Obama's Solution - Blame The Grandfather

Obama opens a new front in the ObamaCare generational war by announcing that he will re-grandfather plans that were previously dinged as non-compliant. He has legal authority for this? Who knows!?! As Peter Suderman explains, this ploy allows Obama to shift blame to the Evil Insurers:

What the administration is really doing, though, is attempting to shift the blame. Insurers have spent months if not years preparing for the changes and requirements enacted under Obamacare. They will have a difficult time turning on a dime and extending cancelled policies. They may not be able to in some or many cases. And state insurance regulators will have to sign off on reinstatements, creating an additional layer of insulation between plan upsets and the administration. 

Now when asked about people losing their plans, the White House and its Democratic allies in Congress will be able to argue that this isn’t a result of their law. It’s the insurers fault. As one insurance industry source tells Buzzfeed, “This doesn’t change anything other than force insurers to be the political flack jackets for the administration. So now when we don’t offer these policies the White House can say it’s the insurers doing this and not being flexible.”

Blame shifting and magical thinking - someone expected something different from Obama?

A MAD SCRAMBLE: Times coverage gives a sense of how hastily this was thrown together:

A White House official confirmed that “we don’t have a commitment from state insurance commissioners” to go along with the president’s new policy. State insurance regulators also said they had not discussed it with the administration.

Under its new policy, the White House is declaring that the Affordable Care Act does not require insurers to upgrade existing coverage for people who are now enrolled. Consumers could thus renew existing insurance policies even if they did not provide all the benefits and protections required by the 2010 health care law.

State insurance regulators said they were pleased that the administration was not allowing sales of old noncompliant policies to new customers.

It is not clear what prices will be charged by insurers for existing policies that are continued in force through 2014. Insurers generally do not have rates approved for the renewal of such coverage in 2014 because the policies were supposed to be terminated at the end of this year.

A White House official, asked if insurers could increase rates on these policies, said the question should be directed to insurers and insurance commissioners. “As a pragmatic matter,” the official said, “it will be up to insurance commissioners and states.”

If insurers want to increase rates on existing policies, they would, in most states, have to file the changes with state insurance commissioners, who could review the rates and take action under state law to determine if the rate increases were reasonable.

This needs a lot more time in the oven to achieve half-baked status.

Comments

[daddy]

"I think it's legitimate for them (the American People) to expect me to have to win back some credibility on this health care law in particular and on a whole range of these issues in general," Obama said.

[Jim Rhoads f/k/a vnjagvet]

He certainly is magnanimous isn't he? Imagine if he thought such expectations weren't "legitimate".

[NK(withnewsoftware)]

Daddy-- we here at JOM will keep hammering on his lack of credibility. We're too legit... too legit to quit.

[Jack is Back!]

And the asbestos in Altgeld Gardens is still there.

Isn't there a way they can blame Bush, the Iraq War, Katrina and maybe even Putin?

[MarkO]

He's just not that smart. And, he's a liar.

[centralcal]

OH!
MY!
GAWD!

WATCH THIS!!!!

[Cecil Turner]

He's still lying. The only possible effect this step can have is to further entrench the effects of the health care law until it's not feasible to repeal it . . . and ensure its eventual demise, so that it has to be replaced with single-payer. Either that's the goal, or the President and his advisors are stupid.

[Captain Hate on the iPhone]

The slap fighting between Gaylord and the crony capitalists should be very amusing. Rove must be worried.

[Extraneus]

Will this scheme discourage Dems from supporting Upton's bill tomorrow?

[cathyf]

Without a law -- with only an Executive Order -- wouldn't any insurance company executive who went along with this be liable for securities fraud?

[Jeff Dobbs]

Cecil:
He's still lying.

Q: How do you know Obama's lying?

A: His lips are moving He's Obama. Even his eyes and ears and nose . . . and head and shoulder knees and toes lie.

[Old Lurker]

CC, now THAT is how to do a commercial.

Love it.

[Jack is Back!]

I only hope the GOP starts a major campaign to bang the Democrats alone voted for this and signed it into law without one single Republican. And when we tried to defund it or delay it the same Democrats voted against that and shut the government down. Now they want their cake and eat it to.

The were all for it before they were all against it. Sound familiar?

[NK(withnewsoftware)]

Ext-- good question. This clusterEff of a presser (TomM's not even half baked metaphor) is a figleaf for House Dems not to bolt to the Upton Bill tomorrow. And my guess is that only a few desperate House Dems will vote for Upton (single digits) the other 30 will say: "Let's give the POTUS Feex a chance.. blah, blah, blah." Same thing in the Senate to justify Dirty Harry not even bringing up Upton. It's fine, the only Feex out there will be Il Duce's, and it won't change anything forpeople who have lost and WILL LOSE coverage. Joe/Juanita LiV will continue to blame Il Duce.

[Old Lurker]

Cathy, go see my 1:37 post on the previous thread on exactly that point. I also posted to you at the end of that page.

[NK(withnewsoftware)]

CathyF-- the securities liability under SarBox (for CEOs personally) and derivative suits are HUGE issues for insurers. If I were counsel to BigGovIns, I would respond to Il Duce, that my company will do NOTHING until the statute is changed by ACT OF CONGRESS and signed by the POTUS, or the Atty Gen gives me an immunity agreement and both parties sign it.

[GMax]

My guess, and you can never be sure with the guy, but I think that old Ted Baxter is going to wind up and let Zero have it on this one. Since he is only mildly paying attention, he might think that this is sufficient but surely his staff will tell ol' Ted, that no one not even Democrat Senators think this will work or even fool anyone other than the most gullible of the gullible.

Upton passes the House. What say you Harry, care to further put your control in jeopardy?

I think there will be building pressure such that Obama either signs it if it hits his desk, or is overridden on a veto by both Houses. Nothing I hear is likely to quell the abject panic of Democrats from the anger of pissed off constituents.

Minus eleven says Carville and Rothenberg. It would get worse with the Senate refusing to take up a law that says what Obama promised repeatedly.

I am going to lay in a big order of popcorn, this is going to be fun.

[Sandy Daze]

Fix It Again Tony...

[Porchlight]

Now when asked about people losing their plans, the White House and its Democratic allies in Congress will be able to argue that this isn’t a result of their law. It’s the insurers fault.

No it isn't. Senate Dems voted unanimously in September 2010 to go forward with the grandfathering regs that are causing cancellations.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/31/senate-democrats-supported-rule-that-lead-to-insurance-cancellations/

Shove it in their faces.

[Captain Hate on the iPhone]

From cc's link on the prior thread: when the JEF gets caught in a real whopper he makes a whistling sound when making an "s" sound.

[NK(withnewsoftware)]

SandyD-- LOL, thanks.

Do you have my favorite Il Duce-Obummer photos -- the smug frown head bob arms folded look?

[Account Deleted]

"wouldn't any insurance company executive who went along with this be liable for securities fraud?"

CathyF,

Let's personalize and extend your question. Are Joseph R. Swedish and Wayne S. Deveydt, CEO and CFO, respectively, of WellPoint, a NYSE traded, publicly held company, at greater risk of liability for securities fraud by going along with President Obama, should they choose to do so, or for their failure to disclose the number of cancellation notices issued by WellPoint to date.

I vote for the latter, based upon a layman's understanding of SarBox. The cancellation notices will clearly have a materially adverse effect upon WellPoint sales and profits.

[Momto2]

Direct Quote: "As long as you're healthy, things seem to be going pretty good. And so a lot of people think, I've got pretty good insurance, until they get sick, and then suddenly they look at the fine print and they've got a $50,000 out-of- pocket expense that they can't pay."

So.....now we get to the meat of the nut.....it is all because we (American public) are *so* stupid that we don't know what our insurance policy says - We don't EVEN know that we have a $50.000 deductible..... We have all been tooling along in our ignorance and living on the edge of destruction until THE ONE swoops in to save us from certain destruction.

If you read the transcript it is even worse than it sounded on the radio!!!

[Porchlight]

Gallup:

Americans' views of the healthcare law have soured in recent weeks, with 40% now approving and 55% disapproving -- the most negative reading in the past year. Those who disapprove most commonly cite government interference as the reason.

[Jane-Rebel Alliance1]

Will this scheme discourage Dems from supporting Upton's bill tomorrow?

I don't know about Upton, but apparently while Obama was still talking a bunch of democrats came out and said they would support the Landreau bill.

[NK(withnewsoftware)]

Upton House Vote-- over/under for Dems voting YES for it-- 12.
Place yer bets.

[clarice]

I doubt this will turn many minds--Once you've made so many promises you didn't keep, you have lost it.

[Account Deleted]

NK,

I'll take the over. A butt cover in hand for a House commiecrat is worth a dozen Landrea Senate butt covers for which they may never even get to vote.

[cathyf]

Cathy, isn't part of the problem about cancelled policies the fact that they were predicated upon (and priced on) the myriad of provider/supplier contracts that set prices for the procedures etc?. Don't those provider contracts mostly terminate at the end of the policy year that controlled the now dead policies? If so, then how can an insurer extend a policy that no longer is protected by supplier price agreements?

My plan has indivisible parts -- the contracts between providers and insurance companies would be extended as well. The idea is to give them about 5 months (Dec-Apr) to negotiate new contracts based upon complete repeal of all of the Obamacare laws and regulations, and the repeal and the new contracts would all go into effect as/of July 1, 2014.

It's a pretty clear violation of the 5th amendment, in that this LAW, which would have to be passed by both houses and signed by the president, takes several whole classes of 12-month contracts and changes them into 18-month contracts. But I think you could argue it as being an appropriate emergency power. Especially since the whole mess is caused by the law that would be repealed, and as such the contract extensions could be viewed as part of the mechanics of the repeal.

[Captain Hate on the iPhone]

Here's where I'm skeered the party of stoopid goes full dunce. Please prove me wrong.

[Account Deleted]

Clarice,

Agreed. I'm just curious as to which journojuiceboxer will be the first to use "elegant" in describing the President's blindfolded swing with a dull broadaxe.

[Jack is Back!]

I see that the webiste is back to working fine. As long as your a cat.

[NK(withnewsoftware)]

CaptH-- so far Boehner is making the right noises. he said Obummer feex changes nothing, even before Obummer spoke. TBD.

[Ranger]

Via Instapundit:

Romney's Uncanny Predictions About Obama's Second Term Make Him Look Like He Had Psychic Superpowers

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/11/94342-mitt-romney-made-predictions-prior-obamas-second-term-p-s-right/

The first bit is about Obamacare.

[Captain Hate on the iPhone]

NK, I'm more worried that I'm agreeing with McCain.

[NK(withnewsoftware)]

CaptH-- who?

[MarkO]

"The Insufficient Grandfather," a play in three acts.

[Neo]

Cray-Cray Nancy Pelosi Starts Giggling About Suspenders

[NK(withnewsoftware)]

MarkO-- heh.. a play in three acts.. Playbill says it is BOTH a comedy and tragedy.

[cathyf]

I'm with you, Captain. Still waiting to see how the Party of Schtoopid is gonna screw this up.

[Sandy Daze]

NK, not sure about your favorite images of the resident--I don't have anything favorite about *him* per'se, but I am partial to this effort, made for me by JOM's resident artist:

[Ignatz]

How dis?

[Ignatz]

Better size;

[bustanut]

That look's like a trucker's shoe, not a cowboy and the difference is the cowboy's boot has shit on the outside.

[Ann]

Watch Neo's clip. Certifiable

Thanks, Neo, I was trying to find it.

[Ann]

Watch Neo's clip. Certifiable

Thanks, Neo, I was trying to find it.

[Ignatz]

Or the one-stop-photo-shop version;

[Captain Hate on the iPhone]

Yes cathyf; the stakes are unbelievably high and I feel like we're sending Cousin Festus to figure out which shell the pea is under.

[NK(withnewsoftware)]

Ignatz@311-- BINGO!! that is my personal mind's eye view of Obummer. The weak narcissist. At least Mussolini knew how to hire great architects and road engineers and made the trains runna onna time. Obummer is only an agent of USA wealth and national power destruction. Thanks Ig.

[jimmyk]

The only mistake the Party of Stoopid seems to be making is by pushing some kind of "fix" that won't work, leaving them open now to being blamed. Perhaps they can't block Landrieu's bill without being accused of obstructing a solution, but they should not be putting lipstick on this pig.

[daddy]

Judge Napolitano on Shep says that as a result of Obama's comments, now the Insurance companies will immediately sue the Govt for mandating that they have to reinstitute policies that they know will lose them money, and that we are looking at a Constitutional Court issue all over again. Stand by for many more Court challenges.

[daddy]

Must be a Democrat thing Iggy.

Here's Mary Landrieu from the papers today:

[NK(withnewsoftware)]

Napolitano has the legal issues wrong IMO.

[jimmyk]

Insurance companies will immediately sue the Govt for mandating that they have to reinstitute policies that they know will lose them money

Except he's not requiring them to do it, only allowing them to do so, which presumably they won't. But when they don't, he can fall back on blaming them.

Leaving aside the issue of whether he has the authority to do any of this....

[bustanut]

" they know will lose them money,"

Poor darlings. In 2012 they had to make do with $12 B in profit.

If they have to keep those plans they'll be held to a measly 10% ROI.

It's an outrage.

[Extraneus]

How clever or stipid is the Upton bill, anyway? Anyone know?

[Old Lurker]

And there you have it at 3:19, second post.

[jimmyk]

How clever or stipid is the Upton bill, anyway?

I asked yesterday: I read that it only re-grandfathers through 2014. How does that solve anything other than kick the can down the road? Of course it might help that it will all come crashing down again around the time of the 2014 elections, but it's not much of a fix. And grandfathering only plays into the long-term demise of private insurance, since eventually the grandfathered policies will disappear through attrition.

[Extraneus]

Erik Erickson: It’s a Trap!

Republicans are walking into a trap and they don’t even realize it.

They are about to consider, in the House of Representatives, legislation by Congressman Upton that would allow people to keep their insurance plans.

There’s a problem though. It is widely acknowledged that Congressman Upton’s legislation is more messaging than substance. His legislation does not have anything in it that can force insurance companies, in the topsy-turvy world of Obamacare, to keep insurance plans going.

But there is a plan than does. Senator Mary Landrieu has written legislation in the United States Senate that the Democrats love. It mandates insurance companies have to keep people on their present insurance. The GOP is supposedly against mandates and against government forcing private businesses and individuals into contracts they don’t want.

Here’s what is going to happen.

The House, with the help of a good number of Democrats, will pass the Upton plan and send it to the Senate. Harry Reid will substitute the Landrieu plan and send it back to the House. The House will be forced to either vote for the Landrieu plan or be characterized as siding with insurance companies against people.

In one fell swoop, the Democrats will have the GOP on record saving Mary Landrieu’s re-election in Louisiana by casting her as the one who saved Americans’ health care plans, and also getting on record as really being in favor of fixing Obamacare with the use of mandates.

In truth, Obamacare is not fixable. The only solution is to fully repeal it. The Republicans should not be helping Democrats with their re-election plans, which is all the are doing with Upton/Landrieu.

The GOP is walking right into the trap.

[daddy]

Napolitano has the legal issues wrong

Wouldn't be the first time, NK:)

[NK(withnewsoftware)]

The Upton Bill will never pass the Senate. So it's content is less important than the fact 100% of House repubs will vote for it, and most Dems against. Any more wagers on the 12 Dem over/under?

[Thomas Collins]

I'll take the under, NK. I think most Dems will conclude that 404 has given them enough to fool the low information voter.

By the way, I am becoming convinced that the term "low information voter" encompasses more than 70% of the electorate and more than 80% of northeast urban white collar professionals.

OL, continuing our back and forth from a prior thread, my preserve and reform legislation would end up at a place similar to your repeal and replace legislation. I would probably keep all of the tax increases other than the medical device tax (not because I think the 404 taxes are good policy, but because I would want to focus on the pure prepaid health care provisions). But my legislation would have repealing this and that section of 404Care all over it.

[GMax]

What was the quote?

At some point, haven't you made enough profit?

Or was it:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

All those collectivist sayings seem to run together...

[Captain Hate on the iPhone]

I don't agree with Erickson on many things but he is bang spot on there.

[bustanut]

Jack said it best;

'How much better, can you eat?'

[daddy]

I think 03:19 must be the Marxist Hillary Clinton posting:

"The other day the oil companies recorded the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits. And I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy, alternatives and technologies that will actually begin to move us in the direction of independence.

I want to take those profits.

I want to take those profits.

I want to take those profits.

I want to take those profits.

I want to take those profits.

[Old Lurker]

Rick, those SarBox certifications are a bitch because of the personal liability that seems to attach to them. ("seems" is the operative word, but it would cost about $1M to defend against, and many employment agreements deny an officer reimbursement for legal expenses in certain cases, so that's serious personal cash and fear.) Unseen to the public, the other letters that can cost some sleep are the promises made to the Auditors that precede the auditor's opinion about the ongoing concern certifications. Usually the auditor also requires a similar letter from the outside law firm, and that makes the lawyers come back to the executives for backup letters to protect themselves too.

You have to have a very thick skin to act contrary to the law, and even if you aren't, a trigger happy POSAG can ruin mere mortals.

[Captain Hate on the iPhone]

No way will all Repubs in the House vote for Upton.

[bustanut]

You are so much smarter now as a conservative than you were in your foolish youth.

[daddy]

No way will all Repubs in the House vote for Upton

They will if his niece is the one presenting the Bill:

[Account Deleted]

"The House will be forced to either vote for the Landrieu plan or be characterized as siding with insurance companies against people."

The House will give it the same treatment it has given the Senate Omnibus Immigration bill. I suppose the House could pass a 42nd repeal measure but it wouldn't add much to this part of the theatrical production.

[Account Deleted]

"The House will be forced to either vote for the Landrieu plan or be characterized as siding with insurance companies against people."

The House will give it the same treatment it has given the Senate Omnibus Immigration bill. I suppose the House could pass a 42nd repeal measure but it wouldn't add much to this part of the theatrical production.

[jimmyk]

In truth, Obamacare is not fixable. The only solution is to fully repeal it. The Republicans should not be helping Democrats with their re-election plans, which is all the are doing with Upton/Landrieu.

The GOP is walking right into the trap.

Since I made a similar point above I have to sort of agree, but since it's not fixable, how can this non-fix really help Landrieu's reelection? Won't the futility of it be clear by Nov 2014?

[jimmyk]

Also, I think Landrieu's bill *requires* insurers to extend current policies, which probably won't survive court challenges.

[Old Lurker]

Ext, the real trap in the Upton deal was described by Rush yesterday. Step 1, the Upton bill is toothless feel good stuff useful for PR only, but it passes the House and goes to the Senate. Step 2, the Senate strips out every Upton word and inserts Dem wording, teeth and coercion. That passes the Senate with zero Rep votes but goes back to the House for an up or down vote. Reps are screwed, and all the dems plus a few reps get it through if it comes to a vote, or else it's a rep black eye if they won't allow the vote.

All self inflicted by trying to "appear" helpful in the first place.

[Miss Marple]

I see Shep has gleefully latched onto the guy who fell out of a plane to avoid discussing Obamacare.

[PTSDang!]

How would you keep your plan if you died? Not that it makes any difference in your pov, but his big mistake was speaking in general terms. There are many circumstances which result in a change of plan.

"But how many people actually would have kept their individual plans that long in the first place? HHS, when it drafted the interim rules, estimated that between 40 and 67 percent of policies in the individual market are in effect for less than one year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/11/07/the-white-house-effort-to-blame-insurance-companies-for-lost-plans/
“These estimates assume that the policies that terminate are replaced by new individual policies, and that these new policies are not, by definition, grandfathered,” the rules noted. (See page 34553.)

That’s a large percentage of the plans — but it’s actually bigger than that, given the effective date. We dug into the key research that prompted this estimate, a study titled “Patterns Of Individual Health Insurance Coverage, 1996–2000.” The study noted that, for most people, buying individual insurance is a temporary condition:

“Roughly two-thirds of spells began or ended with employer-sponsored coverage. Eighty-five percent of those with such coverage before a spell of individual coverage returned to an employer-sponsored plan. Thus, more than half of all individual-coverage spells (58 percent) bridged periods of employer-based insurance.”

[cathyf]

I think we also need to keep the laser-like focus on the waivers. Whatever mess they make of health insurance has to include the Obamacronies, because they are the ones who have the power to fix it.

"OBAMACARE FOR THE OBAMACRONIES!" should still be our rallying cry.

[GMax]

Stu Rothenberg ( big fat Democrat so he is going easy on them for sure ):

Democratic incumbents in swing (or Republican) districts and states surely are already trying to inoculate themselves by calling for changes in the health care law or, at the very least, complaining about the website’s problems and blaming either outside contractors or Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. But it’s far from clear that those efforts will succeed in deflecting voter anger completely.

Long-time observers of politics know that an unpopular president during midterm elections almost always is an albatross around the neck of his party’s candidates for Congress, and Democratic hopefuls can only hope to minimize the damage, not avoid it completely, if Obama is unpopular a year from now.

Democratic vulnerability in the House is relatively modest, since so few House seats are competitive. But Democrats will have a hard time gaining any House seats if the president’s standing is hovering around the 40 percent mark, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee will have to start worrying about net losses, not trying to maximize gains.

Over in the Senate, a damaged Obama could easily cost his party the Senate. It’s as simple as that. With an Obama job rating sitting around the 40 percent mark, it’s difficult to imagine Republican seats in Kentucky or Georgia falling to Democrats, and more difficult to imagine Democratic senators in Alaska, North Carolina, Louisiana and Arkansas surviving. Even Democratic nominees in Iowa, Michigan and New Hampshire could see their prospects change from good to uncertain.

[daddy]

For folks catching up like me, Ted Baxter is the new pseudonym being flung around here for Bill O'Reilly.

[Stephanie]

Hell, requiring insurers to extend current policies also would by necessity require the supplier contracts to be extended and that won't survive court challenges, either. Otherwise, Sundby could have her insurance contract reconstituted but find that her doctor is suing the insurance company for breach of contract, too and refusing to take their insurance for payment.

It is beyond past time for the SC to grab a bubbling up the pathway lawsuit and use it to circle file this whole mess. Didn't they do something similar in Gore v Bush and step in on an emergency basis. ISTM multiple willful violations of contract law and forced slavery (on behalf of doctors working for insurance companies they don't necessissarily want to work for) would constitute cause. Roberts could get a do over.

[Old Lurker]

Ted Baxter should sue for defamation.

[jimmyk]

Reps are screwed, and all the dems plus a few reps get it through if it comes to a vote, or else it's a rep black eye if they won't allow the vote.

In the first scenario, the failure of the bill to solve the problem will become readily apparent. And by the way, I think many Dems are not in favor of Landrieu's bill because they see it as undermining Obamacare.

In the second scenario, it would be nice if the Republicans managed to communicate effectively why they oppose it. I don't know that they are capable of doing that through the MSM cries of "obstructionism," though.

[Stephanie]

Kreidler says Thursday he has "serious concerns" about how Obama's proposal would be implemented and its potential impact on the overall stability of the state's health insurance market.
"I do not believe his proposal is a good deal for the state of Washington," Kreidler said in a statement announcing his decision. "In the interest of keeping the consumer protections, we have enacted and ensuring that we keep health insurance costs down for all consumers, we are staying the course. We will not be allowing insurance companies to extend their policies. I believe this is in the best interest of the health insurance market in Washington."

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/State-rebuts-Obama-plan-to-allow-old-health-insurance-policies-231949931.html

[Some Guy]

From Geraghety's piece:

"Jeffrey Anderson:

Moreover — and important — the Upton bill would not help fix Obamacare. To the contrary, if it were to become law, it would badly undermine Obamacare's exchanges, which would then be drained of millions of (previously insured and hence generally healthier) people whom Obama wanted to compel to buy exchange-based plans by banning their preferred plans. In short, Upton would hurt Obamacare, not fix it — which is why Obama opposes it.

James Capretta, a.k.a. "the health care guy" at Heritage, AEI, and most other conservative organizations:

The defenders of Obamacare know full well that the Upton legislation represents a serious threat to the viability of the law. It would provide a lifeline for a viable insurance market outside of Obamacare's rules and suffocating structure. Millions of Americans would flock to a revitalized insurance marketplace that offered lower premium products with better coverage. The end result would be one more step toward fully reversing the catastrophic mistake of Obamacare.

Put another way, if the Upton bill's primary impact really was just to provide cover for Democrats, why would Obama and his closest allies be fighting it tooth and nail? Why are they arm-twisting their own members to not vote for something that could provide them some political cover?

House Democratic leaders are doubling down in their opposition to GOP legislation that would allow Americans to keep their healthcare plans, even as the party is taking a political drubbing over the contentious issue.

Think about it. Nancy Pelosi and company are insisting to their rank-and-file -- approaching reelection less than twelve months from now -- that stopping the Upton bill is worth taking a beating in the press right now. The only way this stance makes sense is if the Upton bill represents a metaphorical bullet to the gut of Obamacare. It may not kill it immediately, but it will kill it eventually.

Right now, Fred Upton is competing for the title of your favorite member of the Upton family, against his perennial favorite niece."

[PTSDang!]

SCOTUS could certainly select your insurance options for you.

They seem less concerned with liberty and the 4th Amendment, so it's all good. Only Sotomayor has a fleeting interest in the 4th.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-scotus-la-search-20131114,0,6040764.story#axzz2kb2FMPi3

[Stephanie]

Via Ace who does have a good soundbite occasionally:

No one tries to shift responsibility with regard to a success.

Bingo!

No one, but the foolhardy, at this point is claiming that this thing is a winner.

[Old Lurker]

Steph, my mail today had proof of exactly what you describe. My anecdote makes the issue easy to understand. The hip surgeon billed Mrs. L $11,000 for his part of her hip replacement last month. BCBS knocked that down to the $1,965 allowed per the contract they have with his practice. (Our share of that is $1,965 but that's fine since that is what I bargained for in buying my policy.) Now I know our Doc was new to the practice and was perfectly OK with the scheduled fees because he knew they ended 12/31, and come next year he could earn more than $1,965 for that work.

No way will he agree to an extension of last year fees into the new year, and why should he?

[daddy]

OT, but for some reason it came to mind just now---
The Huntress. Anybody know where that "handle" originated?

Narciso's and Porchlight's response:

That is supposedly what the Russians call her, anonamom. "Akhanitsa" (or "Okhanitsa") means "The Huntress."

Obviously the Russians could see the Huntress from their back porch.

[GMax]

No one, but the foolhardy,

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Debbie Does America says Democrats are going to run on the success that is Obamacare. Draw your conclusion from that, is it foolhardy or not being in touch with reality?

[Stephanie]

OH who the F suggested the SC choose my insurance options... I suggested they have the power to undo this mess through constitutional application in full either through existing lawsuits or to get a suit brought on Separation of Powers grounds, and non-delegability of legislative functions grounds (i.e., Congress cannot delegate the law-making power away to the executive, even if it is so craven as to wish to do so).

[Danube on iPad]

As I understand it, Landrieu's bill only provides for a one-year extension of existing policies. That means that 5million policy holders will be enraged in October '14 instead of October of this year. That doesn't strike me as long-range planning.

I believe that the insurers will sue if the Landrieu fix is enacted. Congress has no power to require a contracting party to extend the terms of an existing contract.

"...and ensure its eventual demise, so that it has to be replaced with single-payer." I don't agree that upon its demise the GOP House will feel that it has to enact single-payer.

[daddy]

It is worth noting that as President Obama keeps saying "these Insurance policies are substandard", the only guy I know who is on record as being too stupid to understand what sort of Insurance he had and what it actually covered, was Barack Obama.

Remember this: Obama misunderstands Auto Insurance

Obama: When I was young, just got out of college, I had to buy auto insurance. I had a beat-up old car. And I won’t name the name of the insurance company, but there was a company — let’s call it Acme Insurance in Illinois. And I was paying my premiums every month. After about six months I got rear-ended and I called up Acme and said, I’d like to see if I can get my car repaired, and they laughed at me over the phone because really this was set up not to actually provide insurance; what it was set up was to meet the legal requirements. But it really wasn’t serious insurance.

Now, it’s one thing if you’ve got an old beat-up car that you can’t get fixed. It’s another thing if your kid is sick, or you’ve got breast cancer.

The HOT Air article (Ed Morrissey) continues:

[Why would they have laughed at a Harvard graduate who tried to file a claim? Because Obama hadn’t bought collision insurance. The only insurance drivers in most states have to carry is liability insurance, to cover damage they do to the cars of other drivers. Obama explained in this clip that he only bought the legal minimum, not collision or comprehensive, which would have covered his damage. When people buy insurance, it’s made very clear exactly what it covers. Most drivers can understand it … even the Harvard Law grads. That may have been why “Acme” laughed when Obama attempted to file a collision claim when he hadn’t bothered to buy that policy.

One more point: a rear-end collision is almost universally presumed to be the fault of the driver who hits the rear end of the other. Obama should have been calling that driver’s insurance company … if this actually ever happened at all.

If this anecdote proves anything, it’s that Obama never learned a thing about insurance — hardly the man we’d want to have remaking the entire health-insurance sector.]

[Stephanie]

Excellent and concise explanation of TANSTAAFL and the results:

What is happening to Margaret Davis and countless other Democrat sycophants right now is that they are being allowed the rare privilege of a real-time market-based reaction to their favored governmental policies. Too often, Democrat policies don’t provoke this kind of stunning reaction because the forcing mechanism is government spending and the government can (at least to a liberal) operate at increasingly large losses forever. Private companies, though, can’t operate that way. You tell them that a new law raises their costs by 88%, they are going to raise prices by 88%, sure as sunshine.

http://www.redstate.com/2013/11/13/if-this-lunch-isnt-free-im-writing-my-congressman/

[lyle]

Draw your conclusion from that, is it foolhardy or not being in touch with reality?

Imbecility covers it. But really, how in the [redacted] did this drooling idiot get elected in the first place? Anyway, please keep her front and center for the next year, dems.

[Cecil Turner]

I didn't say their plan would work.

On the other hand, if the GOP plan is to hold the line at obstructing single payer after the HC insurance industry collapse . . . it may well.

[Stephanie]

Add Arkansas to the "NO FIX" column in addition to Washington.

Who has the over/under on the state's bitch slaps to Obama?

[PTSDang!]

" how in the [redacted] did this drooling idiot get elected..."

Easy, less drool than his opponent.

[daddy]

TANSTAAFL---There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

[Danube on iPad]

..."if the GOP plan is to hold the line at obstructing single payer after the HC insurance industry collapse . . . [the Dem plan] may well [work]."

If the GOP doesn't obstruct it, it is certain to work.