And it’s just the beginning:
The average price for the lowest-cost ObamaCare “bronze” plan in eight states is 122% higher than the cheapest plan currently available in those states, according to an IBD analysis of rate filings and a recent Government Accountability Office report.
The late July report, largely overlooked by the press, provides detailed information on insurance plans today in all 50 states, from the cheapest plans offered to a 30-year-old nonsmoker to the most expensive plans 55-year-old couples can buy.
A separate report from the Maryland insurance department lists the lowest-cost “bronze” plans proposed for ObamaCare exchanges in eight states.
Comparing the two reveals a wide gulf between the cheapest plans available now and those that will be sold next year under ObamaCare.
The thing is this is all by design. Single payer wasn’t going to pass so its now obvious the whole system was designed to fail:
Obamacare will fail. But here is the kicker: Obamacare is intended to fail. Why else would leftists enact a 2,700-page bill restructuring 1/6th of the domestic economy without bothering to first read the document?
The only remaining requirement for a fail forward in health care is deflecting the blame at the time of collapse. A few remaining private health insurers will do nicely. But if they go under too early in the fundamental transformation, the Left can always fall back on that old standby: Republican intransigence.
Expect the president and his allies to reluctantly conclude that the private market cannot cope with the complex demands of modern healthcare — greed being incompatible with the minimum requirements of social justice — so, sadly, we will need to embrace a Medicare-for-all single-payer healthcare system, just like other advanced democracies.
As working conditions decline in our increasingly one-size-fits-all healthcare system, employees will unionize. Millions of nurses, doctors, technicians, and administrators, all newly minted SEIU members, will then contribute mandatory dues into the coffers of the leftist politicians responsible for their economic distress.
That was written 9 months ago. Now it’s all coming to fruition as reports of unbelievable increases in health care prices keep coming out.
From the administration’s point of view, conceding that key parts of Obamacare cannot be implemented isn’t a failure if the effect is to swell enrollment on the exchanges. The insurance subsidy entitlement, administered through the exchanges, is the single-payer scheme at the heart of the law. If you peel away provisions like the employer mandate and Medicaid expansion, what’s left is a universal health care entitlement—enforced through the individual mandate and administered through the exchanges.
And what do we get from Republicans? Some are fighting to repeal lock, stock and barrel, but then we got the spineless who talk smack about ObamaCare but when it comes down it to they just want to get rid of certain provisions….just like the Socialists had hoped.
Indeed, the recent delays dramatically enhance the role of the exchanges in Obamacare. By postponing the $2,000-per-employee penalties imposed on large employers that do not offer qualified health insurance, the administration has in effect invited employers to forego offering insurance at all and dump their employees onto the exchanges instead.
And by suspending the requirement that states verify applicants’ eligibility for exchange subsidies, the administration solved a problem created by delaying the employer mandate. The law requires employers to report the details of their insurance offerings to the Internal Revenue Service so the agency can verify that workers have been offered affordable coverage, as required by the law. If an employer doesn’t offer affordable coverage, its employees can qualify for subsidies on the exchange. But delaying this employer reporting requirement meant there would be no way for the IRS to verify whether an employee qualified for subsidized coverage.
To get around this, the administration opted to allow the exchanges to run on the honor system. In a 600-page rule quietly posted late on July 5, the administration announced that state-based exchanges “may accept the applicant’s attestation” about their income and coverage status. Essentially, anyone who reports that they qualify for a subsidy is going to get one.
This amounts to a massive expansion of eligibility for federally-subsidized coverage through the exchanges—an expansion that is nowhere in the law and was never approved by Congress, but that moves Obamacare closer to a single-payer system.
The calculation behind these decisions is hard to miss. The more people get coverage through the exchanges, as opposed to their employers, the more federal assistance for health insurance will become the new normal. Once habituated to government welfare for insurance, Americans will be loath to give it up. Support for the law will then likely grow along with the rolls of those dependent on its subsidies, as has been the case with Medicare and Medicaid.
Unless the Republicans stand their ground this trainwreck is unavoidable.
We know Cruz and Lee will stand firm, but the rest?
See author page
I think the writer is correct.
The failure of ObamaCare was not unintended consequences or a series of bugs.
The failure of ObamaCare was a feature.
Something about this whole mess stinks to high heaven. All the evidence from around the world, Canada and Great Britain, proved how fool hearty socialized medicine was and is, and yet our intrepid politicians went ahead with it. they had to lie and fool and pass in the dark of night and at Christmas time. Some one(s) is either getting great power or money from this debacle. The question is who and why?
@jainphx: Slowly, very slowly, people are beginning to realize Obamacare isn’t about reduced cost OR improved care. It is all about power and control over the citizens… factor in the IRS getting control over the program, and the thousands upon thousands of new regulations with hundreds of regulators and we have more government intrusion into our lives than ever in history. Then give up our privacy through monitoring of our phone and internet usage (see recent gun seizure story) and we see pathway to the same type of government that the citizens of Venezuela, Cuba and other countries so enjoy. Oh… the Constitution prevents that from happening? How has that been working out for us?
I’ll agree 100% that O’healthcare *isn’t* about “reduced cost OR improved care”. I might disagree at it being characterized as about power and control over the citizens as it’s primary goal. That is a result, of course. Because what O’healthcare is, is nothing more than a massive business tax increase and expansion of Medicaid that rivals Medicare and SS.
Can that be construed as “control”? Yes. In the extent that all these “entitlement” programs are “controlled” by the government. But statists believe that government does things better than the private sector. Always a dividing point. And that’s what the end result debate comes down to… is the nation’s health care better served under the admin of govt or the private sector?
BTW, if you thought you *ever* had Internet privacy, you are sadly mistaken. Take your pick. Have the technology and let the private companies, along with the government, invade your privacy for their own ends… or don’t indulge. It’s absurd to be okay with private businesses absconding with data, and then complain about intel agencies doing the same. You either want your privacy, or you don’t. Act according to your base beliefs.
Curt likes his government healthcare plan
@john:
When you are willing to slap a 60 lb. backpack on your back and trudge through the desert at 110 degrees to kill the bad guys who would be more than willing to separate your head from your neck, let us know. I’m sure the taxpayers will be more than happy to provide you with “government” healthcare then.
Until then; you need to stuff it.
@retire05: I offered him a trip to Iran or Iraq so he could validate his comments! He never responded.
@Randy:
I doubt john has the cajones to earn that “government” health care. He’s a progressive. That means that somewhere in the past, he had been neutered.
The even more egregiously evil aspect of obamacare is the outrageous insistence of the left that the increases are less than originally predicted, as if that should make this new tac more palatable. Add to that the simplistic idea that because anyone making less than 400% over the national poverty level of annual income will have their new tax increase subsidized and you are left with an unholy attack on an already tottering economy.
IPAB will result in rationing of care. There is no way that it cannot.
There is absolutely no limitation of legal malpractice harassment in obamacare.
The IRS will oversee the economic application of this immoral law.
Taxpayers willl be required to pay for abortions and the mutilation of gender reassignment surgery.
Congress has exempted itself and staff members from Obamacare through an OMB ruling to avoid the political fallout of voting for such an exemption.
The people charged with implementing this socialist boondoggle (the IRS) refuse to be included in obamacare.
How much more evil does it have to get before folks insist it be repealed?
@MataHarley: My thinking is that if we continue to be blind to power hungry people in this world, we will continue to lose ground. I’m old enough to have seen FDR try the same exact agenda that was continued by Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and the worst of them all, Obama. There’s nothing new on the horizon, there just not trying to hide it any more. We have two parties in this country, but both are led by those same people that want to control the wealth and the people. Unfortunately they are much closer to their agenda now that ever, since “our” party has the power to stop this NOW, but tell us it would be illegal. Horse hockey. “our” side investigates all the law breaking and get right up to doing something about it, but then they shut it down. WHY. Please answer that question and we will be close to the truth of it all.
jainphx, you’re asking the wrong person. I have no faith in either party. To me they are, within degrees, one and the same. They value political capital and their foreseeable careers more than remaining true to traditional Constitutional perspectives. It seems that even with the 2010 midterm sweeps, little has been accomplished to sway the Dem’lites that are the Republicans back on track.
Indoctrination has taken hold in our public school system for decades now. The US you and I remember morphs with the new generations. And I don’t disagree that it is not to our liking. However the power of the vote and the elected ones still remains within the power of the population. Problem is, it seems that neither you or I have much in common with the current “population”.
@MataHarley: By example of power and control via healthcare, if the government has total control, and their bureaucrats decide that you can’t have the treatment you need to cure what ails you, you’re done. At least with a privately controlled system you can buy the treatment; yeah, it could get expensive, you might have to borrow, beg, take donations or charity but it can be done. Not so if the government has total control, which is what they want. And of course the increased cash flow, to a government operating beyond any definition of corruption is a desirable side effect.
I know and have never been happy about private industry “keeping track” and tracking us, but I find it very offensive that the government has decided that the 1st and 4th Amendment mean nothing. The Patriot Act was never meant to be used like it’s being used (abused) by this regime, they have gone far beyond the scope of what was intended. And I am not okay with it at all, when it was originally passed the current situation is exactly what I feared would happen.
@Randy: Big surprise there.
@retire05#6 I think Brother Bob would say don’t feed the trolls, however, your reply was beautiful!!
Randy@#7 – John is just another, sadly of many, brainwashed into believing the Grass is Greener on the other side… of the Pond…of the world…that America is the axis of Evil….and it just ain’t so.
Perhaps if he does some “real research” instead of blathering on with talking points he heard or read… he may just find out the truth…
…but then again some people will still prefer kool-aid..hmmm… so sad.
If obamacare ever takes full effect, I don’t want to hear ONE liberal complain about it. Your leaders voted it in without even reading it, and you haven’t asked them to stop it.
@Scott in Oklahoma: #3
The only control the IRS will have is to make sure you sign up for it. There will be 16,000 new agents to help you fill out the forms.
@MataHarley:
Agreed.
What? If you use Facebook, you agreed to their terms and conditions. If you didn’t read the terms and conditions and don’t think they are collecting and sharing data you’re fooling yourself. Exactly where did the government step in and provide terms and conditions?
@Aqua: #17
There are programs that stop Facebook and others from tracking you. Norton Internet Security is one of them. It’s a long story why I can’t use that part of the software now, but when I could, in a short time, it showed it had stopped tracking over 1000,000 times, over 12,000 of them were Facebook. When you go to a web site with the Facebook or other logo where you can go right to them, they are tracking you on that web site, even if your aren’t logged into them.
@Aqua, the social media terms do state they can collect and/or sell your metadata. Hang, visit any website and they plant a cookie for marketing purposes. Unless you have your computer set to reject this cookie, it happens without terms or conditions disclosure. (in which case, they probably won’t show you what you want to see on the website…) The free service of the website is paid for by becoming part of a marketing list that can be sold. Databases of consumers, categorized by interest, equals a cash product.
The government doesn’t provide any social media. They have no terms and conditions to provide. They can, however, solicit that data collected by the social media to tie it to a personal identity… with you, the user’s consent… with the proper warrants. Metadata is not, however, personal.
I understand the feelings of violation everyone feels. No clue why it took so many so long to figure out that nothing on the Internet, your smart phone, etc is private. Never has been. When you throw your personals into, literally, the airwaves, they are always subject to being plucked out by anyone… government or private.
With the ease of the technology comes the risk of exposure. That’s the price you pay. Too expensive? Give up some of the tech toys, or keep their use to a minimum. And use our court system…. If you feel you were plucked out illegally, you have laws and the courts for legal recourse. I’m sure some would love for it to happen because it would end up being a cash cow for them… what with a cash settlement, combined with book/media whining rights.
I suspect that the government has been in everyone’s lives far longer than just the Internet age… people are just now hearing about it. After all, there have been countless fiction novels predicting this type of lifestyle long before our technology… so it’s not anything new. Count me not so much impressed with all the hand wringing. I know where to go if I’m wronged.
@MataHarley: In Gordon Cooper’s excellent book, “Leap of Faith”, he said he knew when Sputnik was launched in 1957 it opened up a whole new era and that one day people and events could be watched from space meaning there would be no place to hide.
Indeed, AV. Add to satellite surveillance the existence of private and public camera security systems, traffic light systems, and everyone and their mother’s brother with their cell phone cameras. Combine all these and there’s few places even on the ground where a body is not being captured visually, or is able to be visually documented.
I know that everyone likes to forward those crazy/ugly Walmart shopper photos with captions. But my first thoughts are always that none of these people knew that they were being photographed, or that their likeness would end up documented as ridicule in viral emails. Sometimes it is our fellow Americans that are thoughtlessly, and cruelly, invading what we hope to be our privacy.
@MataHarley: The people taking the photographs obviously have too much time on their hands as well. Just think, “Well, I’m off to Walmart for a few hours to take pictures of people bending over.”
@MataHarley:
That wasn’t your argument. You said:
@Aqua, seems we have that failure to communicate. With my original statement:
You replied that it was different because you agree to terms and conditions via these websites, and the government doesn’t provide those. As I pointed out, and will again, you don’t get terms and conditions with cookies being placed without your knowledge unless you have your computer set to reject any and all unapproved cookies. Since by and large the government is not a social media provider, they have no reason to provide terms and conditions to Internet surfers.
However when you give that permission (i.e. via log ins or membership) to a private provider, those providers are subject to laws that require them to supply data when presented with a warrant. (in additional to selling the data analysis for marketing purposes). However you are still tracked by websites and companies where you simply drop by and snoop around… none of which requires you to approve privacy conditions/terms.
So I’m not sure why you think my clarification to your more specific response “isn’t what I said” originally.
INRE medical data, I’m completely on the same page as you, and a large concern is the vulnerability of electronic medical records to any and all unauthorized to view.. and that includes both private (including hackers) and public. A large part of O’healthcare is pushing for electronic records and authorized access by far too many govt regulatory arms. Then there’s the Exchange portals which have their tracking risk as well.
It’s not that I don’t see the value of storing records electronically. Be insane not to utilize technology for efficiency and space constraints. But darn… it’s like the thoughts that run thru the back of your brain when you bank or purchase goods online. You know you’re rolling the dice on risk. Then again, you can pay bills the old fashioned way, via snail mail, and some lunatic steals your mail or rifles thru your garbage.
Between our medical records floating out in cyberpace, with digitized versions on heaven knows how many minimally secured servers, combined with the genuine “death panel” – the IMAC (now called the IPAB) that I wrote about back in August of 2009, I’d say we’re in a rock and a hard place in privacy and medical records. This appointed panel of czar types will be analyzing an out of control Medicare/Medicaid budget, and will also tap in to health records for common procedures to determine where to lower payouts for medical care. Apparently neither party in Congress wants to do much about O’healthcare or the panel, save to use it as a talking point for elections and false promises to their base. I’m afraid I have no solutions when the elected ones with the power demonstrate no genuine will.
But I don’t put the NSA etal programs in the same category as the medical records and IMAC/IPAB. The former doesn’t concern me as much. With the exception of rogue political operatives, breaking the law for reasons other than national security, intel agency focus isn’t on the standard chatter of citizens in their daily lives. But the latter? Medical record access by far too many agencies, and how that will manifest results, concerns me very much.
@Aqua, let me give you an example of how you are tracked by private entities for marketing purposes… all without signing any agreement to terms and conditions.
One of the oldest and well known companies for providing marketing lists is Direct Mail dot com. They developed and patented the GeoSelector Pro data-mining software back in 2010. They not only compile and sell lists to clientele, but they also sell use of this software to customize your own data mining.
I’m gonna take a wild guess that most of us have never agreed to squat with DirectMail, right? “200 million consumer records”… when you consider that’s about 100+ million shy of the entire nation’s population, you have to marvel at all the resources they used to obtain that database, and with so many personal identifying characteristics.
@MataHarley:
Sure we agree to it. When you sign up for store rewards programs, credit cards, and any other program out there. But you can opt out of direct mail; not much chance of opting out of the NSA program.
I said before that metadata in its purest form is not personal data….but it can become personal. It can be easily misused and becomes suspect quickly. We already have stories out there that the Obama Administration is using personal emails to keep military officers in line. I’m not saying it’s true. If a republican administration gains office, the left will say the same thing. The fact that the government has the data opens up the possibility of misuse. And now it seems we have the mainstream media looking at this. I’m interested in hearing your thoughts on this article:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805
Seems the metadata has legs.
Seems that “the metadata has legs” and has had those legs since 1994 via that particular department, Aqua. The notion that law enforcement has tips and/or insight from sources which would be unusable in court a court of law, starting or furthering an investigation of criminal activity, isn’t anything new in the Info Age. Note Weeks v. US, 232 US 383 in 1914, and Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643 in 1961 – all about evidence obtained outside of legally admissible means. Also read more about how even local potential crimes are also vital to watch lists at at ISE. “Parallel construction” isn’t anything new, nor is it necessarily counterproductive.
What it comes down to is they have information that there is a crime in progress, and have passed it on to the local authorities. Does the intercommunication between agencies bother you? Not me.
While the appropriate agency is intercepting the criminal, they must collect evidence they *can* use in a court of law. If they can’t collect enough evidence without using the original source, the perp walks free. This is far from unusual, so I’m not bothered in the least by the Reuters article. Criminal defense lawyers and the criminals, themselves, are because they lose one more avenue available to get off on a technicality.
Law enforcement has a high threshold for burden of proof… as they should. The way our system is set up favors the accused from the get go…. again, as it should. However if LEOs got a tip from an unusable source/other agency sans jurisdiction, and they *still* met that burden of proof with other admissible evidence, why on earth would I be bothered? And how is this to be construed as “abuse”?
I’d find this troublesome if the data being shared were for purposes such as political revenge, etc, and didn’t involve criminal activity at any level. Other than that, looks to me like law enforcement practices as usual, and tempered by the rules of our judicial system.
BTW, you can’t “opt out” of the DirectMail database. You are part of a dataset they have compiled – complete with personal characteristics and demographics – and sell. You can opt out of whomever purchases that list and their ensuing solicitation, but you remain on the database nonetheless.
@MataHarley:
Nope, but this does.
~emphasis added mine
Where does the information come from that “some agency” happens to know a “certain vehicle” needs to be stopped? Since the originating source cannot be cited during the investigation, how is anyone to know there was probably cause?
BTW, Aqua, here’s the World Privacy Forums page on how to opt out of some databases that have compiled datasets of consumer profiles merely by visiting sites and cookies. Of course, its a one on one thing for every individual marketing company with the counterproductive action you need to take by logging in, in order to opt out. It won’t take you off everything as there is no blanket permanent cure. But it’s helpful. Like the DNC list, you have to do it regularly since it has a time stamp.
@Aqua, the prosecution has to assemble a reasonable PC without the SOD tip. If they can’t, the perp gets off and gets his due process. Just like some evidence isn’t admissible in trials, and any conviction must be accomplished via what they can get admitted.
The 4th Amendment, as it relates to Internet communications, is still a dicey and unresolved situation. The Hills has a story today about the Congressional partisan battles INRE tapping Internet communications for civil and criminal cases, and the ECPA of 1986. Ironically, it is the Dems pushing for stricter intervention for warrants etal, and the GOP that is pushing back. That won’t sit well with some…
@MataHarley:
The excerpt says: agents then pretended that their investigation began with the traffic stop, not with the SOD tip
Do they make something else up? A lie is a lie. If what the excerpt states is correct, there is nothing to prosecute because the stop violated the fourth amendment.
I’m all for catching the bad guys, but if we’re going to start tossing out parts of the Constitution, we’re no better than the left. If what is contained in that article doesn’t disturb you in the least, I’d like to know who is using Mata’s computer.
Courts are filled with “he said/she said” stuff all the time, Aqua… whether from a traffic ticket (i.e. you vs the LEO) on up thru voluminous civil and criminal procedures. Burden of proof as to whether the LEOs – or a petitioner in civil cases – are truthful is their onus. A defendant or
plaintiff(‘scuse please, meant the respondent) can rock that boat as part of their defense.Ask the NSA… LOL!
Seriously, I guess I’ve been around court cases and law enforcement off and on enough in my lifetime that I don’t see anything in there that I haven’t seen long before the latest scare of data mining. For the most part, few can complain about the way it’s used. They just depend upon the “potential for abuse” argument. Well hang, yes… there is always potential for abuse. And that’s with every law, and every regulation. For the majority of cases, wrongful abuse can be remedied thru judicial and appropriate complaint channels.
So does the potential for abuse argument justify hamstringing law enforcement and intel agencies, denying them what private companies have and do using similar tools? Or do you take the more reasonable route and go after them when you have known cases of abuse… like the IRS passing on personal information to political entities, for example. Granted, it doesn’t appear that the admin or Congress have much will to seriously pursue the IRS employees who have genuinely committed privacy violations. In which case, that should be a heads up for voters that the majority of elected officials – BOTH parties – do not deserve to be where they are. Throw the bums out. I’m sure that there are plenty more bums in line who will be equally corrupt. Seems that’s a qualification for running for office, sad to say.
In one way, I’m rather disappointed that the fed employer will continue to contribute to insurance premiums. Considering if they didn’t, all of Congress and their staff, would have to pay for their own insurance without employer contribution, there would be a mass exodus for the door and into private jobs. Would have been a great way to clean Senate and House…. oh well, missed opportunity.
Last thought… you want to know if tossing out parts of the Constitution is wise. I might only point out that, according to our Constitution, the courts interpret our laws. And what you automatically believe is Constitutionally protected is not necessarily so via ample historic precedents. Especially when it comes to Internet/3rd party communications to today’s world. Not long ago, conservatives were whining about Gorelick’s wall of communication. Now everyone’s up in arms about the increased communication. Bizarre world, eh? Damned if you don’t, then damned if you do. Apparently the populous believes they need to approve any and all such communication as “constitutional” in their opinion.
@Aqua: You make a great point, Aqua.
Going after ”the bad guys,” is always….ALWAYS a discretionary act.
So, who to aim and and who to winnow out?
Recall how Obama called Fox News ”not a real news organization?”
Recall how Obama demonized ”the rich?”
Recall how Obama wanted to target Tea Party members and VETERANS as ”terrorists?
Recall how easily a 96% Democrat donating IRS did target Tea Party and other conservative groups in Obama’s unspoken BUT dog whistled advice?
Who would Obama aim all this power to dig into at?
Why, his ”enemies,” of course!
And why would we expect Obama’s Holder, who has already called whites ”cowards,” and covered up for black criminal acts, to do anything other than answer that dog whistle?
@jainphx: DO NOT leave out LBJ from your list of demo-commie-cRATS
@Smorgasbord: Uh — aren’t they (unions, etc) getting waivers — the a-holes are already complaining — they just are keeping it on the down low
@MataHarley: #26
A long time ago, a reporter filled out applications and prizes and other stuff. She used a different version of her name for each one. Sure enough, she started getting junk mail in those names. If a person wants to, they can use a different version of their name to find out who gave the information to the junk mailers.
@Budvarakbar: #35
I haven’t been following the unions and their getting wavers very much, but it seems the ones who donated enough to obama are getting the wavers, just like the other organizations and people who have given enough to obama are getting theirs.
@MataHarley:
I got nothing. The Constitution used to be the law of the land. Obviously I’ve just been naive. I remember watching the Andy Griffith Show where Opie was trying to get Andy to listen to a tape he made of a suspect talking to his lawyer. Andy refused, saying it violated one of the most sacred rights to privacy.
I am a very straight-laced person. I push the speed limit sometimes, and during the Summer Olympics I bounced off a few VPNs to get live coverage from England (in all fairness, NBC sucked). I want nothing more than to remove criminals from the streets, but not at the cost of the Constitution.
If a traffic stop is initiated due to data mining and law enforcement says it was only a random traffic stop…..that’s wrong. Not only that, in light of the information coming from Reuters and others, every traffic stop from here on is suspect. Every officer will now be asked under oath if the stop was initiated by outside sources, subjecting the officer to possible perjury.
Absolutely. Private companies do not have the ability to take away your property or freedom through the use of this information. Private companies just want to sell you something. I have zero faith in our government and almost zero faith in the justice system. This does nothing to shore up my confidence and faith.
According to the IRS a household earning an annual income that is just $1 more than 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level is ineligible for an Obamacare subsidy, period.
In other words, a mere $1 Pay Hike Costs Middle-Class Family $9,355 Hike in Premiums!
The Kaiser Family Foundation maintains an online “Subsidy Calculator” to give individuals and families an idea of how much their health insurance will cost under Obamacare and how much of a federal subsidy they may get—or not get—to help pay for it.