tangent4ronpaul
04-14-2010, 04:04 PM
An ObamaCare flaw may prove fatal--to the law, not to patients.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303695604575182110746396540.html?m od=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
By JAMES TARANTO
When Speaker Nancy Pelosi said of ObamaCare that "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it," she wasn't kidding. Some of the things we're finding out are shocking, horrifying--and even hilarious.
Remember President Obama's promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year? The Hill reports that pledge has gone by the boards in a big way:
Taxpayers earning less than $200,000 a year will pay roughly $3.9 billion more in taxes--in 2019 alone--due to healthcare reform, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress's official scorekeeper. The new law raises $15.2 billion over 10 years by limiting the medical expense deduction, a provision widely used by taxpayers who either have a serious illness or are older.Taxpayers can currently deduct medical expenses in excess of 7.5 percent of their adjusted gross income. Starting in 2013, most taxpayers will only be able to deduct expenses greater than 10 percent of AGI. Older taxpayers are hit by this threshold increase in 2017.Once the law is fully implemented in 2019, the JCT estimates the deduction limitation will affect 14.8 million taxpayers--14.7 million of them will earn less than $200,000 a year. Oh well, at least insurance companies won't be able to jack up premiums anymore. President Obama himself assured us as much in his Feb. 20 radio address:
The other week, men and women across California opened up their mailboxes to find a letter from Anthem Blue Cross. The news inside was jaw-dropping. Anthem was alerting almost a million of its customers that it would be raising premiums by an average of 25 percent, with about a quarter of folks likely to see their rates go up by anywhere from 35 to 39 percent. . . .The bottom line is that the status quo is good for the insurance industry and bad for America. . . . And as bad as things are today, they'll only get worse if we fail to act. Act they did, and the Los Angeles Times reports on the results:
Although Democrats promised greater consumer protection, the overhaul does not give the federal government broad regulatory power to prevent increases. . . . "It is a very big loophole in health reform," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said. Feinstein and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) are pushing legislation to expand federal and state authority to prevent insurance companies from boosting rates excessively.But you're going to love this one, from the New York Times--unless, that is, you work on Capitol Hill:
In a new report, the Congressional Research Service says the law may have significant unintended consequences for the "personal health insurance coverage" of senators, representatives and their staff members.For example, it says, the law may "remove members of Congress and Congressional staff" from their current coverage, in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, before any alternatives are available. . . .The law apparently bars members of Congress from the federal employees health program, on the assumption that lawmakers should join many of their constituents in getting coverage through new state-based markets known as insurance exchanges.But the research service found that this provision was written in an imprecise, confusing way, so it is not clear when it takes effect.The new exchanges do not have to be in operation until 2014. But because of a possible "drafting error," the report says, Congress did not specify an effective date for the section excluding lawmakers from the existing program.Under well-established canons of statutory interpretation, the report said, "a law takes effect on the date of its enactment" unless Congress clearly specifies otherwise. And Congress did not specify any other effective date for this part of the health care law. The law was enacted when President Obama signed it three weeks ago.That means that congressmen and their staffers may be afoul of the law right now.
ObamaCare is proving to be even more of a shambles than critics had expected. Is this because the Democrats who currently run Congress are unusually incompetent? Tempting as it is to say yes, probably not. Put it down, instead, to hubris and haste. In their mad rush to outrun public opinion and impose "universal health care" on their unwilling constituents, Harry Pelosi, Nancy Reid & Co. simply didn't bother paying attention to the details.
If CRS is right and congressmen and their staffers are now forbidden to be insured as federal employees, this may turn out to be ObamaCare's fatal flaw. The Times observes that Congress "could try for a legislative fix," and it quotes Sen. Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican, as urging just that: "After the committee completed its work, the coverage provision was redrafted by others, and that's where mistakes were made. Congress can and should act to correct the mistakes."
Good luck with that, guys. Are congressmen really going to pass legislation to rectify the harm ObamaCare did to them, while continuing to subject everyone else to this awful, hated law? Leaving the law in place isn't a politically attractive option either, for the reason National Review's Yuval Levin points out: "If you had your own research service to help you figure out what the law will do to your insurance, the answer would likely be just as confusing and discouraging." The CRS's findings are a powerful reminder that ObamaCare likely holds horrible surprises for everyone.
The logic of the situation inexorably points toward repeal--though we expect President Obama and this Congress will defy logic as firmly and for as long as they can.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303695604575182110746396540.html?m od=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
By JAMES TARANTO
When Speaker Nancy Pelosi said of ObamaCare that "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it," she wasn't kidding. Some of the things we're finding out are shocking, horrifying--and even hilarious.
Remember President Obama's promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year? The Hill reports that pledge has gone by the boards in a big way:
Taxpayers earning less than $200,000 a year will pay roughly $3.9 billion more in taxes--in 2019 alone--due to healthcare reform, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress's official scorekeeper. The new law raises $15.2 billion over 10 years by limiting the medical expense deduction, a provision widely used by taxpayers who either have a serious illness or are older.Taxpayers can currently deduct medical expenses in excess of 7.5 percent of their adjusted gross income. Starting in 2013, most taxpayers will only be able to deduct expenses greater than 10 percent of AGI. Older taxpayers are hit by this threshold increase in 2017.Once the law is fully implemented in 2019, the JCT estimates the deduction limitation will affect 14.8 million taxpayers--14.7 million of them will earn less than $200,000 a year. Oh well, at least insurance companies won't be able to jack up premiums anymore. President Obama himself assured us as much in his Feb. 20 radio address:
The other week, men and women across California opened up their mailboxes to find a letter from Anthem Blue Cross. The news inside was jaw-dropping. Anthem was alerting almost a million of its customers that it would be raising premiums by an average of 25 percent, with about a quarter of folks likely to see their rates go up by anywhere from 35 to 39 percent. . . .The bottom line is that the status quo is good for the insurance industry and bad for America. . . . And as bad as things are today, they'll only get worse if we fail to act. Act they did, and the Los Angeles Times reports on the results:
Although Democrats promised greater consumer protection, the overhaul does not give the federal government broad regulatory power to prevent increases. . . . "It is a very big loophole in health reform," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said. Feinstein and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) are pushing legislation to expand federal and state authority to prevent insurance companies from boosting rates excessively.But you're going to love this one, from the New York Times--unless, that is, you work on Capitol Hill:
In a new report, the Congressional Research Service says the law may have significant unintended consequences for the "personal health insurance coverage" of senators, representatives and their staff members.For example, it says, the law may "remove members of Congress and Congressional staff" from their current coverage, in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, before any alternatives are available. . . .The law apparently bars members of Congress from the federal employees health program, on the assumption that lawmakers should join many of their constituents in getting coverage through new state-based markets known as insurance exchanges.But the research service found that this provision was written in an imprecise, confusing way, so it is not clear when it takes effect.The new exchanges do not have to be in operation until 2014. But because of a possible "drafting error," the report says, Congress did not specify an effective date for the section excluding lawmakers from the existing program.Under well-established canons of statutory interpretation, the report said, "a law takes effect on the date of its enactment" unless Congress clearly specifies otherwise. And Congress did not specify any other effective date for this part of the health care law. The law was enacted when President Obama signed it three weeks ago.That means that congressmen and their staffers may be afoul of the law right now.
ObamaCare is proving to be even more of a shambles than critics had expected. Is this because the Democrats who currently run Congress are unusually incompetent? Tempting as it is to say yes, probably not. Put it down, instead, to hubris and haste. In their mad rush to outrun public opinion and impose "universal health care" on their unwilling constituents, Harry Pelosi, Nancy Reid & Co. simply didn't bother paying attention to the details.
If CRS is right and congressmen and their staffers are now forbidden to be insured as federal employees, this may turn out to be ObamaCare's fatal flaw. The Times observes that Congress "could try for a legislative fix," and it quotes Sen. Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican, as urging just that: "After the committee completed its work, the coverage provision was redrafted by others, and that's where mistakes were made. Congress can and should act to correct the mistakes."
Good luck with that, guys. Are congressmen really going to pass legislation to rectify the harm ObamaCare did to them, while continuing to subject everyone else to this awful, hated law? Leaving the law in place isn't a politically attractive option either, for the reason National Review's Yuval Levin points out: "If you had your own research service to help you figure out what the law will do to your insurance, the answer would likely be just as confusing and discouraging." The CRS's findings are a powerful reminder that ObamaCare likely holds horrible surprises for everyone.
The logic of the situation inexorably points toward repeal--though we expect President Obama and this Congress will defy logic as firmly and for as long as they can.