, or in a lump-sum claim on the person's tax return. If the money goes to the insurer, then I hope they would know if the "insured" were fictitious or not. They require quite a bit of documentation before issuing a policy. If the insurer isn't sure of the existence of a policy holder, then they're really bad at their jobs! They're the ones getting the money and should be held liable. I mean, it's not like an insurance company would lie about a fictitious person and just keep the money, would they?? If the IRS doesn't catch it, then it's not the entire fault of the exchange, is it?

There's fraud and abuse in every govt program (see also, "F-35"). The govt is not cutting checks to individuals each month for their subsidy.

Please read the article. It was the federal and state marketplaces that failed the verifications, not the insurance companies.

For each of our 15 fictitious applications, the federal or state-based marketplaces approved coverage at time of application.

Even when the marketplaces asked for additional documentation, they were given fake info or none at all and still approved it. 100% failure rate indicates abject failure. Didn't the $60,000 figure trigger anything for you? That is a huge amount for health insurance and should trigger questions right there.

 

[jamil]

Please read the article. It was the federal and state marketplaces that failed the verifications, not the insurance companies.


Even when the marketplaces asked for additional documentation, they were given fake info or none at all and still approved it. 100% failure rate indicates abject failure. Didn't the $60,000 figure trigger anything for you? That is a huge amount for health insurance and should trigger questions right there.

I suspect that if the affordable care act were passed by a Republican congress and signed into law by a Republican president, the current Obamacare apologists would be falling over themselves complaining about crony capitalism, and they'd be right. But because it's Obama's law you just won't find many democrats who can be intellectually honest about it.

 

[pudly]

I suspect that if the affordable care act were passed by a Republican congress and signed into law by a Republican president, the current Obamacare apologists would be falling over themselves complaining about crony capitalism, and they'd be right. But because it's Obama's law you just won't find many democrats who can be intellectually honest about it.

Republicans wouldn't have passed that atrocity. They've repeatedly offered a far more free market friendly option with increased choice such as being able to buy insurance from out of state.

 

[david890]

That is a huge amount for health insurance and should trigger questions right there.

Keep in mind what the "person" would be paying WITHOUT the subsidy. Those should trigger questions, and those questions should be directed at the insurance companies. Why do they charge so much that a person would need a $5K subsidy in order to be insured?

Despite the failure to catch the false applications, there's no evidence in that report that large sums were paid out.