Ramesh Ponnuru explains the next seemingly fatal flaw in ObamaCare:
Obama’s plan makes tax credits available to people who get health insurance from exchanges set up by state governments. If states don’t establish those exchanges, the federal government will do so for them. The federal exchanges, however, don’t come with tax credits: The law authorizes credits only for people who get insurance from state-established exchanges. And that creates some problems the administration didn’t foresee, and now hopes to wish away.
Legislative debate over the law didn’t go into great detail about these provisions. We can surmise what happened, though. Supporters of the legislation wanted to encourage states to set up the exchanges. So they offered the states a deal: If they did so, they would get to write their own rules, and their citizens would be able to get the tax credit. The states would also gain extra flexibility on Medicaid spending. The law’s supporters also expected the health-care law to become more popular over time.
Taxes and Penalties
That hasn’t happened. Many states are determined in their opposition, and few of them have set up exchanges. If they don’t do so, the tax credits don’t go into effect and the federally established exchanges won’t work: People won’t be able to afford the insurance available on them without the subsidy.
Trouble in paradise yet again? Well, we have to pass the bill in order to find out what's in it.
Here is the Adler/Cannon paper which lays out the case against ObamaCare in numbing detail. The Congressional Research Service took a look at these legal issues but did not pound the table either in support or refutation of the Adler/Cannon view.
Timothy Jost does pound the table in defense of ObamaCare, explaining that the legislative history and Congressional intent are clear. Both Yost and Adler/Cannon cite an exchange between Senators Baucus and Ensign when the Finance Committee was discussing various amendments; the relevant exchange begins on p. 326 here.
And the upshot? Another feast for the lawyers, and wouldn't it be swell to see John Roberts get another bite of this apple?
I think very few people appreciate just how much Obamacare crashes everything that currently works well in healthcare.
It's like targeting K-12 education to what works for the bottom 50% of students and making it applicable to all.
Hugely expensive in both instances and everything good gets squeezed out. In the end both education and health care become sectors that provide employment for adults but nothing else of what is needed.
Posted by: rse | October 02, 2012 at 02:10 PM
As the saying goes, that's not a bug, it's a feature.
Posted by: James D. | October 02, 2012 at 02:16 PM
Hugely expensive in both instances and everything good gets squeezed out.
As good a definition of government as any. Government activity needs to be pared back to those things which simply don't work in the private sector -- defense and criminal law. The rest is pure waste.
Posted by: henry | October 02, 2012 at 02:18 PM
This Healthcare Law continues to be a disaster that no one wants anymore. No dems talk about it. They just ignore it while it reeks havoc on the people of America.This if no other reason should be why Obama is handed his walking papers. this is an immense failure on his part. His series of mistakes are legend at this point and it is obvious he is an incompetent overly-sensitive buffoon. I think the latest lay-off kerfuffle where they actually BREAK the LAW should be highlighted if for no other reason than to put a spotlight on it and show americans how far these people will go to manipulate info given to the public. Our job is to continue to illuminate the fraud and the lies.
As for Pennsylvania and the Voter ID-is there a appeal process? I also love how it was conveniently decided before the election.
Posted by: maryrose | October 02, 2012 at 02:32 PM
Twitter: Gov. Robert Bentley announced this afternoon that Alabama will not submit an "essential health benefits" plan for Alabama, a step in setting up state health insurance exchanges required under the Affordable Care Act. 1.
South Dakota guv did the same last week.
Posted by: DebinNC | October 02, 2012 at 02:33 PM
should an appeal process...
Posted by: maryrose | October 02, 2012 at 02:33 PM
Small businesses are already feeling Obamacare. I've had several people mention to me something they are now having to do because of Obamacare.
Posted by: Sue | October 02, 2012 at 02:34 PM
DEbinNC:
This is the only way to fight it. Defy the president,as he does Congress ,the courts and us.
Posted by: maryrose | October 02, 2012 at 02:35 PM
OT, but via Instapundit's crew, this seems like an interesting bit if information:
Report: Top Hezbollah operative in Syria killed
I guess we could call this "Green on Green."
I wonder who could have given the FSA the tip on where he would be and when?
Hmmmmm.
Posted by: Ranger | October 02, 2012 at 02:37 PM
James D@2:16 is correct. Obamacare has two main objectives; 1. create a much bigger MEDICAID entitlement and pay for it with higher taxes on workers (welfare and wealth distribution), and 2. foul up private health insurance so badly, that single payer results by default-- fully socialized medicene. NEITHER is desired by a clear majority of voters-- one more reason Bam will lose.
Posted by: NK | October 02, 2012 at 02:38 PM
Argus Leader:
"South Dakota will not set up a state health insurance exchange where the uninsured, among others, could use premium subsidies authorized by the health care reform law to buy coverage, South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard said Wednesday.
“After extensive research and analysis, it has become very apparent that operating our own exchange will simply not work for South Dakota,” Gov. Daugaard said in a statement.
“The federal law requires exchanges to be self-sustaining by 2015, which means we would either have to charge a fee to South Dakota citizens using the exchange or increase taxes, neither of which I am willing to do,” said Gov. Daugaard, who describes the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as an “ill-advised law” that he hopes is repealed.
Is it defying, or is it simply wisely choosing the legal option BOzobots foolishly put in the putrid bill? The fabulous thing is there's no need to be defiant.
Posted by: DebinNC | October 02, 2012 at 02:40 PM
Wasn't number 1 already essentially struck down?
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | October 02, 2012 at 02:41 PM
It's just amazing about the layoff notice stuff. The US Government is BROKE so at the end of the year we are going to have draconian spending cuts. And the administration is telling defense contractors to break the law, and then the administration will use government money, taxpayer money, THE MONEY THAT WE DON'T HAVE AND THAT'S WHY THERE ARE GOING TO BE LAYOFFS, to pay the companies' legal fees after they break the law by not giving legally-required notice about the layoffs.
Posted by: cathyf | October 02, 2012 at 02:41 PM
The Children of the Cornhole don't even try to make sense these days: http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/107981/mitt-romney-insufferably-cheap?utm_source=The+New+Republic&utm_campaign=ae2fb49f25-TNR_Daily_100212&utm_medium=email#
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 02, 2012 at 02:50 PM
cathyf:
If someone made a big deal about this insane deal I bet they would send the layoff notices. This is a scandal that should not be pushed under the rug. Someone needs to tell Obama and Bernanke that there is no more federal money- We can't spend anymore. If Obsama had the balls to make a proper deal with Boehner we would not be in this untenable position. Once again the buck stops with Preezy.
Posted by: maryrose | October 02, 2012 at 02:52 PM
DebinNC
I did not know about the legal option in the bill. I suppose I should have read the entire bill. But, you know, no one else seems to be reading it. So you know, I thought it would be alright.{sarcasm}
Posted by: maryrose | October 02, 2012 at 02:54 PM
CH, the comments are even worse. This one in particular got me:
Miserliness is not an attractive quality in humans. It is very much misplaced in a politician, especially one aspiring to the highest office. Politicians spread the dough, or at least the reassurances, around.
It's not THEIR f**king dough to spread around! That's why we're in the massive, endless, unfixable financial hole we're in!
Posted by: James D. | October 02, 2012 at 02:55 PM
NK;
Fed Govt. is not allowed to deprive states of Medicaid funds if they do not comply. That is our victory from Roberts. Yes I do think Roberts will get another bite of the apple and help Romney abolish this bill.
Posted by: maryrose | October 02, 2012 at 02:57 PM
What a pack of racists -- calling Romney niggardly.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | October 02, 2012 at 03:00 PM
James D, I usually don't wade into the moshpit with those vermin. It's like a online leper colony of imbeciles wallowing in their own stupidity.
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 02, 2012 at 03:00 PM
I was talking about the Fed Budget side of Obamacare-- it expands the entitlemnt and take $700B from Medicare to help pay for the expansion. States can't be penalized for not expanding, but the Blue and Purple states will, and the Fed taxpayer will be on the hook. People continue to miss the fact that Obamacare is a $700B transfer from retired WORKERS on Medicare to unemployed poor and illegal immigrants in the expnded Medicaid entitlement.
Posted by: NK | October 02, 2012 at 03:02 PM
People continue to miss the fact that Obamacare is a $700B transfer from retired WORKERS on Medicare to unemployed poor and illegal immigrants in the expnded Medicaid entitlement.
Romney and now Ryan too pound on this day after day. The media refuse to believe it and for the rest, I think the significance sails right over their heads.
Posted by: Sara | October 02, 2012 at 03:17 PM
MATT DRUDGE @DRUDGE
Curious tape dropping tonight. NOT from MOTHERJONES. Will cause controversy, ignite accusations of racism -- in both directions!
Posted by: centralcal | October 02, 2012 at 03:24 PM
Also on Drudge today:
"Gov't Urges Parents to Use School Lunches As a Model for Family Dinner..." (article in LUN).
Responding to concerns that students are throwing away the healthy food on their cafeteria trays, the U.S. Department of Agriculture acknowledged that adapting to the changes "may be challenging at first, as students are introduced to new flavors and foods in the cafeteria."
But the government also says parents can help school make the taste-transition easier:
"We know that many parents are already making changes at home to help the whole family eat healthier," the USDA blogged on Monday. "We recommend reviewing school menus with kids at home and working to incorporate foods that are being served at school into family meals as much as possible."
I recommend the USDA shut the hell up and stop telling American citizens how and what to eat.
I also recommend reviewing the staff at the USDA and firing at least 90% of them, if not just defunding the whole damn agency.
Posted by: James D. | October 02, 2012 at 03:57 PM
James D.-
I'd settle for routine slaughterhouse inspections.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | October 02, 2012 at 03:59 PM
Melinda,
Do you mean the USDA routinely inspecting slaughterhouses, or USDA employees being slaughtered at them, with routine inspections to ensure it's being done as humanely as possible?
Posted by: James D. | October 02, 2012 at 04:02 PM
I got a quarter here somewhere....
Heads it's inspections, tails it's inspectors.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | October 02, 2012 at 04:04 PM
I've been censured for less graphic comments than 4:02 and 4:04....
Posted by: NK | October 02, 2012 at 04:06 PM
MATT DRUDGE @DRUDGE
Internal debate at news network about airing tape tonight, on eve of debate... MORE
---------
hhhhmmmm. Network? Which unbiased network I wonder is debating - obviously they put out clues to Matt Drudge, so I think the debate is over and they are greasing the skids for optimal interest in when they drop their tape.
Posted by: centralcal | October 02, 2012 at 04:07 PM
Consider yourself censussed, if it'll make you feel any better.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | October 02, 2012 at 04:07 PM
I wish CathyF's story about those layoff notices would get some legs.
So now the President, who already decides which laws to enforce and which to ignore, is actually willing to pay companies to break the law he now finds politically inconvenient (which law he signed into being, did he not?)
Move along, nothing to see here...either.
Posted by: Old Lurker | October 02, 2012 at 04:12 PM
Truthfully I don't understand how a corporate officer or director of a Sarbanes Oxley public company could do what Obama asks, nor how the auditor could ignore it.
But that's just me.
Posted by: Old Lurker | October 02, 2012 at 04:17 PM
I do indeed feel better!.... but I will say that the taste scolds do seem to have arbitrary standards. No criticism meant, just an observation.
Posted by: NK | October 02, 2012 at 04:19 PM
OldLurker -- I don't litigate SarBox, but i think Defense Co CEOs have an out to sign their SEC filings... the chief executive of the Fed gov't gave us a waiver, we had legal and ethical reasons to rely on the POTUS. How does the DOJ prosecute that as a crime?
Posted by: NK | October 02, 2012 at 04:21 PM
That legal fees for pink slips is some large 'walking around money' on our dime.
I thought bribes weren't tax deductible and subject to 100% penalty. Love to see the tax accounting on this one.
I think I'll join wee Davey on this one and scream "Corporations are not people!!!" :sarc:
Yikes!
Posted by: Stephanie | October 02, 2012 at 04:21 PM
Truthfully I don't understand how a corporate officer or director of a Sarbanes Oxley public company could do what Obama asks, nor how the auditor could ignore it.
Once they have you by the short hairs...
we had legal and ethical reasons to rely on the POTUS. How does the DOJ prosecute that as a crime?
Otter defense: 'You fucked up, you trusted us.'
Posted by: Stephanie | October 02, 2012 at 04:23 PM
Stephanie-- while the CEOs have no prosecution worries, the soon to be laid off workers will sue someone.. hmm.. who?...why the Fed Gov't of course for giving an illegal waiver and indemnity. Taxpayers take it in the neck again.
Posted by: NK | October 02, 2012 at 04:25 PM
"Otter defense: 'You fucked up, you trusted us.'" the you can't trust us reasoning many times prevents the regulated from attacking the government, but here it's a shield against a government indictment of an intentiional SarBox crime. The CEOs can sleep easily at night IMO.
Posted by: NK | October 02, 2012 at 04:28 PM
Remember how they pulled that guy who made "Innocence of Muslims" in "for questioning" in the middle of the night, with a gaggle of reporters and a gang of FBI agents? And how he's now in solitary because of "parole violations"?
Imagine you're an executive in a corporation. The government can pull your license to conduct business. They can audit you, your business, all your officers, and your stock-holders. They can turn a minor upset employee into a decades-long legal battle. They can send every OSHA, health department, EPA, and who-knows-what inspector through your facilities.
They can re-write your bonds to take ownership of your company away and give it to a union.
Chicago rules, writ large.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | October 02, 2012 at 04:29 PM
Kind of like the NY AG suing JP Morgan for alleged Bear Stearns fraud after the government essentially compels JPM to buy the Bear carcass.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | October 02, 2012 at 04:30 PM
RobC@4:29 all true. Ig@430-- it is kinda funny isn't it. Something tells me Geithner and Bernanke won't like being hauled in to give pre-trial depositions in that case.
Posted by: NK | October 02, 2012 at 04:38 PM
How their CPU doesn't blow up from the contradictions, is a mystery;
http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2012/07/18/tax-credits-in-federally-facilitated-exchanges-are-consistent-with-the-affordable-care-acts-language-and-history/
Posted by: narciso | October 02, 2012 at 04:42 PM
And this is the way Kirsanow's latest begins;
San Diego — A San Diego Police department spokesman confirmed today that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is under investigation for extreme animal cruelty related to the abduction and possible abuse of a city trash collector’s dog.
Features Jeff Spicoli, who is marginally smarter than Sean Penn, marginally,
Posted by: narciso | October 02, 2012 at 04:56 PM
NK I was not concerned about a DoJ prosecution for the reason you mentioned. But the real risk of those signed CEO/CFO Sarbox certifications is the liability they open one to to shareholders and the like, and not just corporate liability but personal (esp if the officer indemnification/insurance does not apply for known lies). I would not sign one based on Obama promising to love me in the morning.
Posted by: Old Lurker | October 02, 2012 at 05:02 PM
I missed the Yost reference, earlier, as if legislative history mattered.
Posted by: narciso | October 02, 2012 at 05:09 PM
More leading from behind:
“I don’t know why the Americans don’t come here,” said Wissam Bin Hamid, commander of the Libyan Shield Brigade, a militia that came under sustained attack while helping defend the second compound on Sept. 11. “Maybe they are afraid.”
Posted by: Frau Zorn | October 02, 2012 at 05:22 PM
"may be challenging at first, as students are introduced to new flavors and foods in the cafeteria."
But then they'll come to love them, as human nature changes yet again under the gentle guidance of the Left.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | October 02, 2012 at 05:28 PM
Old Lurker@5:02 all fair points.
Posted by: NK | October 02, 2012 at 05:42 PM
DoT - we werenever at war with Oceana....
Posted by: NK | October 02, 2012 at 05:44 PM
OL, I was asked once to sign something similar for a company I worked for that was French with all C levels foreign officers (except me - the treasurer) and I resigned. That was the late 80s early 90s.
No way in hell would I sign that or not comply with the law as written and intended.
Posted by: Stephanie | October 02, 2012 at 05:50 PM
as human nature changes yet again under the gentle guidance of the Left.
You vill enchoy ze vegetables!
Posted by: jimmyk | October 02, 2012 at 05:50 PM
Thread on the Drudge-reported video at HotAir - all just rumors, but seems like the video is of Obama and not Romney. Drudge screencap there says "Obama's Other Race Speech":
hotair.com/archives/2012/10/02/october-surprise-drudge-teasing-potentially-gamechanging-video-to-be-released-tonight/
Posted by: Porchlight | October 02, 2012 at 05:53 PM
Re: USDA "nutrition" recs--
That would be the same USDA that created the food pyramid out of thin air, with its eight servings of grains a day (to help a certain Senator McGovern's constituancy), which has contributed in a massive part to the epidemic of obesity and the health care costs associated with it.
Stop eating grains (processed carbs) , watch the weight fall off.
Posted by: anonamom | October 02, 2012 at 05:59 PM
"wouldn't it be swell to see John Roberts get another bite of this apple?"
Cannot think of anything scarier than that.
It struck me in reading the exchange between Brown and Warren in last nights debate (Kagen's my favorite, vs Scalia's my favorite) that no one is ever going to say John Roberts is my favorite.
Posted by: daddy | October 02, 2012 at 06:09 PM
Drudge:
Posted by: Extraneus | October 02, 2012 at 06:10 PM
I'm all for it.
Posted by: Extraneus | October 02, 2012 at 06:20 PM
But, are you all in?
Posted by: MarkO | October 02, 2012 at 06:41 PM
At this point I don't think even a dead woman or a live boy would be a game-changer for about 44% of our fellow citizens.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | October 02, 2012 at 06:46 PM
47%
Posted by: sbw | October 02, 2012 at 07:14 PM
At least that's a good reason to not have bothered to read the legislation. What does it really matter what it actually says anyway?
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy | October 02, 2012 at 08:51 PM
Hey AOG,
I thanked you a few days back for that Buffalo router/access point recommendation but don't know if you saw it.
Thanks again. Works great.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | October 02, 2012 at 09:00 PM
Excellent. I'm always very nervous about stuff like that because as a pro it's hard for me to tell what works for normal people. Remember that if you have a smart phone you should be able to hook it up as well and save phone bandwidth while you're at home.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy | October 02, 2012 at 09:50 PM
Little companies are already sensation Obama care. I've had several individuals discuss to me something they are now having to do because of Obama care.
Posted by: BURG Watch Phone | October 03, 2012 at 05:32 AM
Job well done guys, quality information.
slimming pills
Posted by: Amy Krussell | October 05, 2012 at 07:40 AM