Tip Jar


Incompetence or ingenious ?

Without specifically announcing it, or more importantly legislating it through congress, the Obama Administration is speeding up the nationalization of the health care system of the United States.

Oh I know that we opposed to Obamacare have said that Obamacare is the nationalization of health care, but in reality, the way it was written was a quasi take over of American health care by the federal government. With all the resistance to Obamacare during the legislative process, total control of the system was watered down mish mash of public/private health care which as is becoming ever more apparent is unworkable.

Now as the deadlines approaches for implementation of the law under the guise or reality, it does not really matter, of not being ready to implement certain key aspects of the law, the Obama Administration is delaying key aspect of the law. While everyone is focusing in on either the idea that it proves the law is unworkable or the incompetence of the administration to enact its own law, they have not yet totally grasped the net result of the two delays to two key components of the laws implementation announced last week

Putting aside for the moment that Obama probably does not have the legal authority (when has that ever stopped him) to delay implementation of the law, let's look at what these two delays will cause.

The first delay announced was to the Employer mandate.
The Obama administration will not penalize businesses that do not provide health insurance in 2014, the Treasury Department announced Tuesday. 
Instead, it will delay enforcement of a major Affordable Care Act requirement that all employers with more than 50 employees provide coverage to their workers until 2015.
This announcement came on Monday prior to the the Fourth of July while most people were not paying attention and congress is in recess. The effect of this delay can not be viewed by itself. The affects must be viewed with the understanding that the rest of the law is still in place and must be followed.

So for a year while American citizens are required by law to be insured, large employers (50 or more employees) are no longer required by law to insure them or pay a fine. For a year not only can these employers dump employees health insurance plans, they can do so without paying a fine.

People are assuming that in 2015 the companies will be subject to the delayed fines for not insuring their employees. But what if the Obama Administration under the guise of it being a burden on business and thus the economy proposes that the fines be steeply reduced or even eliminated?

Would a congress, especially a Republican controlled one vote against reducing fines or as Chief Justice Roberts has now redefined it as a tax, would they vote against reducing a tax on businesses?

 For years the critic's argument has been that this employer mandate is a terrible burden on the economy, if Obama proposes to reduce or even eliminate it what could the critics say? How could they possibly oppose it? They could not without looking like insincere hypocrites and the lobbying by the business community would insure that they would pass such a reduction.

In delaying the employer mandate Obama has given large businesses a year to "unburden" themselves from providing health insurance to their employees while those employees are reacquired by law to have health insurance. Where will large segments of the population go for insurance?

Now comes ACT 2 of the play.

Five days after the above announcement, on the Friday after the Fourth of July, while everyone is still distracted and congress is still on recess, the Obama Administration delays another key aspect of Obamacare.
The Obama administration announced Friday that it would significantly scale back the health law’s requirements that new insurance marketplaces verify consumers’ income and health insurance status.

Instead, the federal government will rely more heavily on consumers’ self-reported information until 2015, when it plans to have stronger verification systems in place.
So not only do employers get a one year "pass" on insuring their employees, Americans get a one year pass on obtaining it through the "new insurance marketplace" IE exchanges. Exchanges which most states have refused to set up and are now being set up by the Federal Government.

Not only is this new "ruling" an invitation for fraud
In fact, the exchanges are not only released from the obligation to verify whether applicants are eligible for employer coverage, they are also released from the obligation to confirm applicants’ statements regarding their household incomes before providing them with what is supposed to be an income-based benefit.
It is an invitation for Americans to jump from  their current employee based insurance into the exchanges. If people are being dropped by their employers, or see that they soon may be, and the exchanges are not requiring investigations into their status in order to get subsidies to help pay for the insurance, I suspect many Americans will jump on the chance to be covered at a discount. Many more will have no choice at all.

What the administration has done in two unlegislated : IE unlawful acts, over the Fourth of July holiday week, has both made it painless for the business community to dump their employer based insurance programs while simultaneously making it easy and painless for Americans to join the predominately Federal run "new insurance marketplace."

Even prior to this weeks announcement they had "delayed" the implementation of a required component of the law which would have helped businesses providing insurance to their employees.
Small businesses hoping to comparison shop for budget-friendly health-insurance policies will have to wait until 2015.

The Obama administration intends to push back a part of the Affordable Care Act – the Small Business Health Options Program, or SHOP – that would provide small businesses with an insurance marketplace offering numerous plan options.
Most commentators are looking at all these delays as both the incompetence of the Obama Administration to enact the law and the unworkable nature of the law itself, both of which are true. But the net affect of these unlawful delays is that it is setting up 2014 as the year that employer based insurance is destroyed and vast segments of the American population are enticed or have no other choice but to join Federally run insurance exchanges.

Most critics of Obamacare are very much in favor of health care reform. Indeed most critics of Obamacare are very much for moving away from employer provided insurance. So in a way anything that works to move our health care system away from an employer provided  insurance system is in theory acceptable to heath care reformers on both sides of the argument. In a jujitsu move Obama has somewhat neutralized critics by both benefiting businesses with the delay of the mandate and undermining employer provided insurance.

Given the progressives desire to create nationalized heath care system, these delays are turning into a perfect opportunity for them to achieve their goal. They are making the proverbial lemonaide out of the lemon that is Obamacare.

Yes we can talk obout how unworkable the law as written is but by delaying the law as written and under the guise of not burdening buisnesses and Americans with the onerous provisions of their own law,what the progressives are doing is speeding up the process to achieve their goals. And they are doing it without even having to win elections.
“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.” (applause) “I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”

Obama speaking to the Illinois AFL-CIO, June 30, 2003.
Incompetence or ingenious ? Time will tell.

No comments:

Post a Comment