Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1. #1 ObamaCare blows half its deadlines 
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,564
    http://www.humanevents.com/2013/08/1...its-deadlines/

    ...Last week, several observers noted that ObamaCare had already missed a third of its legal deadlines. But over the weekend, constant ObamaCare gadfly (and former Mitt Romney campaign adviser) Avik Roy tallied up the failures in a recent Congressional Research Service report and concluded it’s more like half. Roy lays out the scorecard at Forbes:


    The CRS, Congress’ non-partisan in-house think tank, compiled 82 deadlines that the Affordable Care Act mandates upon the first three years of its own implementation. Remarkably, it turns out that the White House has missed half of the deadlines legally required by the ACA. And some of those deadlines remain unmet to this day.

    The CRS tally is quite generous to the ObamaCare commissars, as it includes only the deadlines that were under direct Administration control:



    The new CRS memo, dated June 5, 2013, is an addendum to a series of previous reports in which the agency examined missed deadlines during the law’s first two years. The CRS excluded from its analysis deadlines that don’t reflect on the administration’s competence; for example, as states expand Medicaid, the federal spending associated with those expansions occurs more or less automatically. Deadlines that the law imposes on non-federal government actors, like state governments and private companies, were also excluded.

    Even so, the results of the CRS analysis make the breathtaking scale of ObamaCare’s failure painfully clear. And it doesn’t even include the delays in the employer mandate and out-of-pocket insurance caps, the two most famous blown fuses in the Affordable Care Act system, since they happened after the report was prepared.

    As of May 31, 2013, when the CRS analysis was completed, the White House had yet to meet 9 of 12 deadlines from the first year after the Affordable Care Act was enacted. It failed to meet 22 of 53 deadlines in the second year; another 8 became moot after Congress did not appropriate funds to complete the assigned tasks. In year three, the administration missed 10 out of 17 deadlines. That’s a total of 41 out of 82 deadlines missed.

    If you exclude the 9 deadlines that became moot because Congress never appropriated the funds to meet them, the Obama administration missed 41 out of 73 deadlines, or 56 percent.

    As Roy duly observes, some of these deadlines were for “bureaucratic busywork,” including reports the Secretary of Health and Human Services was required to produce. But to my mind, that makes the level of ObamaCare failure even more remarkable. The Department of Health and Human Services became the most powerful agency on Earth after the implementation of ObamaCare, and its Secretary became the most powerful un-elected bureaucrat the Western world has ever seen. But she couldn’t be bothered to submit reports on time? ObamaCare is already running vastly over budget. Where did all that money go?

    A lot of these missed deadlines have big dollar figures attached to them, so the CRS report is another way of saying that ObamaCare costs a lot more than its proponents claimed it would, while performing far below their promises. But it’s disingenuous to refer to these failures as missing “deadlines,” because there are no consequences. A “deadline” implies that something bad will happen if you don’t meet it. If you miss any of the deadlines ObamaCare imposes on the American people, there will most certainly be consequences. But not even blowing over half the “deadlines” stipulated by the Affordable Care Act makes any difference to the relentless march of ObamaCare. It’s like paying big money for a cable-TV package and being told the installer will show up whenever he damn well feels like it, but in the meantime you’d better not miss your scheduled payments, or else.

    This is another illustration of how ObamaCare deals fatal damage to the rule of law. A “law” that can be safely ignored by the government, while placing iron restrictions on the citizens, is not a “law” at all, at least under the American understanding of the concept. For many years, Western governments have declared despots and dictators to be “illegitimate” rulers of their nations. There’s no way to square ObamaCare with any reasonable definition of legitimate government. It places endless obligations upon citizens, while the Administration feels no reciprocal obligation to obey anything in the Affordable Care Act that it finds inconvenient....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,564
    Over 100K New Jersey Residents to Lose Their Affordable Health Plans under Obamacare

    http://nationalreview.com/corner/356...nder-obamacare

    The latest casualty of Obamacare may be a low-cost New Jersey health-care policy. Though President Obama promised “if you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period,” that will not be the case for approximately 106,000 New Jersey residents whose plans will disappear under the law.

    Known as the “basic and essential,” or B&E, health-care plans, the policy costs as little as a couple hundred dollars per month and is the choice of 71 percent of New Jersey residents on the individual insurance market. It provides minimum coverage for things such as doctor’s visits and procedures that don’t involve a hospital stay. According to the Newark Star-Ledger, B&E policy holders will, under Obamacare, “be left with may be a choice among pricey, pricier and priciest” plans.

    So what happened to the B&E plans? They don’t meet the regulations imposed by the Affordable Care Act because they do not cover services that the law will force every individual health-insurance plan to provide. The Star-Ledger warns that B&E customers who don’t qualify for a federal tax credit to purchase insurance can likely expect an three or fourfold increase in the cost of their next plan. According to Rutgers University’s Center for State Health Policy director Joel Cantor, the monthly plans of $150 for a 25-year-old male or $1,100 for a family with parents in their 40s will “easily” be three or four times more for a standard policy on the individual market.

    Last year, about a quarter of those enrolled in B&E plans were under the age of 24. The plan is also popular among those who retire early and are looking for cheap coverage before they qualify for Medicare.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •