Ed Beeson of New Jersey’s Star-Ledger reported Sunday that “about 106,000 people in the Garden State” -- currently insured under what are known as "basic and essential," or B&E” policies, because they “can’t afford something better” – are going to lose those plans, “thanks to the Affordable Care Act.”
If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.
Benson then cited another piece of “evidence” -- a May 29 article from The Associated Press with the headline, "Like Your Healthcare Policy? You May Be Losing It" – that warned:
Many people who buy their own health insurance could get surprises in the mail this fall: cancellation notices because their current policies aren't up to the basic standards of President Barack Obama's health care law.
Even HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius – the one responsible for implementing the law – has scaled back on Obama’s promises.
“Depending on the plan you choose in the Marketplace,” the HSS website now explains, “you may" -- not "will" -- "be able to keep your current doctor."
Sebelius also walked back Obama’s 2010 promise -- that Obamacare would reduce health insurance premiums by "3,000 percent" -- adding the justification that those who would wind up paying more would be getting more for their additional money.
“These folks will be moving into a really fully insured product for the first time, and so there may be a higher cost associated with getting into that market,” The Wall Street Journal quoted Sebelius explaining to reporters March 26. “But we feel pretty strongly that with subsidies available to a lot of that population that they are really going to see much better benefit for the money that they’re spending.”
As Jim Meyers reported for Newsmax March 20, “an exhaustive study by three congressional committees” found that Obamacare “could increase health insurance premiums by over 200 percent and render insurance coverage unaffordable for millions of Americans.”
Meyers further noted that “studies and analyses from the Congressional Budget Office, independent actuaries, state insurance commissioners, health plans, benefit consultants, and others have reached the same conclusion.”
Then there’s the growing list of delays in implementing key aspects of the law.
“According to the Congressional Research Service,” Avik Roy reported for Forbes Aug. 13, “as of November 2011, the Obama administration had missed as many as one-third of the deadlines, specified by law, under the Affordable Care Act.”
First, there was the delay of Obamacare’s Medicare cuts until after the election. Then there was the delay of the law’s employer mandate. Then there was the announcement, buried in the Federal Register, that the administration would delay enforcement of a number of key eligibility requirements for the law’s health insurance subsidies, relying on the “honor system” instead. Now comes word that another costly provision of the health law—its caps on out-of-pocket insurance costs—will be delayed for one more year.
However, as Roy reported Sunday for Forbes after he “obtained a heretofore-unpublished memorandum from the Congressional Research Service” -- dated June 5 -- the White House has actually “missed half” of the 82 deadlines “legally required” by Obamacare and that “some of those deadlines remain unmet to this day.”
As Steven Dennis reported for Roll Call July 2, “the White House is delaying the employer health mandate of the Affordable Care Act by one year, bowing to corporate pressure and sparking another round of calls from Republicans to repeal the law.”
“In our ongoing discussions with businesses,” Dennis quoted Valerie Jarrett, senior adviser to President Barack Obama, explaining in a blog post late that day, “we have heard that you need the time to get this right. We are listening.”
Jarrett then told employers that the administration would delay the mandate for a year in order to rewrite and simplify the reporting process.
“But the decision is embarrassing for the administration,” Dennis noted, “given that the law passed more than three years ago.”
“Obama should be embarrassed,” George Will opined Thursday for The Wall Street Journal regarding Obama’s “decision to unilaterally rewrite” the healthcare law.
“By ignoring the legal requirement concerning the employer mandate,” Will added, “he has validated critics who say the ACA cannot be implemented as written.”
What does not embarrass him is his complicity in effectively rewriting the ACA for the financial advantage of self-dealing members of Congress and their staffs.
“The ACA says members of Congress (annual salaries: $174,000) and their staffs (thousands making more than $100,000) must participate in the law's insurance exchanges,” Will explained, noting that “when Congress awakened to what it enacted, it panicked.”
So Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management, which has no power to do this, to authorize for the political class special subsidies unavailable for less privileged and less affluent citizens.
As Matthew Boyle noted for Daily Caller June 7, 2011, while the Obama administration had already issued “nearly 1,400 waivers” – primarily to unions, that once backed Obamacare but now oppose the law -- the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) also “never had the authority to issue waivers from Obamacare’s annual limit requirements.”
Language granting HHS that power was never in the original law. Instead, through new rules and regulations, HHS gave itself the power last summer using a broad interpretation of certain parts of the law.
“Since the early days of ObamaCare, when precious waivers were dispensed by the royal court to politically connected special interests (quite a few of which just happened to be located in then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's rich district),” John Hayward wrote for Brietbart Aug. 6, “we've been wondering why the rest of America can't get a waiver and escape from this horrible law.”
CNN reported Saturday that "Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-West Virginia, called on the president to delay the individual mandate in the health care law, “not just for some, but for all Americans."
"The president claims this law is 'working the way it’s supposed to,'” Capito stated, "but clearly it’s not."
Not when the administration is missing deadlines, issuing waivers, and granting delays hand over fist. Things have become so bad that the administration wants to rely on the ‘honor system’ to verify who is eligible for subsidies. Senator Max Baucus was right about this law he helped write: it’s a ‘train wreck.’
The Washington Examiner noted July 5 that Obama’s “decision to delay the implementation of Obamacare’s employer mandate gives no relief to Christian business owners who object to providing contraception to employees as required by the Health and Human Services mandate, which remains in effect and on pace to reach the U.S. Supreme Court in the midst of the 2014 midterm elections.”
According to a Gallup poll released Aug. 15, Obama’s already low approval rating on “Healthcare policy” has fallen another percentage point, from 40 percent to 39 percent.
As noted by Examiner Thursday, "polls have shown that a consistent majority of Americans have opposed Obamacare since it was signed into law in 2010 and that a growing majority still want the law repealed.
“Without exhibiting an ounce of remorse for this nightmare,” David Limbaugh wrote for Human Events July 8, “the administration has stood by the law with stubborn tenacity, ignoring the people’s will every step of the way and bending the law and rigging its implementation in order to ensure its survival."
“Let's delay and rewrite this ill-conceived law,” The Chicago Tribune concluded Sunday with its “bottom line” opinion of Obamacare.
"Congress need not start from scratch," Obama's hometown paper suggested. "Lawmakers can build on what all of us have learned from three years of painful trial and error. Three years of attempting, but failing, to make this clumsy monstrosity work for the American people."