by | ARTICLES, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, QUICKLY NOTED
“It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?” ~
~Federalist #62
by | FREEDOM, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS
The great bait-and-switch of Obamacare (“you can keep your plan and your doctor”) was intentionally orchestrated by the architects of the legislation. There were thousands of policies offered nationwide that were good and even very good but now they can’t be sustained under the new Obamacare policy requirements. These regulations are so narrow that it intentionally made obsolete or non-compliant the vast majority of health care policies in that were currently in existence, thereby requiring the insurers to cancel those offerings.
There are 10 essential benefits to Obamacare that every policy now must have. Most of them are routine and were likely found in some form on the vast majority of plans pre-Obamacare. Forbes recently compiled a list of these required items:
1) Ambulatory patient services – Care you receive without being admitted to a hospital, such as at a doctor’s office, clinic or same-day (“outpatient”) surgery center. Also included in this category are home health services and hospice care (note: some plans may limit coverage to no more than 45 days).
2) Emergency services – Care you receive for conditions that could lead to serious disability or death if not immediately treated, such as accidents or sudden illness. Typically, this is a trip to the emergency room, and includes transport by ambulance. You cannot be penalized for going out-of-network or for not having prior authorization.
3) Hospitalization – Care you receive as a hospital patient, including care from doctors, nurses and other hospital staff, laboratory and other tests, medications you receive during your hospital stay, and room and board. Hospitalization coverage also includes surgeries, transplants and care received in a skilled nursing facility, such as a nursing home that specializes in the care of the elderly (note: some plans may limit skilled nursing facility coverage to no more than 45 days).
4) Laboratory services – Testing provided to help a doctor diagnose an injury, illness or condition, or to monitor the effectiveness of a particular treatment. Some preventive screenings, such as breast cancer screenings and prostrate exams, are provided free of charge.
5) Maternity and newborn care – Care that women receive during pregnancy (prenatal care), throughout labor, delivery and post-delivery, and care for newborn babies.
6) Mental health services and addiction treatment – Inpatient and outpatient care provided to evaluate, diagnose and treat a mental health condition or substance abuse disorder (note: some plans may limit coverage to 20 days each year).
7) Rehabilitative Services and devices – Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices to help you gain or recover mental and physical skills lost to injury, disability or a chronic condition. Plans have to provide 30 visits each year for either physical or occupational therapy, or visits to the chiropractor. Plans must also cover 30 visits for speech therapy as well as 30 visits for cardiac or pulmonary rehab.
8) Pediatric Services – Care provided to infants and children, including well-child visits and recommended vaccines and immunizations. Dental and vision care must be offered to children younger than 19. This includes two routine dental exams, an eye exam and corrective lenses each year.
9) Prescription drugs – Medications that are prescribed by a doctor to treat an illness or condition. Examples include prescription antibiotics to treat an infection or medication used to treat an ongoing condition, such as high cholesterol. At least one prescription drug must be covered for each category and classification of federally approved drugs.
10) Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease treatment – Preventive care, such as physicals, immunizations and cancer screenings designed to prevent or detect certain medical conditions. Also, care for chronic conditions, such as asthma and diabetes.
The bulk of this list consists of items that were not necessarily mandatory on any insurance plan, but were fairly common in some form or another. For instance, maternity care might have been an add-on some plans, included on others, but was relatively common in the industry. However, there are two items in particular on this list which are recent healthcare innovations not widely found. Therefore, their inclusion as criteria for assessing whether a health plan was “good” or “not good” rendered most current insurance plans incomplete — and therefore obsolete — for Obamacare. They are 1) “rehabilitative and habilitative care” and 2) “pediatric services”.
On the matter of rehabilitative and habilitative services, the new Obamacare essential makes a distinction between Rehabilitative Services (which help to recover lost capacities) and Habilitative Services (which “help people acquire, maintain, or improve skills and functioning for daily living”). Statereforum.org, a site devoted to health reform implementation, concurs that Habilitative services — a word not readily familiar to many people — are “a set of benefits not traditionally covered by private health insurance”.
When Health and Human Services made their final decisions this past November on the 10 Essentials for health plans, it “recognized that many health plans across the country do not recognize habilitative services as a distinct group of services. HHS proposed a flexible policy that allows states to define habilitative services if their benchmark plan fails to do so”. In the Federal Register published on November 26, 2013, it was specifically noted that this flexibility “will provide a valuable opportunity for states to lead the development of policy in this area and welcome comments on this proposed approach to providing habilitative services”. In other words, HHS created an benefit requirement that most insurance plans didn’t cover and isn’t even uniformly defined in the industry. Because nearly all plans lacked this “essential item”, most existing health insurance plans have been declared non-compliant.
With regard to pediatric services, it has typically been a matter in the healthcare industry that dental and vision coverage — particularly for children — are not to be included as part of a health insurance policy. Those that do have almost always have it as an add-on where you get services elsewhere, and only a few of the largest companies even bothered to offer it. This “must have” was never a part of a normal healthcare environment, and by making this one of the compliance items, it too has rendered nearly all plans incompatible with Obamacare regulations.
It has become clear that few existing health insurance policies pass the Obamacare litmus test. This carefully engineered attack on the “bad apple” health care industry was to induce a large-scale shift of citizens onto the exchanges (to pay for Obamacare) after their insurance was inevitably canceled. “If you like your plan you can keep it”, was a hollow promise all along. With the website calamity, Obamacare has utterly backfired — but the citizens are left holding the bag of higher costs, canceled plans, and an uncertain future. There is a sense of irony that the Obamacare “benefits” have done nothing to benefit anyone.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, OBAMA, POLITICS
Obamapologists have been pointing to the shrinking budget deficit as proof that the economy is heading in the right direction. There is a sense of desperation afoot to find something, anything, that can be positive news upon which Obama can rebuild his reputation. For the non-economists out there, a declining deficit does indeed sound indicative of a healthy economic rebound. However, the main reasons for this current shrinking deficit have absolutely nothing to do with Obama, nor do they affect the economy in the way it is being spun.
The first major reason for the deficit reduction has to do with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These two government entities have given at least $140 billion, its “profit”, to the US Treasury so far in 2013. But this “profit“ was principally interest collected on mortgages which a) should have been earned by the private sector which the government took over by underbidding the private sector using taxpayer money, and b) by basically deciding that the private shareholders of Fannie and Freddie shouldn’t receive any part of the profit even though they had purchased – with their own money – substantial shares in the companies. These profits were required to be handed over to the US Treasury after the 2008 bailout conservatorship was amended with this change in 2012. Whether or not such action was legal is another question entirely.
The second large source of revenue was the frenzy of end-of-year tax paying in 2012. Remember the fight over the “Fiscal Cliff”? Because of the very substantial increase in individual tax rates for higher income earners, these individuals were able to accelerate 2013 income (including salary and bonuses) and dividends into 2012 to get the lower rate. Even more importantly, individuals that had gains on stock and real estate that they might not ordinarily have sold for years, all were dumped by the end of 2012 to get the lower rates. It should be noted that tax rates on dividends and capital gains for high income earners went up 59% – so much for Obama’s “the wealthy can pay just a little bit more”. The FY of the federal government runs October 1 to September 30, so those tax transactions, necessitating taxes to be paid by April 15, 2013, were recorded in the current fiscal year.
The Fannie/Freddie contribution and the end-of-the-year tax activity account for substantially all of the revenue increase and corresponding deficit reductions. They are one-shot deals, and are therefore not an indication of a rapidly growing economy.
Moreover, the most important thing to remember is that even with a lower deficit right now, Obama is still running huge annual deficits. Certainly no credit for deficit reduction should go to the Obama Administration, when total deficits still run over 4% of the GDP and are overwhelmingly higher than any of his predecessors in the history of our country (except during World War II). If true and lasting spending cuts, including entitlements, are not soon brought under control, we will be rapidly moving towards becoming Greece.
by | ARTICLES, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS
Are you a genetic lottery winner? Too bad.
The legislative name for Obamacare is the Affordable Care Act. This name was chosen precisely to appeal to Americans to consider buying a health insurance plan from a government-run exchange. Who doesn’t like the idea of something that is “affordable”? By using that term, it suggested that the current system of health care was the opposite –“unafforable”. But the Affordable Care Act was merely a red herring for what the government really thought about the healthcare system — that it was discriminatory, and could be used as another vessel for wealth transfer.
Yesterday’s interview transcript between Chuck Todd and the Architect of Obamacare, Mr. Jonathan Gruber, M.I.T. should be screaming from every newspaper this morning. But there was hardly a blip on the radar screen. Real Clear Politics has the video. Mr. Gruber revealed the singular truth about the real reason our government created and passed Obamacare — it was not about an “affordable” new system; it was about a “discriminatory” old system, and the government “fix”. Here’s what Gruber described:
“We currently have a highly discriminatory system where if you’re sick, if you’ve been sick or [if] you’re going to get sick, you cannot get health insurance. The only way to end that discriminatory system is to bring everyone into the system and pay one fair price.
That means that the genetic winners, the lottery winners who’ve been paying an artificially low price because of this discrimination now will have to pay more in return. And that, by my estimate, is about four million people. In return, we’ll have a fixed system where over 30 million people will now for the first time be able to access fairly price and guaranteed health insurance“.
Where to start?
The most glaring and insulting concept in his statement is the idea that someone is a “genetic winner” and “a lottery winner” that has been “paying an artificially low price because of this discrimination”.
The idea of a “genetic winner” is incredibly chilling. Brave New world-ish even. It completely removes the idea of personal responsibility in the health equation. We are somehow only and entirely healthy or not because of superior genetics, and therefore those who are should be financially punished for it due to a government-imposed standard of “fairness”.
The next absurity goes hand-in-hand with that — the idea that people who “won” the “genetic lottery” are paying artificially low prices for insurance. By what standard is something “artificially low” (or not)? The government standard! Not the insurance market. The government tells us something is artificially low and therefore needs to be corrected. It is their justification to punish the “winners”, a form of reparation of to those who the government considers “genetic lottery losers”. Pay up! It’s not fair you have been paying too low of a price!
Gruber also describes in detail how the government has decided the system is discriminatory: “where if you’re sick, if you’ve been sick or [if] you’re going to get sick, you cannot get health insurance. At every point in time — present, past, and future — the system discriminates. If you might get sick in the future, you cannot have insurance now! Such a statement defies all logic. But it doesn’t matter. The groundwork is laid bare: our health care discriminates.
What is the solution? Gruber explains that the only way to level the playing field and be fair is to force the “genetic winners” to pay their fair share (sound familiar?).And finally, finally, Gruber tells us, “In return, we’ll have a fixed system where over 30 million people will now for the first time be able to access fairly price and guaranteed health insurance”.
A fixed system now. Because the government decided the system was “broken”. It was the fault of the genetic lottery winners and the artifically low prices who discriminated against those who did not have insurance. Are you a genetic lottery winner? The government finds you contemptible.
Of course, there was no distinction of the uninsured between those who could not get insurance or who chose not to have insurance either. The Uninsured were discriminated against. And that needed to be fixed — by the government. We’re here to help.
The Affordable Care Act is only about being affordable to some. It is revealed to be another giant wealth transfer. Take the genetic lottery winners, kick them off their freely chosen policies, put them on the more expensive Obamacare government exchanges, and subsidize those who have been discriminated against to make it fair for all.
Fairness is yet again the objective of, and gift from, the government — no matter the cost to our wallets or our dignity.
by | ARTICLES, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, QUICKLY NOTED
Last week, I reported that the whitehouse.gov website section pertaining to Obamacare still had the “if you like your plan, you can keep it” Promise. I checked out whitehouse.gov on November 6, a few days after Obama gave a speech during which he explained that the Promise actually had qualifiers.
Obama’s new Promise during that speech was: “Now, if you have or had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law passed”. This Animal Farm-esque change drew outcries from around the county.
Back to whitehouse.gov. On November 6, the “Health Reform” section on Obamacare included the very bold statement:
“For those Americans who already have health insurance, the only changes you will see under the law are new benefits, better protections from insurance company abuses, and more value for every dollar you spend on health care. If you like your plan you can keep it and you don’t have to change a thing due to the health care law”
And the screenshot from November 6:
Checking back a week later to see if whitehouse.gov has updated that section to include the new Promise made by Obama, an interesting thing occured ont the website. The same original Promise is still there. But the IT guys for whitehouse.gov did manage to edit that section by adding a new line after the original Promise. That line reads “The President addressed concerns from Americans who have received letters of policy cancellations or changes from their insurance companies in an interview with NBC News, watch the video or read a transcript”
Here is that screenshot of the same section, with the new line added:
Because the whitehouse.gov included a link to Obama’s interview and transcript, I clicked on it to see what Obama had to say about his Promise.
From the transcript:
“Well — first of all, I meant what I said. And we worked hard to try to make sure that we implemented it properly. But obviously, we didn’t do enough — a good enough job — and I regret that. We’re talking about 5% of the population — who are in what’s called the individual market. They’re out there buyin’ health insurance on their own.
A lot of these plans are subpar plans. And we put in a clause in the law that said if you had one of those plans, even if it was subpar — when the law was passed, you could keep it. But there’s enough churn in the market that folks since then have bought subpar plans. And now that may be all they can afford. So even though it only affects a small amount of the population, you know, it means a lot to them, obviously, when they get — this letter cancelled”…
and further…
“You know — I regret very much that — what we intended to do, which is to make sure that everybody is moving into better plans because they want ’em, as opposed to because they’re forced into it. That, you know, we weren’t as clear as we needed to be — in terms of the changes that were takin’ place. And I want to do everything we can to make sure that people are finding themselves in a good position — a better position than they were before this law happened”.
Obama regrets that “we weren’t as clear as we needed to be”, but still has the original Promise in plain text right on the whitehouse.gov website. It still says, clear as day,
“If you like your plan you can keep it and you don’t have to change a thing due to the health care law”
The same Promise he repeated previously at least 29 times.
What’s worse, not only is the original Promise still on the page mentioned above, it is also on ANOTHER page of the Obamacare section on whitehouse.gov. Head on over to the section on “Quality Affordable Health Care for All Americans, and you can see the text:
“For Americans with insurance coverage who like what they have, they can keep it. Nothing in this act or anywhere in the bill forces anyone to change the insurance they have, period”
Here’s that screenshot as well:
And at the bottom of the page when you scroll down, whitehouse.gov urges Americans to continue on to the page entitled “If You Like the Insurance You Have, Keep It“. That is the name of the actual page.
On that page, it boldly proclaims:
“If You Like the Insurance You Have, Keep It:
Nothing in the proposal forces anyone to change the insurance they have. Period.”
So whitehouse.gov continues to peddle the original Promise that Obama has to explain away. Whitehouse.gov can take the time to update their website to add the explanations, but can’t edit the Promise.
If Obama regrets not being clear as he said in the interview, why hasn’t the White House updated the Promise to the new explanation in order to be clear? How can the White House be “clear” when their own website says one thing in several places, and the President is running around explaining it in a different way? How is this transparent?
Despite the regrets Obama expressed in his latest remarks on the Promise, it is clear that the Obama does not want to be clear.
by | ARTICLES, OBAMA
The best thing you can say about the Obamacare legislation and recent rollout is that the president lied. He lied about “keeping your plan” and “keeping your doctor”. He lied about the cost savings. He lied to the American people to sell it.That is the best spin that can be put on what he said.
What’s worse? We now know — based on recently-surfaced memos — that all of his advisors and speech writers also knew that keeping your plan and doctor was not true. This is more heinous than just the President lying. In this event, the American President and his coterie willfully and deliberately deceived the American public in order to push forth a complex and expensive piece of controversial legislation on which Obama was to hang his legacy.
And what if Obama didn’t know? That is the most terrible scenario of all. That our President is surrounded by people who knowingly and unabashedly lied to him about an important bill. If they can lie about health care legislation to the President and to our citizens, what else have they lied about? Benghazi? The IRS? Fast and Furious? How much has the media and Congress aided and abetted the deception? How could the office of the President be reduce to a mere shell — and by Obama the Wunderkind, no less? And more incredibly, when the President did find out that he had been lied to by his most trusted advisors and speech writers he did nothing about it! Not one head rolled.
If, in fact, Obama expressly lied to the country about Obamacare,it is outrageous and reprehensible. But it is Obama’s best scenario. Because the other scenarios, and their implications for our country and for our Executive Branch, are frighteningly worse.
by | ARTICLES, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS
Oopsies!
The White House website (whitehouse.gov) still shows the original “If you like your health plan, you can keep it” promise. See the text here on www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform/healthcare-overview:
Health Care that Works for Americans
On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, putting in place comprehensive reforms that improve access to affordable health coverage for everyone and protect consumers from abusive insurance company practices.
For those Americans who already have health insurance, the only changes you will see under the law are new benefits, better protections from insurance company abuses, and more value for every dollar you spend on health care. If you like your plan you can keep it and you don’t have to change a thing due to the health care law.
For the uninsured or those who don’t get their coverage through work, a key component of the Affordable Care Act will take effect on October 1, when the new Health Insurance Marketplace open for business, allowing millions of Americans to comparison shop for a variety of quality, affordable plans that best meet their health care needs”.
And the screenshot:
This is different than the speech he gave just a few days ago, where he gave qualifiers on the “if you like your plan, you can keep it.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Now, if you have or had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law passed. So we wrote into the Affordable Care Act, you’re grandfathered in on that plan. But if the insurance company changes it, then what we’re saying is they’ve got to change it to a higher standard. They’ve got to make it better, they’ve got to improve the quality of the plan they are selling. That’s part of the promise that we made too. That’s why we went out of our way to make sure that the law allowed for grandfathering.
After the speech above, The Daily Caller reported that Obama made the original promise at least 29 times. Does this make 30?
Perhaps the same IT guys in charge of maintaining healthcare.gov are in charge of updating Whitehouse.gov.
UPDATE, NOV 7: Foxnews is showing another page of whitehouse.gov’s healthcare reform section, which also currently states this:
“For Americans with insurance coverage who like what they have, they can keep it. Nothing in this act or anywhere in the bill forces anyone to change the insurance they have, period.”
Too bad Obama doesn’t read his own website.
by | BLOG, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, QUICKLY NOTED
In Animal Farm, the most important of the Seven Commandments of Animalism was the “All Animals Are Equal” Commandment. Upon this, Animalism was supposed to thrive.
Later, Napoleon gains power, drives out Snowball, moves into Mr. Jones white house, sells Boxer to the glue factory, and enjoys whiskey while the animals work. Animalism is struggling to survive and suddenly, the maxim is changed. It becomes:
“All Animals are Equal, But Some are More Equal Than Others”
In a strikingly similar way during this new age of Obamacare, we were repeatedly told that “if you like your plan, you can keep it”
Now, today we get the Animal Farm version:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Now, if you have or had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law passed. So we wrote into the Affordable Care Act, you’re grandfathered in on that plan. But if the insurance company changes it, then what we’re saying is they’ve got to change it to a higher standard. They’ve got to make it better, they’ve got to improve the quality of the plan they are selling. That’s part of the promise that we made too. That’s why we went out of our way to make sure that the law allowed for grandfathering.
I guess Obama expects that we won’t remember what he said. After all, he is our leader of Obamacarism. He has nothing to really apologize for. The Obamapology blames everyone else.
Surely it is the fault of the “bad apple” insurers who had such terrible plans to offer to begin with. Surely it is our fault because we couldn’t possibly have known any better or even really truly liked the plans we had picked.
Now, all insurance plans are equal. But some are more equal than others. (And those that aren’t equal will be canceled).
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, OBAMA, POLITICS
In case you missed it, Harry Reid displayed the most incredible mind reading skills this past week during an interview on Nevada Public Radio.
As reported by Roll Call, the Senate Majority Leader explained that, “The only people who feel there shouldn’t be more coming in to the federal government from the rich people are the Republicans in the Congress,” He went on to declare that “Everybody else, including the rich people, are willing to pay more. They want to pay more.”
He also went on to announce that the only way there could be some sort of Congressional “grand bargain” would be under the conditions that the Republicans would have to agree to more tax revenue:
“They have their mind set on doing nothing, nothing more on revenue, and until they get off that kick, there’s not going to be a grand bargain on — there’s not going to be a small bargain,” Reid said. “We’re just going to have to do something to work our way through sequestration.”
For those who are short on memory, the Republicans agreed to tax increases on the wealthy immediately after we went over the “Fiscal Cliff” last January. Obama did not get his $250K threshold to raise taxes to 39.6% for “upper earners”, but he did get a $400K single/$450K married couple threshold. January 1, 2013 was the original sequestration deadline. With the Fiscal Cliff deal, the sequestration decision was booted again for two months.
Fast forward to the end of February with sequestration talks and the March 1 deadline looming. The White House and liberal media began discussing in earnest the possiblity of more taxes, especially after it was pointed out by Bob Woodward that sequestration did indeed originate with Obama.
After the Republicans didn’t blink on sequestration and the cuts went into play, Investors Daily revealed on March 1 that Obama’s “sequestration” plan was $1 Trillion in new revenue. That was followed up by Pelosi’s announcement that same afternoon that there would be “no sequestration deal without new taxes”. But sequestration stayed, much to the chagrin of the Democrats.
Here we are now, post-government shutdown. Obamacare is failing badly. Obamacare was supposed to be a source of revenue for the government over 10 years with its myriad of taxes — except that no one is signing up. The Democrats look bad, and the Congressional Dems are warming to the idea of a one-year delay, the very thing that many Republicans have been calling for ad nauseum.
What is Harry Reid to do? Why, talk about sequestration, of course. Let’s talk about how billions in cuts have been made to the government because the Republicans have “refused to compromise”. Let’s put the blame game back on them and off of the Democrats who voted hook, line, and sinker for Obamacare. Let’s stir the pot and talk about how tough sequestration is for everyone. Ergo, we need to fix the government budget with more revenue.
Pay attention folks. The Democrats are frustrated because of Obamacare right now. In the coming weeks, we’ll see renewed energetic playbook buzzwords talks of a “balanced approach”, a “compromise”, and a “grand bargain” approach to budget discussions…except that the only approach from the Democrats will be a firm call and firm stand for more revenue via tax increases.
Leviathan is wounded. And hungry. And he’s coming for your wallets.
by | ARTICLES, OBAMA, OBAMACARE
As each day passes, the various facets of Obamacare are getting implemented in order to be fully operational by January 1, 2014. But we are hearing about the difficulties in the implementation caused primarily by either 1) the website fiasco; 2) low number of enrollees; and 3) people wanting to pay the penalties in order to avoid having to pay for intentionally overpriced health “insurance”.
In order to achieve adequate and targeted enrollment in Obamacare those representing the Government have begun to be aggressive. They are choosing to use all methods at their disposal to pressure, cajole, and otherwise push people to “do the right thing” and buy the mandated insurance product. This began in earnest last spring, as the Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was given millions at her disposal to dispatch “navigators” and “in-person assisters” to help enroll more Americans into Obamacare. But the very act of doing so may be rendering Obamacare unconstitutional.
It is worthwhile to remember that the only way in which the law of Obamacare was saved from being declared unconstitutional was the that that there is no penalty associated with Obamacare, which would have made it subject to the Commerce Clause. It was ruled to be a “tax” derived from not purchasing the mandated health coverage. In reaching his conclusion, Justice Roberts accepted the Administration’s argued position that there is absolutely no negative interference whatsoever on anyone opting to pay the “tax” rather than buy the product.
Therefore, any attempt by the administration or any of the implementing bodies to pressure, threaten or even imply some sort of wrongdoing by those choosing to not buy insurance would be clearly unconstitutional.
If those implementing Obamacare are properly following the Supreme Court’s mandate, they should be telling prospective insurance purchasers that they should be deciding for themselves whether they would be better off with the insurance or the penalty. We know this is not happening. At the macro level, governors have been hustled to implement the exchanges in their states. And at the individual level, Obamacare officials are pushing for more enrollees to ensure a steady flow of premiums paid by healthy patients in order to cover those who are high-risk and high-cost.
Just a few recent examples:
1) The LGBT Community created an Out2Enroll campaign to encourage LGBT to enroll in Obamacare after “the Obama administration called a meeting of LGBT leaders in mid-September. Nearly 200 from across the country met with the White House to talk about the potential impact of Obamacare. It also looked at what LGBT leaders could do to spread the word.”
2) Latinos with green cards were pushed to enroll in Obamacare at a recent forum marketed on the Get Covered America website. “Get Covered America is the nonprofit publicity and recruitment arm of “Enroll America,” which aims to ‘maximize the number of uninsured Americans who enroll in health coverage made available by the Affordable Care Act,’ according to its website”. Enroll America also has people going door-to-door with clipboards to sign people up, according to the Washington Post.
3) Hollywood celebrities teamed up with the White House to learn how to help shill for Obamacare. “Back in July, a group of Hollywood stars gathered at the White House to strategize a push for registration after the October 1 rollout of the Affordable Care Act. Among others, Amy Poehler, Jennifer Hudson, Kal Penn, and representatives for Oprah Winfrey, Alicia Keys, and the Funny or Die team offered their influence during a meeting with senior aide Valerie Jarrett and, briefly, President Obama himself”.
4) Government-funded Navigator Grants are setting up neighborhood centers for Obamacare enrollment. According to this story about a center with ties to former ACORN execs, “The government has given out $67 million in Navigator grants to help with the controversial rollout of ObamaCare. It was not clear if Local 100 got a grant of its own, but it has set up a help center with Southern United Neighborhoods, a charity founded in March 2010 with many former ACORN members, to enroll people in ObamaCare. Southern United Neighborhoods received a Navigator grant of $486,123”
5) The White House kicked off a 6 month ad campaign a week before the October 1 starting sign-up date. The objective of the ad blitz is “to encourage millions of Americans to sign up for health coverage under ‘Obamacare’ an effort in which the president and other political celebrities promote the law’s promise of subsidized health coverage”.
Are these government-backed and/or funded pushes to enroll in Obamacare violating the constitutionality of Obamacare with regard to negative interference?
The SCOTUS ruling hinged on the government not implying that people are doing anything wrong by not signing up. It is a tax that citizens are allowed to pay in lieu of enrollment. But with such a massive effort touting Obamacare, the government is directly interfering in the choice. There is no neutrality. It amounts to coercion, and creates the implication that by not enrolling, citizens are doing a bad thing. Does this contradict the Supreme Court decision?
