The Absence of Obamacare Credits in Federal Exchanges WAS INTENTIONAL – Designed to Force Compliance

By Tom White  –  VA Right  -  Cross-Posted at Ask Marion:Two recent court cases came to two different conclusions in the battle against Obamacare. The question was concerning the language of the bill when it comes to credits in Health Care Exchanges set up by the Federal Government when states decide not to set up State Health Care Exchanges.

The language is pretty clear in the fact that it does create credits for Exchanges set up by the states. These credits are substantial and are the only part of the entire Affordable Care Act that actually addresses affordability. Sadly, this is done by redistributing the wealth. By taxing the productive earners in order to subsidize non-productive earners.

Monthly premiums for silver plans – the standard insurance policy sold on the exchanges – cost an average of $345 a month this year for people who did not qualify for subsidies, a new analysis from the administration shows.  – See more at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/06/18/Average-Obamacare-Subsidy-3312-Paid-Date-47-Billion#sthash.OQTugto5.dpuf

According to The Fiscal Times:

Monthly premiums for silver plans – the standard insurance policy sold on the exchanges – cost an average of $345 a month this year for people who did not qualify for subsidies, a new analysis from the administration shows.

However, for the overwhelming majority of Obamacare enrollees (87 percent) who did qualify for financial assistance, the average monthly premium on the silver plan costs about $69. That’s an average tax credit of about $276 a month, or $3,312 a year. The administration’s report broke down the average monthly premium for each of the four plans offered on the federal marketplace – before and after tax credits. It also detailed the percentage of enrollees selecting each plan, with or without tax credits. Data was not available for the state exchanges, which make up about one third of the total 8 million enrollees.

On average, monthly premiums after subsidies run about $69.00. But without the subsidy, $345.00. And 87% of enrollees qualify for these huge subsidies.

So with all the mandates for coverage, mandates on what must be covered and what can be charged, it is the subsidies and the subsidies alone that make the product affordable. Without them, the cost of Health Insurance rises considerably due to mandatory expanded coverages.

The Affordable Care Act depends on states setting up Exchanges as called for in the law. However, when much of the law was in the process of being written, it was done in secret. No one knew exactly what was going into the mix and the authors were as yet unaware of the massive resistance the bill was about to encounter. But they anticipated at least some token resistance from the rascally Republican controlled states. And this expected resistance was addressed in the bill with various sneaky political weapons and landmines designed to nudge resistive states into setting up the exchanges.

One political weapon the Democrats love to use is abortion. Republicans are outraged when tax dollars are confiscated to pay for a procedure they consider infanticide. So one of the booby traps the architects of Obamacare used was abortion. This would be the first of several “lesser of two evils” options resistive Republican states would face in deciding to implement Obamacare. You may recall the Stupak Amendment that extended the Hyde Amendment wording that prevents the Federal Government from paying for abortions. There was a big argument in House over abortion and several pro life Democrats insisted that the ACA not pay for abortions as a condition of casting their vote for the bill. However, that was the House Bill which was scrapped after Scott Brown’s victory effectively cut off the Democrat’s super majority in the Senate.

The Conservative Intelligence Briefing put it this way:

Recall that after the special election of Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., in January 2010, Democrats were suddenly deprived of the flexibility they had expected to have in drafting the law’s provisions. They had expected a House-Senate conference committee in which they could iron out the kinks in the law and then pass it again through both the House and Senate. But suddenly, after Brown won, they realized they would never be able to pass any version of Obamacare through the Senate again. They no longer had the 60 votes they needed.

So the Democrats did the only thing they could: They took the version of the law they had already passed through the Senate on Christmas Eve 2009, and rammed it back through the House, warts and all. There was no second chance to consider this issue or any others in detail. In any event, most members had only a vague idea of what the bill did anyway.

- See more at: http://www.conservativeintel.com/the-briefing-vol-ii-issue-25/?utm_source=Intel&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=House#sthash.tC38djHj.dpuf

Recall that after the special election of Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., in January 2010, Democrats were suddenly deprived of the flexibility they had expected to have in drafting the law’s provisions. They had expected a House-Senate conference committee in which they could iron out the kinks in the law and then pass it again through both the House and Senate. But suddenly, after Brown won, they realized they would never be able to pass any version of Obamacare through the Senate again. They no longer had the 60 votes they needed.

So the Democrats did the only thing they could: They took the version of the law they had already passed through the Senate on Christmas Eve 2009, and rammed it back through the House, warts and all. There was no second chance to consider this issue or any others in detail. In any event, most members had only a vague idea of what the bill did anyway.

- See more at: http://www.conservativeintel.com/the-briefing-vol-ii-issue-25/?utm_source=Intel&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=House#sthash.tC38djHj.dpuf

Recall that after the special election of Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., in January 2010, Democrats were suddenly deprived of the flexibility they had expected to have in drafting the law’s provisions. They had expected a House-Senate conference committee in which they could iron out the kinks in the law and then pass it again through both the House and Senate. But suddenly, after Brown won, they realized they would never be able to pass any version of Obamacare through the Senate again. They no longer had the 60 votes they needed.

So the Democrats did the only thing they could: They took the version of the law they had already passed through the Senate on Christmas Eve 2009, and rammed it back through the House, warts and all. There was no second chance to consider this issue or any others in detail. In any event, most members had only a vague idea of what the bill did anyway.

So the truth is, there is no language in the Senate Bill itself that prevents the Federal Government from paying for abortions. And in order to get the pro life Democrats to vote for the Senate version of Obamacare, Obama issues an executive order #13535 that pretends to forbid Federal payment of abortion. None of the pro life groups were fooled, nor were the voters in Stupak’s District in Michigan. Stupak “retired” and the voters put a Republican in the seat.

But according to Wiki, there are incentives to entice states into setting up these Exchanges:

Under the law, setting up an exchange gives a state partial discretion on standards and prices of insurance, aside from those specifics set-out in the ACA. For example, those administering the exchange will be able to determine which plans are sold on or excluded from the exchanges, and adjust (through limits on and negotiations with private insurers) the prices on offer. They will also be able to impose higher or state-specific coverage requirements—including whether plans offered in the state are prohibited from covering abortion (making the procedure an out-of-pocket expense) or mandated to cover abortions that a physician determines is medically necessary; in either case, federal subsidies are prohibited from being used to fund the procedure. If a state does not set up an exchange itself, they lose that discretion, and the responsibility to set up exchanges for such states defaults to the federal government, whereby the Department of Health and Human Services assumes the authority and legal obligation to operate all functions in these federally facilitated exchanges.

And if having more control and discretion on the policies offered in each state isn’t enough to convince states to implement Obamacare, the Democrats added a big hammer. The Federal Government will come in and run things, leaving the states no say in how health care policies are sold in the state. Take that, you Republicans.

This Youtube video is a recording of the chief architect of the Senate Obamacare bill. The guy who put the political plums and hemlock in the bill, Jonathan Gruber. It is clear from listening to him speak that the intent was to use the lack of subsidies in the Federally run Exchanges as a mechanism to force states into compliance.

Video: Jonathan Gruber Once Again Says Subsidies Are Tied to State-Based Exchanges

But Gruber said that this was a mistake. A speak-o (as opposed to a typo). The intent was always to have the Federally run Exchanges give out the subsidies!

There is a video here that is nearly an hour long that has been making the rounds on the internet. I edited the same video down to about 5 minutes with the important parts being about the first 2 minutes. The rest of this is some pretty revealing comments Gruber made on the longer version.

Video:  Jon Gruber Condense Version

So it is abundantly clear that the intent was to use the lack of subsidies in the Federally run exchanges to pressure states into compliance.

So in the two recent court decisions in direct opposition to one another as FoxNews explains:

WASHINGTON –  Two federal appeals court rulings put the issue of ObamaCare subsidies in limbo Tuesday, with one court invalidating some of them and the other upholding all of them.

The first decision came Tuesday morning from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The panel, in a major blow to the law, ruled 2-1 that the IRS went too far in extending subsidies to those who buy insurance through the federally run exchange, known as HealthCare.gov.

A separate federal appeals court — the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals — hours later issued its own ruling on a similar case that upheld the subsidies in their entirety.

The conflicting rulings would typically fast-track the matter to the Supreme Court. However, it is likely that the administration will ask the D.C. appeals court to first convene all 11 judges to re-hear that case.

In both instances the government argued that it is obvious that the intent was to include federal subsidies in the Federally run Exchanges if the states refused to do so. But listening to the guy that wrote the bill, the exact opposite is the case. The subsidies were left out on Federally run Exchanges to use as a weapon to either force Republican governors to implement a state exchange or face the voters to explain why they are paying more for health insurance and get no subsidies. The hope of this Democratic bill was to force Republicans to do something they did not want to do.

Now one of the arguments I have not heard made is that on the issue of abortion on Federally run Exchanges. One of the incentives for the Liberal states to jump in and implement exchanges is the ability to mandate expanded coverages such as 100% payment for abortions. And if we follow the same logic the government argued in the two conflicting ruling cases, that the Federal Government steps in and is essentially considered the state for all intents and purposes – something I find preposterous – then what is to stop the Federal government who suddenly finds itself a surrogate for the state from mandating abortion coverage (from Wiki linked above):

Under the law, setting up an exchange gives a state partial discretion on standards and prices of insurance, aside from those specifics set-out in the ACA. For example, those administering the exchange will be able to determine which plans are sold on or excluded from the exchanges, and adjust (through limits on and negotiations with private insurers) the prices on offer. They will also be able to impose higher or state-specific coverage requirements—including whether plans offered in the state are prohibited from covering abortion (making the procedure an out-of-pocket expense) or mandated to cover abortions that a physician determines is medically necessary;

So if the federal government can come in and replace the state in every way, then the same argued consideration as far as subsidies would extend to the other areas of “partial discretion” of the states. And the law could then go around the Obama executive order prohibiting federal funds from paying for abortion.

This must go to the Supreme Court and the 36 states without state run subsidies must stop receiving federal subsidies.

And as Gruber says in the long version of the video, repeal is unlikely to get rid of Obamacare. But neglect in the form of non compliance will cause it to implode in on itself. He uses a 3 legged as an example. The legs are eliminate pre existing conditions, insurance mandates and subsidies. Take away one of the legs and the law collapses. No one is fighting the pre existing condition elimination and the horrific Supreme Court ruling that held the mandates were a tax (and thus constitutional) is gone as a possible tool to kill the law. The last remaining leg is the subsidies. Without them, the law cannot survive. And since 36 states refused to set up exchanges, this is a huge threat to Obamacare’s survival.

With more and more information being unearthed every day about this bill, this is an important battle in the war on healthcare being prosecuted by the Obama Administration.

Update:

My theory is that if the Court rules that Federal Exchanges are essentially State Exchanges for the purpose of the subsidies, then the Feds are, essentially, the state. States are free to mandate abortion coverage, the Feds are not by Executive order. So if the Federal Government becomes a state for subsidies, then the Feds can mandate abortion coverage and also get around the Exec. Order.  Tom White

The Biggest Threat to Obamacare Yet is Right Around the Corner: Halbig vs Burwell

Halbig v. Burwell is based on an illegal action taken by the Internal Revenue Service in 2012

By: C. Steven Tucker  -  Gulag Bound  -  TruthAboutObamacare.com  -  h/t to the NoisyRoom

A case about to be decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit could stop Obamacare dead in its tracks in 34 states. Halbig v. Burwell is based on an illegal action taken by the Internal Revenue Service in 2012. Below I will outline that illegal action and the two sections of the PPACA (Obamacare) that are relevant in this case.

State-based exchanges and federally facilitated exchanges

Section 1311 of the PPACA describes state-based health insurance exchanges. That section outlines the powers granted to the IRS to provide APTC – “Advance Premium Tax Credits” (a.k.a. ‘subsidies’) that will be used to artificially lower the high cost of health insurance offered in a state-based exchange. Tied to those APTC’s is also the power granted to the IRS to levy a $2,000 or $3,000 excise tax (non-tax deductible) on all employers with 50 or more full-time employees (first 30 employees waived) if they do not provide PPACA approved health insurance. This is a lot of new power granted to the IRS and this is the primary reason the IRS is hiring thousands of new agents.

Section 1321 of the PPACA describes federally-facilitated exchanges and state-federal partnership exchanges – like the exchange the state of Illinois has chosen to establish. In these types of exchanges, the IRS is granted no authority to provide APTC’s or to levy excise taxes on any employer in that state for not providing PPACA approved health insurance. Since the crafters of the PPACA assumed that every state would willingly establish a state-based exchange, there was no money appropriated for federally-facilitated exchanges.

Thus far 34 states have chosen not to open a state-based health insurance exchange. As such federally-facilitated exchanges have been implemented in those states regardless of the wishes of those state’s legislatures.

The illegal action taken by the IRS

Here’s the kicker, in order to ‘fix’ this legal ‘opt out’ that section 1321 provides to states that choose not to open a state-based exchange. The Internal Revenue Service finalized a proposed rule on the 2 year anniversary of the passage of the PPACA that offers APTC’s -Advance Premium Tax Credits – through exchanges “established under section 1311 OR 1321 of the PPACA. Those six characters—”or 1321?—constitute as Cato’s Michael Cannon correctly describes “an unconstitutional and as such illegal rewriting of the statute.” By issuing tax credits where Congress did not authorize them, this rule triggers billions of dollars in taxpayer provided “subsidies” and imposes excise taxes on employers with 50 or more full-time employees in all 50 states. Whether they have a state-based, state-federal partnership or federally facilitated exchange. Since the IRS is not a Legislative branch, this action was illegal. It was not authorized by Congress and as such it should not stand.

Worse yet, President Obama is following this new proposed rule as if it was codified law. This illegal action taken by the IRS and President Obama’s support of it is the crux of the Halbig v. Burwell case. If the U.S. Court of Appeals upholds the rule of law in this case it will mean the end of Obamacare in 34 states. In turn, it may be the final death blow to an unconstitutional and wildy unpopular law.

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,IRS,Surpreme Court,Burwell,PPACA. ACA,Affordable Care Act,Halbig v. Burwell,Hope,HealthCare Exchanges,Insurance Exchanges,Knowledge Is Power,U.S. Court of Appeals,Standing-Up,Stand-Up America,Law,Taxpayers

Are You a Potential Plaintiff in an Anti-Obamacare Lawsuit? Please Respond by January 31, 2014

Nationwide Alert

By: C. Steven Tucker
Gulag Bound – Cross-Posted at the NoisyRoom and AskMarion

TheTruthAboutPreexistingConditions.com

The Illinois Policy Institute has teamed up with the Liberty Justice Center to seek plaintiffs for a lawsuit against the PPACA – Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – a.k.a. “Obamacare”. It will take every legal and legislative avenue at their disposal to stop Obamacare. Your information will be totally confidential, and there is no cost involved.

They’re looking for people to join a lawsuit that will challenge an IRS rule that extends Obamacare health insurance subsidies and the Obamacare “employer mandate” to states like Illinois where they shouldn’t apply because the state government hasn’t established its own insurance exchange.

As a result of this unlawful IRS rule, many people who would otherwise be exempt from the Obamacare individual mandate will be forced to buy insurance they don’t want. You may be eligible to participate in their lawsuit if you:

• Are a resident of Illinois or any of the following states: AL, AK, AZ, AR, DE, FL, GA, ID, IN, IA, KS, LA, ME, MI, MS, MO, MT, NE, NH, NJ, NC, ND, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WV, WI, or WY;
• Are ineligible for Medicaid;
• Have not been offered Obamacare-compliant health benefits from an employer;
• Are a nonsmoker;
• Have a household income between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level in 2014 ($11,490 to $45,960 for a single person — see this chart for other household sizes); and
• Do not want to buy insurance for 2015 or, if you are 30 or over, either do not want to buy insurance or plan to purchase a catastrophic plan for 2015.

If you meet these criteria and are interested in helping us take our case to court — at no cost to you — please call Jacob Huebert at 312.263.7668, extension 219 or email him at jhuebert@libertyjusticecenter.org.

Fill out this short survey to get started. Please respond no later than Friday, January 31, 2014

————-

State-based exchanges and federally facilitated exchanges

Section 1311 of the PPACA describes state-based health insurance exchanges. That section outlines the powers granted to the IRS to provide APTC – “Advance Premium Tax Credits” (a.k.a. ‘subsidies’) that will be used to artificially lower the high cost of health insurance offered in a state-based exchange. Tied to those APTC’s is also the power granted to the IRS to levy a $2,000 or $3,000 excise tax (non-tax deductible) on all employers with 50 or more full-time employees (first 30 employees waived) if they do not provide PPACA approved health insurance. This is a lot of new power granted to the IRS and this is the primary reason the IRS is hiring thousands of new agents.

Section 1321 of the PPACA describes federally-facilitated exchanges and state-federal partnership exchanges – like the exchange the state of Illinois has chosen to establish. In these types of exchanges, the IRS is granted no authority to provide APTC’s or to levy excise taxes on any employer in that state for not providing PPACA approved health insurance. Since the crafters of the PPACA assumed that every state would willingly establish a state-based exchange, there was no money appropriated for federally-facilitated exchanges. Thus far 34 states have chosen not to open a state-based health insurance exchange.

The illegal action taken by the IRS

Here’s the kicker, in order to ‘fix’ this legal ‘opt out’ that section 1321 provides to states that choose not to open a state-based exchange. The Internal Revenue Service finalized a proposed rule on the 2 year anniversary of the passage of the PPACA that offers APTC’s -Advance Premium Tax Credits – through exchanges “established under section 1311 OR 1321 of the PPACA. Those six characters—”or 1321?—constitute an unconstitutional and as such illegal rewriting of the statute. By issuing tax credits where Congress did not authorize them, this rule also triggers APTC’s “subsidies” and imposes excise taxes on employers with 50 or more full-time employees in all 50 states with either a state-based, state-federal partnership or federally facilitated exchange. Since the IRS is not a Legislative branch, this action was an illegal action not authorized by Congress and it must not stand.

Worse yet President Obama is following that new proposed rule that was written by the IRS as if it was codified law. This illegal action and President Obama’s support of it has prompted Oklahoma Attorney General E. Scott Pruitt to amend his lawsuit to include a section that sues the IRS for illegally writing new law and granting itself power that it was not granted in the PPACA as originally written. Read more about Mr. Pruitt’s lawsuit here. Mr. Pruitt sat down with Fox News’ Sean Hannity to discuss the progress of his pending case against the IRS on December 6, 2013. Watch the interview below:

Video: OK Attorney General Scott Pruitt on Fox News "Hannity"

As of May 28, 2013 here’s where the numbers stand:

• Committed to a state-based exchange: 17 states and Washington, D.C. (described in section 1311)
• Planning for a partnership exchange: 7 states (described in section 1321)
• No to state-based exchange. Defaulting to Federal Exchange: 27 states (described in section 1321)

I recently commented about this illegal action taken by the IRS for Champion News talk radio on Chicago’s AM560TheAnswer radio:

 

Video: The IRS and Obamacare - 3

Technorati Tags: Alerts,Constitution,Financial,Politics,Survival,Taxation,ObamaCare,IRS,ACA,APTC,Taxes,Tax-Credits,Lawsuit,PPACA,Exchanges,Hannity,Pre-Existing Conditions,Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

The GOP’s Grandfather Weapon

Daily Caller: ‘If You Like Your Obamacare, You Can Keep Your Obamacare’: I don’t quite understand the new, near-unanimous Dem line on Obamacare – which is that because it has signed up a few million people, many previously uninsured, it is now somehow invulnerable to repeal. From WaPo:

“A fundamental political shift happened on January 1 because millions of Americans now have health insurance,” said Dan Pfeiffer, an Obama senior adviser. “The Republican strategy now means taking that insurance away. It was all theoretical until now, and the Republican repeal plan is no longer politically viable.” [E.A.]

It may be true, as the New York Times hopefully declared, that “[o]nce a benefit has been bestowed, it is nearly impossible to take it away” (though there are a million or so Americans who’ve been receiving long-term unemployment benefits who might want to argue the point). But there’s a traditional political solution to this Take Away Problem, namely the “grandfather clause.”

It wouldn’t be hard for Republican repealers to write a law that got rid of Obamacare while somehow keeping those few million who’ve signed up on some form of similar insurance. “If you like your Obamacare you can keep your Obamacare.” Exchange policies could be converted to non-exchange policies in a special, no-new-enrollments program, for example. Over time, attrition would whittle this grandfathered class down to trivial size–a process with which you’d think Obamacare’s architects would be familiar.

I don’t know if Obamacare will survive or not. Even its cockiest defenders, now whistling past the graveyard of missed deadlines, concede** that (as one of them, Josh Marshall, puts it) if “the mix of young and old people, healthy and sick” is “significantly out of whack you’ll have problems.”*** Problems that include, in Greg Sargent’s words, the possibility that “insurers pull out, and the exchanges collapse.”

But I do know that if Obamacare isn’t repealed it won’t be because two (or ten) million people in a country of 300 million have already signed up.

P.S.: Its also possible that Obamacare, instead of collapsing, will become a long term, slow-bleeding, painfully unpopular policy wound, as millions more middle class Americans who don’t qualify for subsidies get shunted into the individual market where they have to buy policies that offer them less for more. It’s not clear that this outcome is better, politically, for the Democrats.

P.P.S.: You want a health care benefit that would be nearly impossible to take away, or to grandfather? Extending Medicare to age 55 would have been more or less impossible to take away, even by grandfathering (i.e. by continuing Medicare for existing 55 year olds but denying it to new 55 year olds). Just sayin’.

_____

**– Marshall also downplays the non-payment problem –i.e. the possibility that many of the 2 million who’ve signed up on the exchanges “won’t end up paying their premiums.” He says GOPs who make this argument are “dead-enders” in an “intense form of denial.” But the non-payment threat seems like a reasonable worry for supporters of the law as well as a source of hope for opponents.

***– I favor a more panicked, pro-active approach that accepts the need for reasonably big fixes (e.g. fewer mandatory benefits). Letting Americans know improvements (if necessary) are planned might in turn help build confidence and boost enrollment.

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,Grandfather Clause,GOP,ObamaCare Alternatives,Stand-Up,Exchanges

Sharyl Attkisson told on Obamacare enrollment figures: ‘There aren’t any’

Twitchy Team:

CBS Evening News ✔ @CBSEveningNews

We're on the air in the East. Now @SharylAttkisson has new documents on the health care debacle from the government's war room.

3:30 PM - 31 Oct 2013

Obamacare Enrollment:

Oct 1 - 6 people  -  That’s right!   a  total number of 6 folks signed up for Obamacare on Day 1

Oct 2 - 100

Oct 3 -  248

 

Video:  CBS News: 6 - total number of folks who signed up for Obamacare on Day 1

(CBS News) WASHINGTON - For 31 days now, the Obama administration has been telling us that Americans by the millions are visiting the new health insurance website, despite all its problems.

But no one in the administration has been willing to tell us how many policies have been purchased, and this may be the reason: CBS News has learned enrollments got off to an incredibly slow start.

Early enrollment figures are contained in notes from twice-a-day "war room" meetings convened within the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services after the website failed on Oct. 1. They were turned over in response to a document request from the House Oversight Committee.

The website launched on a Tuesday. Publicly, the government said there were 4.7 million unique visits in the first 24 hours. But at a meeting Wednesday morning, the war room notes say "six enrollments have occurred so far."

They were with BlueCross BlueShield North Carolina and Kansas City, CareSource and Healthcare Service Corporation.

By Wednesday afternoon, enrollments were up to "approximately 100." By the end of Wednesday, the notes reflect "248 enrollments" nationwide.

The health care exchanges need to average 39,000 enrollees a day to meet the goal of seven million by March 1. The war room notes give a glimpse into some of the reasons customers had problems:

• "Direct enrollment (signing up directly on an insurer's website) is not working for any issuers."
• "Experian" credit reporting agency is "creating confusion with credit check information."
• "Issuer phone numbers are not appearing correctly on the Pay Now page."

The notes leave no doubt that some enrollment figures, which the administration has chosen to keep secret, are available.

"Statistics coming in," said notes from the very first meeting the morning of Oct. 2. Contractor "QSSI has a daily dashboard created every night."

But head of CMS Marilyn Tavenner would not disclose any figures when Rep. Dave Camp, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, asked earlier this week.

"Chairman Camp, we will have those numbers available in mid-November," she said.

Health and Human Services told CBS News Thursday it's in no position to confirm or discuss enrollment figures because it doesn't have any. A spokesman suggested the numbers obtained by CBS News may not include all the different ways to enroll, such as paper applications. The spokesman also said that enrollment figures in Massachusetts' health care plan started off negligible but then skyrocketed as a deadline neared.

HealthCare-Gov.pdf by CBSPolitics

Kathleen Sebelius: I Don't Work For The People Calling For Me To Resign Over Obamacare… Really? That Is You and Me She Works For!

Video:  Judge Jeanine Pirro - Sebelius: I Don't Work For The People Calling For Me To Resign - Obamacare

 

Video: Kathleen Sebelius Refuses To Take Personal Responsibility

Judge Jeanine Pirro – Opening Statement – DESTROYS Obama Administration on Obamacare Disaster – 10/26/13 [video]

Technorati Tags: Kathleen Sebelius,HHS,ObamaCare,ObamaCare Lies,ObamaCare Rollout,Repeal and Replace ObamaCare,Socialized Medicine,Single Payer,Fox News,Manipulation of the public,Lies,Doctor Shortages,Death Panels,ObamaCare Costs,ObamaCare Surprises,Megyn Kelly,Judge Jeanine Pirro,Obamaland

ObamaCare… Like a Restaurant Where the Owners, Chefs, Workers and Their Families Refuse to Eat…

ObamaCare… Like a Restaurant Where the Owners, Chefs, Workers and Their Families Refuse to Eat…

By Marion Algier – Ask Marion

Would you really eat in a restaurant, trusting their food or service, where the owners, chefs, workers and their families refuse to eat?  Of course you wouldn’t.  Nobody would, but that is what the Democrats, some GOP establishment career politicians and the Obama administration and their staffs are asking you to do.

They are asking, no mandating, that you to sign up and subject yourself and your family’s health, and in many cases losing better coverage, for healthcare coverage that they refuse to sign up for and be covered by themselves.

The so-called tea party Republicans, who are following their constituents wishes, but have now pretty much backed away from all their demands about the budget and upcoming debt ceiling raise, in what seems like their 20th compromise when the left has refused to negotiate or compromise on anything, were willing to pass and extend the budget and debt ceiling negotiations for several months with a clean bill, except for one provision… The Republicans attached the Vitter amendment (DeSantis bill in the House) which would demand that the House of Representatives, the Senate, the White House and their staffs and federal appointees would have to sign up for and live under the same ObamaCare bill that we all will have to suffer under, without any extra provisions or exemptions.  The Democrats’, RINOs’ and administration’s response:  NO…!

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) (KEVIN DIETSCH/UPI/Newscom)

The Vitter Amendment on Obamacare: Senate Liberals’ Curious Complaint

The Foundry:

Last week (mid-September) Senator David Vitter (R–LA) proposed an amendment that would end exemptions for White House political appointees and stop illegal taxpayer subsidies for Congress and staff enrolled in Obamacare’s new health insurance exchanges. In other words, political appointees, Members of Congress, and their staffs would receive the same coverage and be eligible for subsidies available to every other American enrolled in the exchanges. No special deals.

On September 17, Senator Dick Durbin (D–IL) charged that Vitter’s proposed amendment was “unfair” because it would eliminate the employer payment for Members of Congress and 16,000 congressional staffers.

But this is a curious complaint. In 2010, Senator Durbin and all other Senate Democrats voted—lockstep—for final passage of Obamacare, which included Section 1312, which ended Members’ access to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and instead placed them into the Obamacare health insurance exchanges. Without access to employer coverage, there is no employer subsidy—not for Congress and not for any other worker dumped out of job-based coverage into the exchanges. That’s the law.

Durbin also tries to use Vitter’s vote for an amendment (Amendment No. 3564) offered by Senator Chuck Grassley (R–IA) during debate over Obamacare to undermine his current efforts. Yes, Vitter voted for the amendment. The amendment would have put the President, his appointees, Congress, and staff into the exchanges but would have preserved the government contributions for Congress and staff in the new exchanges.

Here’s the catch: Senator Durbin voted against the Grassley amendment, as did Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV), Senator Barbara Boxer (D–CA), and 53 other Senate Democrats. (See The Congressional Record, March 24, 2010, p. S1996.) In other words, these Senators voted to protect the President and his appointees from their own law but also voted to remove the employer contribution to Congress and their staff. Yet these Senators now oppose it.

Senate liberals say they like Obamacare. If that’s the case, it is only reasonable for them to want to make sure they get what they like on the same exact terms and conditions as every other American enrolled in the exchanges, as put forth by Senator Vitter.

So why wouldn’t the Democrats from both Houses of Congress (as well as the Establishment RINO GOP) vote for the Republican’s compromise and embrace ObamaCare on the same terms the American people are getting… the terms they voted for?  And if they aren’t why should the American people?

Why?  Because our politicians know it is a bad plan, bad coverage, certainly worse and more expensive if you compare apples to apples, than they have now, and it opens them up to the same IRS mandates and access into all their records and information.  It also opens them up to having a non-medically trained review board tell them which services they will and will not get… essentially death panels.  But although they don’t want it, it is good enough for the rest of us in their book.  After all what better advertisement for his signature program would there have been than President Obama and Vice President Biden signing themselves and their families up for all to see for the ObamaCare exchanges the day the program opened on October 1st?

Don’t be fooled by the propaganda being fed us through the mainstream media. ObamaCare was never about healthcare, and definitely not about better healthcare, it was always about ideology and control… about the federal government controlling you… all of us!

Just like President Obama and Harry Reid’s refusal to negotiate with the Republicans has nothing to do with what is good for the country or even the budget, or even the truth for that matter, it is about demonizing the Republicans so that the Progressive Democrats win the next election… so they can maintain their control of you!!

Do your homework and then you be the judge… But in my kitchen, the cook eats his own food and no matter how the present shutdown ends... Our politicians still don't want to eat theirs!

Technorati Tags: CR,Vitter,ObamaCare,Politicians,Congress,Healthcare,Restaurant,Democrats,Obamaland,Division,DeSantis,Sheeple,Common Sense,Low-Informed,Voters,Americans,RINOs,MSM,Exchanges,double standard,Reid,Control,Let Them Eat Cake,Congressional Record,Progressives,Washington D.C.

ObamaCare… And So It Begins: Exchange Leaks Private Information of 2,400 People in Minnesota

Freedom Outpost:  Please view the short video below and see how incompetent the ObamaCare system really is, and this is only the tip of the joke on us, the citizens who pay the taxes!  Between the incompetence and the corruption behind this plan we are doomed if we don’t find a way to get rid of it!!

Last month, an employee of MNsure, Minnesota's Obamacare exchange, accidentally sent an unencrypted email to the wrong person.  The email contained the private information of over two thousand people, and went to a local insurance broker.

The broker, Jim Koester, deleted the information, and later reported it, but the incident was a striking illustration of the insecurity of the Obamacare system.  The data included names, addresses and Social Security numbers, as well as other information.  As Koester told the Minnesota Star Tribune, "What if this had fallen into the wrong hands?  It's scary.  If this is happening now, how can clients of MNsure be confident that their data is safe?"

Though the majority of Americans were ideologically skeptical of Obamacare when it was initially passed, it has been developments in the past few months which have illustrated practical problems with the program's implementation.  Members of Congress and experts have been concerned for weeks about database integrity and design flaws, as well as the selection of employees trusted with the data.

The incident also compounds concerns Obamacare critics have expressed since the beginning about the program's data mining.  As long as it's stored at a state level, doctors are encouraged to ask very private information about individuals.  The data does not only include identifiers such as name, address and SSN, but also income, citizenship status, tax information, family size, citizenship, health plan enrollment, incarceration status and even gun ownership.

Some of this data cannot be stored at the federal level, but it can be stored at the state level and used by the federal government at any time.  The fact that the system, called the Hub, is run by thousands of unvetted, low level federal employees, who can easily access it for their own gain or spread it to others unintentionally, only adds to that concern.  The recent NSA and IRS scandals have shown how willing the government is to abuse its possession of such information, and Obamacare has now revealed how insecure this possession is.

This leak – and the similar ones which will inevitably follow – also comes at a time in which this data can impact people's lives most strongly.  Not only can leaks lead to identity theft, they can lead to the publishing of information which leads to simple conflict which would not otherwise happen.  In 2009, for instance, Wikileaks – which relies almost exclusively on leaks by government employees – published the membership list of the controversial British National Party, which remains online today and has led to firings.

Obamacare's collection and storing of data on private citizens is wrong, but the fact that it is handled with such irresponsibility is unconscionable.  The October 1 MNsure leak was a perfect illustration of this problem, and a situation which will likely be repeated with less benign results.  As Democrats refuse to make any compromise whatsoever on ObamaCare, it's worthwhile to note the severe problems, both ideological and practical, of the system.

Ben Swann warned the public on this risk. See article here.  Unfortunately the possibility of American's personal data being breached in this massive Government program has now become a reality.

And if you think these leaks, glitches and related incompetence is bad… wait until you get to the actual healthcare glitches and problems including the panels of non-medical personnel who will decide if you and your family even get the treatments that you need, even after you pay the higher premiums.

Video: Ben Swann Truth in Media: ObamaCare Navigators Won't Have To Pass Background Checks

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,Navigators,Leaks,Get-Involved,Alert,DataHub,HealthCare,IRS,MNsure,Wake-up,NSA,Minnesota,incompetence,Glitches,Healthcare,Taxes,Exchanges,Insurance

ObamaCare Cost Increases Shocking to Many…

Fabulous Obamacare Success Stories

EIB: BEGIN 10.03.13 TRANSCRPT

RUSH: James Taranto, the Wall Street Journal, has a story of a guy named Brendan Mahoney, who did succeed. It's a Hartford Courant story, and this guy's being joked about as the man who saved Obamacare. The subhead is: "Great news! They got a 30-year-old dude to sign up!" And here are the details. "Meet Brendan Mahoney, the young man who is saving ObamaCare. He's 30 years old, a third-year law student at the University of Connecticut. He's actually been insured for the past three years -- in 2011 and 2012 through a $2,400-a-year school-sponsored health plan." So he's already got insurance and he went to the exchange. This year he is insured "through 'a high-deductible, low-premium plan that cost about $39 a month through a UnitedHealthcare subsidiary.'" But even though he already had plan, at 39 bucks a month, "he wanted to see what ObamaCare had to offer."

"He tried logging in to the exchange's website at 8:45 a.m. yesterday, which is impressive in itself. Most young people don't get up that early. 'He said the system could not verify his identity.'" He's got insurance, don't forget. He's paying $39 a month through a United Health Care subsidiary, high deductible, low premium plan, school-sponsored health plan. When the system couldn't verify his identity, "he called the toll-free help line, whose operator also encountered computer trouble. 'But then he logged on a second time, he said, and the system worked.'"

He told the Hartford Courant, "'Once it got running, it was fast. It really made my day. It's a lot like TurboTax.' He obtained insurance through ObamaCare. Now, he says, 'if I get sick, I'll definitely go to the doctor.' Even better, if he stays healthy, he won't need to go to a doctor, and his premiums will support chronically ill policyholders on the wrong side of 40."

This is the guy, this is what they're looking for. Now, hang in there with me, folks. This is not over. This is exactly what they're looking for, a 30-year-old healthy guy to sign up and pay the freight so that nanaw and grandpa can be treated. They're looking for 30-year-olds who are not gonna get sick, not gonna put any financial strain on the system. They pay the premium, they pay the freight. This guy had a premium of 39 bucks. He wanted to see if he could beat that on Obamacare, and he did.

"So, how much of a premium is strapping young Brendan Mahoney paying to help make ObamaCare work? Oops. The Courant reports that Mahoney 'said that by filling out the application online, he discovered he was eligible for Medicaid.'" So 30-year-old strapping, healthy dude, Brendan Mahoney, beginning next year will not pay any premium at all because Obamacare, the exchange, told him, based on the way he filled out the data, that he is eligible for Medicaid.

What a fabulous success story for Obamacare's first day. Here we have a future lawyer -- remember, now, this guy is I think a 3L at the University of Connecticut. He was gonna be a lawyer, might still be a lawyer. He was already paying for insurance, and he's been converted into a welfare case. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the objective. When you strip it all away, this shows how all of this is really designed to work.

Now, on the surface -- and everything I've told you here is true -- this 30-year-old guy signs up, he's paying a premium of $39, but, you know, he's curious. He's a tech savvy guy. He wanted to find out what it was all about. Maybe he could beat the 39 bucks. So he fills out all the necessary forms, inputs all the data, and he finds out at age 30 he qualifies for Medicaid, and therefore he's become a welfare case.

So this 30-year-old guy -- and hopefully, theoretically millions like him who are gonna be signing up and paying all these premiums so that nanaw and grandpa can get health coverage and treatment, qualified for Medicaid. So a 30-year-old guy -- who was gonna be a lawyer, so you figure he's got some decent earning power -- has been converted by Obamacare into a welfare case. And he didn't pull any strings. He didn't know anybody. He didn't ask for special treatment. This is just what the system spat out.

So now he doesn't have pay 39 bucks. Now he can get rid of that health plan he's got at school. At 30 years of age, he discovered he was eligible for Medicaid. He's a healthy guy. I is a joke here that they're saying, "Here we have great news, a 30-year-old guy signed up," because the story is nobody's been able to sign up. But lo and be, "Hey, we got a guy!" You know, the regime can tell everyone, "We got a guy! We got a guy! It's this guy in Old Clayneck, Connecticut, 30 years old. Look at this, what we did here. We got a guy! We got a guy.

"He's exactly who we want to sign up here," and Obamacare turned him into a welfare case. They turned him into a ward of the state. A guy that's gonna be a lawyer, is gonna have decent earning power is now a Medicaid recipient. "Oh, come on, Rush! It's just a first-year glitch. These things will get ironed out." A little companion story here from the Washington Free Beacon. "Health insurance premiums for young people will rise in all 50 states under Obamacare, with an average increase of 260 percent, according to a study released Thursday.

"The young and healthy segment of the uninsured is considered crucial for the Affordable Care Act to succeed. Former President Bill Clinton suggested last week that Obamacare only works 'if young people show up.'" Well, what the hell, folks? Here we got this young guy that showed up and the system made him a Medicaid recipient. He didn't game it. He is just going through the process and found out that he qualified for Medicaid -- and I'm telling you, in my not so cynical opinion, I think that is the long-0term objective is to turn everybody into a welfare case in this country, folks.

That's the long-term objective of not just Obamacare, but of the Democrat Party. Turn everybody into a dependents. Make everybody dependent on government for things they consider really important, like their health care. Here's another one. The Associated Press: "A Bumpy First Day for New Affordable Care Act Insurance Marketplaces -- The technical trouble couldn't dampen the relief Hussein Daoud felt for himself, his wife and their six children. The 51-year-old Detroit man came to apply for insurance at the Dearborn-based nonprofit organization ACCESS. With the help of counselors, he learned that his annual income of $14,500 made him eligible for Medicaid, and he likely won't have to pay for a plan that covers his family."

He's 51 years old. He, his wife, and six children -- and an annual income of $14,500? What in the world...? (interruption) Yeah, eight people for free, but before you get there, how are eight people getting by on his $14,500 annual income? Well, I know. Food stamps and all the other stuff, but so eight people in Dearbornistan go in to sign up and he end up becoming wards of the state. Health care for them is free as well, in addition to the strapping young 30-year-old Brendan Mahoney in Connecticut. (laughing)

On one hand, this is the biggest collection of Keystone Cops and incompetence running. On the other hand, this is a really, really profoundly dangerous thing that's happening here. But there's a part of me that, I'm sorry, cannot suppress my laughter at raging... I know you might think it's a conflict to call them incompetent when they're registering all these wards of the state. I am here to tell you, folks, that they did not intend for 30-year-olds to be comped. That was never part of the plan. That's who is going to have to pay. How in the world...?

The way that they make those people wards of the state is take all of their disposable income in the form of health care premiums and make them dependent in other ways. But they do need money flowing into the system. They do need some people paying premiums, and they can't get by with just the rich paying premiums; there isn't enough money there to cover everybody. So they need these strapping, young, 30-year-old guys and women, who aren't gonna get sick, paying into the system -- and the system's converting 'em to welfare recipients. (Raspberry) Hee-hee-hee-hee-hee.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here's Lee, New York City. Lee, it's great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: How are you? Hey, you spoke about the Obamacare success story with 30-year-old guy in law school getting a free ride.

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: They're probably tickled pink about this because what's gonna happen in a few years or less than that this guy starts earning six figures and he's stuck in the program? Hello, premiums!

RUSH: Now, that's a good point. He's talking about the first story I had in the Stack today, a Hartford Courant story about Brendan, some 30-year-old law student at University of Connecticut. He is in, folks, an insurance plan right now at school where he has a $39 a month premium. So he went to the Obama exchange in Connecticut on the website, and he got through, and he signed up.

Well, he found out that he qualifies for Medicaid as a college student. He doesn't have any income, not to speak of, so he's poor. So he qualifies for Medicaid. So right now, he doesn't pay anything. Now, the regime... He's 30, still in school. The regime wants people like this guy paying full freight to pay for nanaw and grandma. So people are making a big joke about the fact that this Brendan guy -- a healthy, strapping 30-year-old -- has been converted into a ward of the state by Obamacare.

But Lee's point here is, if this guy finishes school and does become a lawyer and does find a job (and all of those are questionable) then he's no longer qualifying for Medicaid, is he? He won't qualify for Medicaid once he gets a job as a lawyer, 'cause he won't qualify for Medicaid anymore. As Lee points out, this 30-year-old strapping young Brendan guy, he's not gonna like it. He's not gonna like the revelation that his premiums are gonna skyrocket, and that's true. That's gonna be a delayed reaction, because that requires old Brendan to graduate and then find a job at a decent law firm where he hangs his own shingle or what have you.

It's a great point, Lee. I appreciate that.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here's Nancy, Salt Lake City. Hi, Nancy, great to have you on the program. Hi.

CALLER: Hello. Nice to speak with you. Thank you for your time. I'll get right to the point 'cause I know you're busy. I want to tie in your very first story in the first hour and the story in your second hour about the Medicaid. I'm a single mom. I make $5,000 a year. I qualify for Medicaid, but my spend down premium is $460 a month. I am not eligible for any tax credit subsidy because my income is below 100% of the federal poverty level, which is 99% of my household income. This is a mess, it's a chocolate mess.

RUSH: Wait a minute. You make $5,000 a year?

CALLER: Yes. I'm a student and I make $5,000 a year and I'm trying to get out of the toilet.

RUSH: Oh, okay, student. And you don't qualify. You make too little to qualify for poverty?

CALLER: I do qualify. I am 100% below the federal poverty level.

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: But for me to have Medicaid I have to pay the state of Utah $460 a month.

RUSH: Well, how did this clown in Connecticut get onto Obamacare and he's not gonna pay anything?

CALLER: Exactly, and he doesn't even have a child that he has to raise.

RUSH: Well, not that we know of.

CALLER: Well, that's true, too.

RUSH: Not that he knows of.

CALLER: I'm still trying to see the future pay-in, you know. But, anyway, so I'm not available for any tax credit subsidies that they claim that the poor people get to help them --

RUSH: This is incredible. So people at or below 100% of the poverty line cannot get Obamacare subsidies?

CALLER: Correct. You are correct. I have it right here in black and white. I do not qualify for any of the subsidy. But yet they want 99% of my household --

RUSH: You know, I could be really insensitive and say, "Welcome to my world."

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: But I wouldn't do that.

CALLER: But that's okay.

RUSH: I'm not doing that, Dawn, don't shake your head. I wasn't doing that. I told her I could, but I wouldn't. I'm not doing that. I just want you to know I don't get subsidies, either.

CALLER: Yeah. It blows you away, doesn't it, how this Obamacare is supposed to help the poor and --

RUSH: Yes, I know.

CALLER: -- blah, blah, blah.

RUSH: I did not know that you could be too poor to qualify for Obamacare. You're supposed to get Medicaid, but you have to pay $460 bucks a month did you say for Medicaid?

CALLER: Correct.

RUSH: That doesn't sound like it makes any sense. Anyway, I've gotta run. I'm outta time. I'm very sorry, Nancy, but that we'll have to look into. Don't go away, folks. Be right back.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I don't understand having to pay $400 a month for Medicaid. I've never heard of that before. I'm not challenging what she said; I just haven't heard about it.

END TRANSCRIPT

Obamacare To Double Cost Of Insurance For Average Californian

Originally Posted 06/02/2013 22:18 –0400 at ZeroHedge

Last week, the state of California claimed that its version of Obamacare’s health insurance exchange would actually reduce premiums. But, as Forbes reports, the data that the executive director of California's 'exchange' released tells a different story: Obamacare, in fact, will increase individual-market premiums in California by as much as 146 percent. The exuberance that Peter Lee exclaimed over the 'savings' is a misleading comparison. He was comparing apples - the plans that Californians buy today for themselves in a robust individual market-and oranges - the highly regulated plans that small employers purchase for their workers as a group. If you're a 25 year old male non-smoker, buying insurance for yourself, the cheapest plan on Obamacare’s exchanges is the catastrophic plan, which costs an average of $184 a month; but in 2013, on eHealthInsurance.com, Forbes explains, the median cost of the five cheapest plans was only $92. In other words, for the typical 25-year-old male non-smoking Californian, Obamacare will drive premiums up by between 100 and 123 percent. The desperate spin of the PR disaster is incredible as talk of a 'rate shock' is now very prescient, "these extraordinary increases are up to 15 times faster than inflation and threaten to make health care unaffordable for hundreds of thousands of Californians."

Via Forbes,

Last week, the state of California claimed that its version of Obamacare’s health insurance exchange would actually reduce premiums. “These rates are way below the worst-case gloom-and-doom scenarios we have heard,” boasted Peter Lee, executive director of the California exchange. But the data that Lee released tells a different story: Obamacare, in fact, will increase individual-market premiums in California by as much as 146 percent.

...

“The rates submitted to Covered California for the 2014 individual market,” the state said in a press release, “ranged from two percent above to 29 percent below the 2013 average premium for small employer plans in California’s most populous regions.”

That’s the sentence that led to all of the triumphant commentary from the left. “This is a home run for consumers in every region of California,” exulted Peter Lee.

Except that Lee was making a misleading comparison. He was comparing apples—the plans that Californians buy today for themselves in a robust individual market—and oranges—the highly regulated plans that small employers purchase for their workers as a group. The difference is critical.

...

If you’re a 25 year old male non-smoker, buying insurance for yourself, the cheapest plan on Obamacare’s exchanges is the catastrophic plan, which costs an average of $184 a month.

... But in 2013, on eHealthInsurance.com (NASDAQ:EHTH), the median cost of the five cheapest plans was only $92.

In other words, for the typical 25-year-old male non-smoking Californian, Obamacare will drive premiums up by between 100 and 123 percent.

...

Obamacare’s impact on 40-year-olds is steepest in the San Francisco Bay area, especially in the counties north of San Francisco, like Marin, Napa, and Sonoma. Also hard-hit are Orange and San Diego counties.

...

How did Lee and his colleagues explain the sleight-of-hand they used to make it seem like they were bringing prices down, instead of up? “It is difficult to make a direct comparison of these rates to existing premiums in the commercial individual market,” Covered California explained in last week’s press release, “because in 2014, there will be new standard benefit designs under the Affordable Care Act.” That’s a polite way of saying that Obamacare’s mandates and regulations will drive up the cost of premiums in the individual market for health insurance.

But rather than acknowledge that truth, the agency decided to ignore it completely, instead comparing Obamacare-based insurance to a completely different type of insurance product, that bears no relevance to the actual costs that actual Californians face when they shop for coverage today. Peter Lee calls it a “home run.” It’s more like hitting into a triple play.

Everyone needs to go through the process of finding out what ObamaCare will cost them and then send the quote on to your Congressman and Senator… and ask them Why?  What happened to the promises?!?

Related:

Anyone Who Is Buying That the Republicans in the House Are Unreasonable Needs to Read This… NR: 100 Unintended Consequences of ObamaCare

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,ObamaCare Costs,ObamaCare Mandates,California,ACA,Medicaid,Rush,EIB

Blue Cross, Aetna, United, Humana Flee Obamacare Exchanges

CBSNews: Major health insurance companies – Blue Cross, Aetna, United, Humana – have fled the Obamacare health care exchanges in various states, which are scheduled to start on Oct. 1st, 2014.

Insurance companies like Aetna and United have said, “thanks, but no thanks” to the public health insurance marketplace set up under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), or Obamacare, which will facilitate government subsidies to individuals and small businesses to buy approved health plans to comply with the law.

The ACA requires every American to have health insurance, or pay a penalty.  Individuals who are not covered by their employer can enroll in the state or federal government-run health care “marketplace,” which will provide subsidies to individuals between 100 and 400 percent of the poverty line.

Aetna, a fortune 100 company with $34.2 billion in revenue, has pulled out of public exchanges in three states, and will not be part of the individual health insurance exchange in its home base, Connecticut.

Founded in Hartford, Conn., in 1850, Aetna withdrew its application to participate in the state on Monday, due to high rates proposed by state regulators, the Hartford Courant reported.

“We have spent considerable time identifying those states in which we can be competitive and add the most value to the market,” Aetna said in a statement.  “As a result of our analysis, we have reluctantly concluded that we will withdraw certain Individual Exchange filings for 2014, including filings in Connecticut, Georgia and Maryland.”

“This is not a step taken lightly, and was made as part of a national review of our Exchange strategy,” the company said.  “Unfortunately, we believe the modifications to the rates filed by Aetna will not allow us to collect enough premiums to cover the cost of the plans and meet the service expectations of our customers.”

California

Aetna will also not participate in California’s exchange, and a spokesperson told CNSNews.com that the company never intended to do so.

(AP Photo)

“We did not withdraw exchange plans in California, as we never planned participation nor filed [Qualified Health Plans] QHPs to participate in the California exchange,” a spokesperson said.

Anthem Blue Cross has withdrawn from its bid to participate in the state’s small business exchange, as well.

United Health Group, the largest health insurer in the United States, has also taken a pass on the Golden State’s individual insurance market under Obamacare.

As a result, roughly 8,000 policyholders will be left searching for new insurance.

Aetna will stop selling individual insurance policies in California all together, leaving nearly 50,000 existing policyholders to find new coverage by January.

‘If You Like Your Doctor,’ Hope Your Insurer Is Participating in the Exchange

“No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period,” Obama said on June 15, 2009.

“If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period," he said.  "No one will take it away. No matter what.”

That promise, however, has been revised by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which now says, “you may be able to keep your current doctor” in the health insurance marketplace.

“Most health insurance plans offered in the Marketplace have networks of hospitals, doctors, specialists, pharmacies, and other health care providers,” HHS said on its website for the health reform law.  “Networks include health care providers that the plan contracts with to take care of the plan’s members.”

“Depending on the type of policy you buy, care may be covered only when you get it from a network provider,” they said.

President Barack Obama signs the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) into law on Mar. 23, 2010. (AP)

With insurers opting out of state-run health exchanges, individuals are left with less options.

Only three companies remain in Connecticut’s “Access Health CT” exchange, following Aetna’s departure.

Similarly, only five plans are participating in the exchange in Georgia, after Aetna and Coventry Health Insurance dropped out last week.

The Savannah Morning News noted that this will “leave residents of some parts of the state with limited choice.”

Two of the three largest health insurers in Wisconsin will also not participate in the state’s online marketplace under Obamacare, it was announced on Wednesday.

Though they will not participate in at least four state-run exchanges, Aetna said they “appreciate” the opportunity to work with state regulators on complying with the ACA.

“We have appreciated the chance to work with the regulators in each state for the past months on a variety of key issues regarding ACA implementation,” Aetna said in a statement.  “We will continue to work with them, and various Exchange leadership teams, as we evaluate exchange participation in future years.”

CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like NPR. CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like PBS.

**More and more politicians, unions, insurance companies and people who have read the bill are calling ObamaCare a ‘trainwreck’.

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,Defund ObamaCare,Blue Cross,Aetna,United,Humana NPR,PBS,ObamaCare Exchanges,trainwreck,insurance exchanges,healthcare exchanges,ACA,Affordable Care Act

Obamacare Desperation: Meeting With Celebs Who’ll Never Use It To Push It

Pirate’s Cove: And then Hollywood and other entertainment will be surprised when their shows tank because people come to be entertained, not bombarded with political propaganda

(CNN) President Barack Obama, hoping to pitch his signature health care law to younger Americans, will get some help from a cadre of Hollywood stars who have volunteered to help promote Obamacare’s insurance exchanges that open on October 1.

One has to wonder why he and others have to “pitch” it at all. Isn’t it “The Law”? The young folks, who mostly voted “Obama”, have no choice but to either enroll or pay a fine/tax.

At a meeting at the White House Monday, a group that included singer Jennifer Hudson and actors Kal Penn and Amy Poehler heard Obama extol the benefits his health care law offers young people, whose participation in the exchanges is seen as essential for their long-term viability.

“The President stopped by the meeting to engage artists who expressed an interest in helping to educate the public about the benefits of the health law,” a White House official said. “The reach of these national stars spreads beyond the beltway to fans of their television shows, movies, and music – and the power of these artists to speak through social media is especially critical.”

The meeting, which was led by Obama’s senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, also included representatives for Oprah Winfrey, Alicia Keys, Bon Jovi, YouTube Comedy, Funny or Die and the organizations that put on the annual Grammy and Latin Grammy awards.

Does anyone think that any of these people will actually sign up in the Exchanges themselves? Or do they have their own Cadillac plans?

And when they start pushing O-care people will tune out. The movies and shows with specific liberal politics tend to bomb. No one wants to be patronized, especially by celebs who’ll never enroll in O-care and will do all they can to avoid that “Cadillac tax” on their own high end health insurance plans. If they push this in TV shows, movies, YouTube, you can bet people will avoid those forms of entertainment, particularly since over 50% of the nation is still dead set against Obamacare.

Same goes for the NFL and NBA, along with any other sports, if they decide to push O-care.

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,Obamaland,Hollywood,manipulation of the public,Cadillac tax,celebrities,propaganda,indoctrination,watch the other hand,O-Care,sheeple,Cadillac health plans,socialized medicine for the masses,double standard