Next ObamaCare dilemma for Obama: Break the law to let people buy subsidized plans directly from insurers or not?

posted at 6:41 pm on November 20, 2013 by Allahpundit

I’ve flagged this issue before — Time magazine was on it before the end of October, in fact — but Megan McArdle’s right that it’s worth revisiting now, with Sebelius hinting that people shouldn’t expect too much from the website on November 30. The emerging Plan B in case Healthcare.gov is still FUBAR next month is to tell users to skip the site and sign up for the plan they want on the insurance company’s own website instead. (Said one industry official recently to the NYT, “If they don’t have Healthcare.gov up and running by the end of the month, direct enrollment is critical.”) There are technical snags with that approach, namely the fact that insurers have no way to calculate an applicant’s taxpayer subsidy (then again, neither do the feds), but at least it gives people a way to get covered before December 15 so that they have a plan in place on New Year’s Day. Cold comfort for the millions who’ve had their plans dropped, but some coverage is usually better than none.

Just one problem. The law says that, in order to be eligible for subsidies, you have to enroll through an ObamaCare exchange. Buying your plan directly from an insurance company disqualifies you, no matter how low your income is. Time wrote about that specifically in the context of people who’ve had their plans canceled and then been automatically enrolled by their insurer in a new plan. Because that enrollment didn’t happen via an exchange, the insured gets no help from Uncle Sam with their new premiums. Experts on the law told Time that it’s unambiguous:

The ACA subsidies are technically tax credits, but consumers can’t apply for them later when they file their income tax returns. The subsidies are only available when consumers purchase coverage through the exchanges, according to CMS. “As far as retroactive premium tax credits for a plan outside the exchange, you can’t do that under the statute,” says Timothy S. Jost, a professor at Washington and Lee University and an expert on provisions of the new law.

As of yesterday, Sebelius herself was warning people that it’s perfectly fine to sign up with insurers directly — unless you need a subsidy:

Sebelius urged those who know they will not qualify for a subsidy on their insurance premium to research available plans and contact their chosen insurance company directly, an option she said is working well.

Subsidies generally are available for individuals earning less than $46,000 a year and families of four earning less than $92,000.

Big problems here for the White House. If they go full bore in promoting direct enrollment with insurers as an alternative to Healthcare.gov, there are bound to be tons of lower-income people who somehow miss the fine print about not going that route if you need a subsidy. That means lots of rate shock and disgruntlement over their new unsubsidized premiums. An obvious alternative is to have insurers themselves ask people what their income is and to discourage them if they’re below the $46,000/$92,000 threshold, but then that means the poor, who are supposed to be the law’s big winners, end up being shut out of coverage for awhile even as middle-class and upper-middle-class people sign up. This is why, I assume, the White House hasn’t promoted direct enrollment enthusiastically with a full-fledged PR campaign despite some congressional Democrats begging them to be more aggressive. They’re probably better off having people not sign up for coverage than to nudge everyone towards direct enrollment and then have thousands of poor applicants shocked by the unaffordable rates being quoted to them.

Or, of course, there’s a third option: Obama could simply decide to ignore the statute and pay out subsidies anyway to people who directly enroll. Normally you don’t have to game out “what if the president just does something illegal instead?” scenarios, but after the employer mandate was dubiously delayed and Obama foisted his highly questionable “fix” for plan cancellations on the insurance industry last week, the illegal option can’t be ruled out. Maybe he’ll conclude that, in the interest of getting as many people on the rolls as possible before December 15th, his best option is to tell the country to go ahead and enroll directly with insurance companies and then demagogue the hell out of the GOP later if they refuse to pass something granting subsidies to those direct enrollees retroactively. Decisions, decisions.

Oh, by the way — because of the way the section about subsidies in the ObamaCare statute was written, it may be that people are also ineligible for subsidies if they bought their plan … via Healthcare.gov. It’s the state exchanges, the statute seems to say, that can bestow taxpayer subsidies on people whose income is below the cut-off. There’s nothing in there about a federal exchange. That issue is currently tied up in court; if Healthcare.gov enrollees also end up disqualified for subsidies, all hell’s going to break loose.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

The law says that, in order to be eligible for subsidies, you have to enroll through an ObamaCare exchange.

Facepalm!

ted c on November 20, 2013 at 6:44 PM

If they go full bore in promoting direct enrollment with insurers as an alternative to Healthcare.gov, there are bound to be tons of lower-income people who somehow miss the fine print about not going that route if you need a subsidy.

So, even with a preexisting condition, they’ll be denied coverage because of who they are and what they make……

that used to be an outrage, huh?!

ted c on November 20, 2013 at 6:46 PM

if Healthcare.gov enrollees also end up disqualified for subsidies, all hell’s going to break loose

it’s a feature, not a bug….

ted c on November 20, 2013 at 6:48 PM

soo…how you doin’ Allah.?/

ted c on November 20, 2013 at 6:48 PM

Finally, if I understand the issue correctly, the Obamacare ‘subsidies’ are actually tax credits, which means that someone entitled to government assistance doesn’t receive it until she files her tax return. This would require the ‘subsidised’ person to still come up with the full premium – out-of-pocket – before she sees a dime. If a person couldn’t afford for a ‘substandard’ policy before Obamacare, how will she be able to pay the premiums on an Obamacare-compliant policy? In other words, if she couldn’t make a $150 payment per month, how will she be able to pay a $300 premium even if she gets tax credits? Obamacare still requires her to come up with $1,800 more per year when she couldn’t afford the $1,800 for the pre-Obamacare policy.

How many people, who actually understand all of this, are going to be flocking to purchase health insurance? Probably a lot less than will be needed for Obamacare to succeed. Sure, many Americans will purchase health insurance and comply with the mandate, but what else are they supposed to do? Go without health insurance? Pay 1% (then 2%, then…) of their income in penalties and roll the bones that they don’t get sick? Even if they do purchase Obamacare insurance policies that doesn’t mean that they will come to ‘love’ Obamacare…no more than people, who are forced to use elevators, come to love elevator music. They are a captive audience. Yet, this ‘captive audience’ will still lack those that cannot afford health insurance.

How does the Obama administration feel about those being priced out of the market? Just look at what Jay Carney said about the single mom, who Obama cited as an Obamacare ‘success’ story in his remarks in the Rose Garden a few weeks ago. She was so excited about getting health insurance…until she found out that she didn’t qualify for subsidies. Now, as before, she cannot afford health insurance and the administration’s response is: ‘The White House is certainly as sorry as we can be that Jessica can’t afford it, but that the law is still doing plenty of good.’ That isn’t exactly a ‘success’ story and shows the callousness of Obamacare.

Obamacare is predicated on people acting against their own self interests, which is always a disastrous bet to make. To believe that people will act against their own self interests requires unicorn thinking.

Sorry, Dems, Republicans Haven’t Scared Young Invincibles From Enrolling In Obamacare. They Are Acting In Their Own Self Interests.

Resist We Much on November 20, 2013 at 6:51 PM

So? He can break the law if he wants. What’s anybody going to do about it?

Dongemaharu on November 20, 2013 at 6:53 PM

When Obama, unilaterally, delayed the employer mandate, the House passed a bill that would give him that authority since the law doesn’t grant it to him. Obama said that he would veto it. The same is true for the Upton bill.

It’s not just the House. Senators Landrieu, Manchin, Udall, Shaheen, and Begich each have introduced separate legislative ‘fixes’ or are in the process of doing so. All of them are Democrats. Harry Reid has refused to allow a vote on any of them and has no plans, at this time, to do so.

Obama claims that Congress refuses to help him ‘fix’ Obamacare, but the real dirty little secret is this: The LAST thing that Obama wants is for Obamacare to be back in Congress where it will be opened up to all sorts of changes. Even if he lacks the authority and his acts are clearly unlawful (see the decision to read the law to permit Federal subsidies to be granted to applicants in states that did not create their own exchanges – the ACA ONLY permits subsidation in STATE-RUN exchanges), Obama would prefer to act unilaterally than let Congress (and Congress, my LIV friends, includes the Senate) start fooling around with his signature achievement.

Resist We Much on November 20, 2013 at 6:53 PM

So at what point does the means of enforcement of this law become so foreign or arbitrary to the way the bill was written that the Supreme Court can re-visit its constitutionality and even John Roberts is at a loss to formulate an opinion creative enough to vote in favor of it a second time? I mean, seriously, these people make stuff up as they go along every freakin’ day.

DaveDief on November 20, 2013 at 6:54 PM

AP has a very good point. If Obama tells people to buy directly from the insurers and the issues about subsidies not being available with direct purchases comes up, it’s likely to further highlight that issue about the law only allowing subsidies from state exchanges. While I’m doubtful at this point that a majority of the Supreme Court [yes, I'm talking about YOU, Chief Justice Roberts!] will toss out the law on the state vs. federal subsidy issue, shining a spotlight on Obama’s unilateral, executive law-rewriting shtick probably won’t benefit him.

Jill1066 on November 20, 2013 at 6:55 PM

Next ObamaCare dilemma for Obama: Break the law to let people buy subsidized plans directly from insurers or not?

…are there any LAWS…JugEars…doesn’t break?
.
.
.
no wonder the Dems are looking for ANYTHING…to get the focus off ObamaCare…the politburo press is going to have to dig deep…to help!

KOOLAID2 on November 20, 2013 at 6:56 PM

MeanWhile,….

Reuters Politics ‏@ReutersPolitics 9m

White House says rise in health costs slower, Obamacare a factor http://reut.rs/1e0r5c5
=======================

Reuters Politics ‏@ReutersPolitics 26m

Insurance commissioners say Obamacare changes create uncertainty http://reut.rs/1e0nISo
=======================

https://twitter.com/ReutersPolitics

canopfor on November 20, 2013 at 6:57 PM

Director of Obamacare Navigator Group Caught On Tape Offering To Give Out Enrollees Personal Information For Political Purposes…

Resist We Much on November 20, 2013 at 6:54 PM

…it’s ACORN…with a name change!

KOOLAID2 on November 20, 2013 at 6:57 PM

Director of Obamacare Navigator Group Caught On Tape Offering To Give Out Enrollees Personal Information For Political Purposes…

Resist We Much on November 20, 2013 at 6:54 PM

The left truly are ghouls. This is disgusting, but all in a days work for them.

oceansidecon on November 20, 2013 at 7:00 PM

There is so much going on it’s hard to keep track.

gophergirl on November 20, 2013 at 7:01 PM

So? He can break the law if he wants. What’s anybody going to do about it?

Dongemaharu on November 20, 2013 at 6:53 PM

…I think Eric Holder…would wave to him!

KOOLAID2 on November 20, 2013 at 7:02 PM

Director of Obamacare Navigator Group Caught On Tape Offering To Give Out Enrollees Personal Information For Political Purposes…

Resist We Much on November 20, 2013 at 6:54 PM

…it’s ACORN…with a name change!

KOOLAID2 on November 20, 2013 at 6:57 PM

Obamacare: Enrolling Democrats?

Enroll America is not enrolling people directly on the federal exchange. Rather, it is asking them to enter their personal information — basic contact info and insurance status — onto “commitment cards” that signify a pledge to learn more about their insurance options. That information is passed to Obamacare navigators and other application counselors who are enrolling people on the exchanges.

What else might Enroll America be doing with that information? “Their contact info and insurance status are added to our database, and may be shared with partners working on enrollment efforts in that consumer’s community,” an Enroll America spokesman tells National Review Online. “We do not share any data with any 501(c)(4) or other political organizations or candidates.”

But O’Keefe’s investigator, posing as the president of a phony 501(c)(4) political-action committee, caught Enroll America’s Texas communications director conspiring to share its trove of data in order to help him hire a field staff and mobilize voters for the Democratic candidate in an upcoming Texas state-house race. “We can mobilize them if we had that list,” O’Keefe’s investigator tells him.

As a non-partisan, nonprofit political-action committee, Enroll America is strictly prohibited from sharing its data for political purposes. “It’s like safeguarded, it is a lock-and-key type of thing, that’s people’s personal information,” the Enroll America staffer, Christopher Tarango, initially tells O’Keefe’s investigator.

With a little prodding, though, Tarango agrees to try to get him the goods. “If I can present you a valid argument showing that this is working, would you be open to it?” the investigator asks. “If you present to me that it works, then I’d be open to it,” Tarango responds. “Look, I like where your head’s at, you’re going by what we call Rule No. 17, Rule No. 17 is — and I told you is — do whatever it f***ing takes.”

Tarango agrees to speak to a top official in Texas’s Enroll America offices. “I will talk to one person who I think might be open to having this conversation behind closed doors and I’ll get back to you on that,” he says.

“And if they can get the list from off the record you’ll make sure I get it?” O’Keefe’s investigator asks.

Tarango promises: “If we can do it we’re gonna

get the list.”

kcewa on November 20, 2013 at 7:02 PM

O/T James O’Keef’s new video is up, and it’s a doozy!

Obamacare defies the laws of physics–it is imploding and exploding simultaneously.

Naturally Curly on November 20, 2013 at 7:03 PM

This would require the ‘subsidised’ person to still come up with the full premium – out-of-pocket – before she sees a dime. If a person couldn’t afford for a ‘substandard’ policy before Obamacare, how will she be able to pay the premiums on an Obamacare-compliant policy? In other words, if she couldn’t make a $150 payment per month, how will she be able to pay a $300 premium even if she gets tax credits? Obamacare still requires her to come up with $1,800 more per year when she couldn’t afford the $1,800 for the pre-Obamacare policy.

Exactly.
And that money would be kept out of the economy to buy the goods and services one chooses to buy, killing jobs.

Mimzey on November 20, 2013 at 7:03 PM

Obama thinks HE is the law.

Axion on November 20, 2013 at 7:04 PM

Wonder of wonders that people are already missing their old plans.

HiJack on November 20, 2013 at 7:05 PM

watching the dems panic is just too awesome, I’m just glad I don’t have to deal with medical issues as this goes down but I have to think people impacted by what’s going on will never vote democrat again…pretty much like those of us that won’t by GM again. And I was a very good GM customer in the past.

DanMan on November 20, 2013 at 7:05 PM

[paraphrased:] people are not eligible for subsidies unless they bought their plan via a state exchange!, the statute seems to say that… ..That issue is currently tied up in court; if Healthcare.gov enrollees also end up disqualified for subsidies, all hell’s going to break loose.

A lot of Dems now suggest that the Democratic authors of the bill didn’t know what they were writing at the time they wrote the bill, that they intended to allow policies sold via the federal exchange to get subsidies. But the section of the bill that deals with subsidy eligibility was very high profile, and very explicit. The Dems knew what they were saying.

They wanted states that did not cooperate by creating exchanges to be not eligible for subsidies, and they thought that that would ensure that the states would cooperate and build exchanges, like a kind of highway funds blackmail. Well, they didn’t realize the extent of opposition to the ACA would drive states not to cooperate anyway.

This court case is pending. The law is unequivocal: ONLY PLANS BOUGHT VIA STATE EXCHANGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR SUBSIDIES!

anotherJoe on November 20, 2013 at 7:07 PM

Maybe he’ll conclude that, in the interest of getting as many people on the rolls as possible before December 15th, his best option is to tell the country to go ahead and enroll directly with insurance companies and then demagogue the hell out of the GOP later if they refuse to pass something granting subsidies to those direct enrollees retroactively. Decisions, decisions.

Let him. The GOP should respond, in the spirit of moderate bipartisan reach-across-the-aisle goodness, by writing up a provision to do just that, and attaching it to their repeal bill.

RINO in Name Only on November 20, 2013 at 7:13 PM

kcewa on November 20, 2013 at 7:02 PM

…nice!

KOOLAID2 on November 20, 2013 at 7:14 PM

So what will happen to all those millions of people who die everyday on the streets of America because they don’t have health care ? These people still don’t have health care even after ObamCAIR , now what do we do ? Let them die ?
;-) ;-)

burrata on November 20, 2013 at 7:14 PM

One slight problem with this “brilliant” strategy:

75 percent of ALL US households make less than $92,000.

Of course, that’s using data from the US Census, so there’s no way to know if those numbers are correct or not…..

TeresainFortWorth on November 20, 2013 at 7:15 PM

Nuke it!

txhsmom on November 20, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Is it just me who thinks we are watching an epic disaster movie in slow motion. Not some film with the HMS Titanic which took a while to sink but more like the Hindenburg which went down in seconds but can take 45 minutes in movie time.

The administration is going off the rails and the only thing keeping them operational at this point is centuries of precedent, a stupid but loyal base, a Dem majority in the Senate, and disbelief that any of this is happening in the United States.

Put another way, in five years Obama has turned America into the nation of his father. A third-world rat hole.

Happy Nomad on November 20, 2013 at 7:17 PM

There’s a slight problem with this “brilliant” strategy:

75 percent of ALL US households make less than $92,000.

The top 25% can go to the private market, since they aren’t going to get a break anyway. The other 75% are STILL going to have to go through the website if they want to get a subsidy.

Of course, that’s using data from the US Census, so there’s no way to know if those numbers are correct or not…..

TeresainFortWorth on November 20, 2013 at 7:18 PM

Director of Obamacare Navigator Group Caught On Tape Offering To Give Out Enrollees Personal Information For Political Purposes…

Resist We Much on November 20, 2013 at 6:54 PM

We can’t be more than 18 month out from gulags.

Murphy9 on November 20, 2013 at 7:20 PM

O/T James O’Keef’s new video is up, and it’s a doozy!

Obamacare defies the laws of physics–it is imploding and exploding simultaneously.

Naturally Curly on November 20, 2013 at 7:03 PM

Rule number 17! (2:00)

dont taze me bro on November 20, 2013 at 7:21 PM

You know it’s been a lot of fun ridiculing this stupid Obamacare, but things are getting to the point of collapse, people are going to be harmed.

Forget repeal, forget delay, forget fixes, forget workarounds, forget extensions and exemptions, sombody pull the damn plug.

MichaelGabriel on November 20, 2013 at 7:22 PM

It is almost like no one read the bill before they voted for it.

astonerii on November 20, 2013 at 7:24 PM

A law is only a law when Obama decides to enforce it… or when a patient who bought a non-approved plan later sues an insurance company for not covering their pre-existing condition.

BKeyser on November 20, 2013 at 7:25 PM

The ‘train wreck’ just keeps on going.

Maybe Nancy-poo and her pals should have READ that ‘law’ before they passed it.

GarandFan on November 20, 2013 at 7:25 PM

This is just so much better than before obamacare.
What has become of the rule of law?

GaltBlvnAtty on November 20, 2013 at 7:28 PM

Director of Obamacare Navigator Group Caught On Tape Offering To Give Out Enrollees Personal Information For Political Purposes…

Resist We Much on November 20, 2013 at 6:54 PM

IMO, the CHICKens are coming HOME to ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOST!

Happy Nomad on November 20, 2013 at 7:28 PM

Forget repeal, forget delay, forget fixes, forget workarounds, forget extensions and exemptions, sombody pull the damn plug.

MichaelGabriel on November 20, 2013 at 7:22 PM

One word for that……. Impeachment. Any change is not going to happen otherwise. FNC reported tonight that the White House is still in the mindset that we will all love Obamacare if we get beyond these initial glitches.

Happy Nomad on November 20, 2013 at 7:30 PM

This is just so much better than before obamacare.
What has become of the rule of law?

GaltBlvnAtty on November 20, 2013 at 7:28 PM

The only rule is Rule #17

Whatever it *******g takes

kcewa on November 20, 2013 at 7:32 PM

If any percentage of people go into the holiday without coverage…

…even if they are covered by their current plan until the end of 2013…

…they will not think of anything else but “what happens next year”…

…then Obama becomes an anchor and Demming numbers will crater nationwide.

budfox on November 20, 2013 at 7:32 PM

Barack Obama is a ‘constitutional scholar’ – which option do you think he will take based on his take on the constitution and his previous decisions?

Director of Obamacare Navigator Group Caught On Tape Offering To Give Out Enrollees Personal Information For Political Purposes…

Resist We Much on November 20, 2013 at 6:54 PM

They’ve taken the old joke line from the early days of the Clinton Administration and actually have made it the official policy…

The line uttered by some clueless wag – ‘Power corrupts, and absolute power is absolutely pretty cool…’

This Administration sees absolutely no limits to use every bit of power, control, and access to information for political expediency. To them, it’s ‘Power corrupts, and absolute power is just another tool for us to use to further our agenda.’

To these modern-day jacobins, there are no checks and balances that they are subject to. There are no legal or constitutional checks and balances. There are no ethical checks and balances. There are no moral checks and balances. The desired ends always justifies any means they believe are necessary.

That is why, regardless of the ‘scandals’ or even being ‘caught’, they will continue with their abuses of power. It’s what they see themselves entitled and empowered to do.

Athos on November 20, 2013 at 7:33 PM

It is almost like no one read the bill before they voted for it.

astonerii on November 20, 2013 at 7:24 PM

Remember this :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t32ckkdlcao
good times! good times !!

burrata on November 20, 2013 at 7:34 PM

As people realize how much of the law is being broken, I sure hope they have absolutely no qualms about lying about their life style when applying for insurance.

“Smoking, drinking? Who ME?!? How can I, what with me training for marathons n’ stuff”

kurtzz3 on November 20, 2013 at 7:35 PM

This is the first time in my life I have seen vapor law.

flackcatcher on November 20, 2013 at 7:37 PM

Visit at your own risk and out of sheer stupidity.

Schadenfreude on November 20, 2013 at 7:38 PM

This monster just keeps getting better and better….

Has any Dem/Prog called for repeal yet..?

d1carter on November 20, 2013 at 7:46 PM

Obama could simply decide to ignore the statute and pay out subsidies anyway to people who directly enroll

“Simply?”

Quite the opposite. It would be necessary to build a new system which determines eligibility, enrollment, verify identity and mail out the checks for each enrollee. That should sound familiar because it is pretty much the same work as the back-end of the current Obamacare exchange. You know, that part reported to be in even worse shambles than the user-facing front-end of the website. Assuming the administration is even capable of standing up subsidy reimbursement system, how long would it take to implement? Because it would require a similar magnitude of effort as the Obamacare exchange and because the exchange has a head start it could certainly not be completed before the exchange becomes functional.

The most Obama could do would be to promise that those who were eligible for subsidies and who enroll directly with insurers now would eventually receive subsidies at some later date. That would be ineffective because most enrollees poor enough to be eligible for subsidies could also not afford pay insurance premiums while awaiting subsidy payments. And then there would be the resulting public fury over the inevitable failure to pay out subsidies in whatever timeframe the administration promises.

So paying out subsidies anyway to people who directly enroll? No, not an option even if they want to.

Jodka on November 20, 2013 at 7:48 PM

… if Healthcare.gov enrollees also end up disqualified for subsidies, all hell’s going to break loose.

One hot mess this Obamacare law(lessness).

One word for that……. Impeachment.

Happy Nomad on November 20, 2013 at 7:30 PM

Will never happen no matter who has control if the media does not foment the public’s interest in doing so.

In other words … ain’t gonna happen with this one. Ever.

Getting the public to force the D’s to repeal is the best hope alive, albeit a small hope.

Even there they are likely to want the R’s to go along with a fix rather than repeal. The media will be complicit in that push.

Carnac on November 20, 2013 at 7:49 PM

Visit at your own risk and out of sheer stupidity.

Schadenfreude on November 20, 2013 at 7:38 PM

What do you mean by “sheer stupidity?”

Happy Nomad on November 20, 2013 at 7:50 PM

Carnac on November 20, 2013 at 7:49 PM

Of course impeachment is impossible. The first black President would never be impeached. Which is why we are doubly screwed if the first female President comes up next. Triple screw job if it is Killary.

This is gender and race politics at its worst. The White House is infested with a stupid lazy socialist and he is bullet proof. There were calls for impeaching GWB for firing 18 incompetent US Attorneys (and I can personally attest to the worthlessness of one).

Richard Nixon would have been removed from office for far less than the current scandals. Yet with a rat-eared black in office, there is no crime that reaches the level of an impeachable offense despite the fact that citizen’s rights have been violated in many different ways. In all honesty, Obama makes honest citizens more likely to hate all black politicians and by extension blacks in general. He has turned the tide on racial equality but not in the way his supporters claim.

Happy Nomad on November 20, 2013 at 7:58 PM

Obama could simply decide to ignore the statute and pay out subsidies anyway to people who directly enroll.

To summarize my earlier point in one sentence: It would not be technically feasible to implement this in time for it to do Obama any good.

Jodka on November 20, 2013 at 8:04 PM

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmaybe this dilemma is closer to that one.

Do you know where your personal data is going?

After meeting with several Obamacare Navigators who openly encouraged our undercover reporters to lie about income status, health history and more, it became clear that personal data was also being “cross-pollinated.”

Enter Enroll America, a Sebelius-linked group dedicated to signing people up for Obamacare and Chris Tarango, Texas Enroll America Communications Director who Project Veritas caught on tape agreeing to help obtain a private list of potential Obamacare enrollee data for election/political purposes. Tarango goes so far to say he’ll “Do whatever it f****** takes.”

Akzed on November 20, 2013 at 8:11 PM

Obamacare Now More Unpopular Than The Iraq War In 2006…

Via Washington Examiner:

Support for President Obama’s health care law has dropped 16 points in the past month — and that’s just among Democrats.

The finding, from a CBS News poll, is one of several startling numbers from polls released in recent days showing rapidly eroding public support for Obama’s signature legislative accomplishment in the wake of its botched rollout. [...]

With the 2014 midterm elections now in the horizon, what’s most striking is how closely Obamacare polling is starting to resemble polling on Iraq in fall 2006, when a public backlash against the war enabled the Democrats to take over control of both chambers of Congress.

A Gallup poll taken days before the Nov. 7, 2006, election found that 55 percent of Americans had come to view sending troops to Iraq as a mistake, compared to 40 percent who said it was not.

Yet in the CBS News poll released Wednesday, 61 percent of Americans were found to disapprove of Obamacare, compared to 31 percent who approve. In the Washington Post poll, the numbers were 57 percent to 40 percent.

Resist We Much on November 20, 2013 at 9:00 PM

That issue is currently tied up in court; if Healthcare.gov enrollees also end up disqualified for subsidies, all hell’s going to break loose.

Yep, that’s going to be 5 or 6 really angry people.

RINO in Name Only on November 20, 2013 at 9:27 PM

Oh, by the way — because of the way the section about subsidies in the ObamaCare statute was written, it may be that people are also ineligible for subsidies if they bought their plan … via Healthcare.gov. It’s the state exchanges, the statute seems to say, that can bestow taxpayer subsidies on people whose income is below the cut-off. There’s nothing in there about a federal exchange. That issue is currently tied up in court; if Healthcare.gov enrollees also end up disqualified for subsidies, all hell’s going to break loose.

No problem; John Roberts can simply do a virtual rewrite of the original Obamacare legislation.

slickwillie2001 on November 20, 2013 at 9:31 PM

Or, of course, there’s a third option: Obama could simply decide to ignore the statute and pay out subsidies anyway to people who directly enroll. Normally you don’t have to game out “what if the president just does something illegal instead?” scenarios, but after the employer mandate was dubiously delayed and Obama foisted his highly questionable “fix” for plan cancellations on the insurance industry last week, the illegal option can’t be ruled out. Maybe he’ll conclude that, in the interest of getting as many people on the rolls as possible before December 15th, his best option is to tell the country to go ahead and enroll directly with insurance companies and then demagogue the hell out of the GOP later if they refuse to pass something granting subsidies to those direct enrollees retroactively. Decisions, decisions.

Oh, this is an easy fix!

All it takes is the exercise of a little prosecutorial discretion. Obama can just refuse to prosecute those who pay out subsidies to people who directly enroll.

So the insurance companies can pay out the subsidies, and Obama will not prosecute them.

Wait, it’s not the insurance companies that pay out those subsidies?

Uh oh.

Obama needs to know whose ass to kick … I mean, whose ass to fail to prosecute!

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 21, 2013 at 3:48 AM

this guy breaks laws left and right for his political convenience, when will he be charged with his crimes and impeached.

answer: never, as everyone is afraid of the race card being played and the urban thugs rioting.

sniffles1999 on November 21, 2013 at 7:58 AM

our only recourse to this illegial law and its implementation is to

VOTE OUT ALL DEMS IN 2014 AND REPEAL IT.

sniffles1999 on November 21, 2013 at 7:59 AM