How Democrats Are Covering Up the Illegal Obamacare Bailout.....

[humbolt]

So "changes" are not the problem. The problem is "changes in calculations"?

Aren't "changes in calculation" covered by "changes"? And the text I quoted authorizes changes in the calculations.

Nowhere does the ACA legislation contemplate abandoning the "budget neutrality" requirement regarding risk adjustment. The change in calculation offered with this new regulation does exactly that to avoid the rate increases insurers were anticipating would be required. IOW, there is no budget neutrality and HHS is illegally handing taxpayers a bill in yet another attempt to hide the dismal failure that is Obamacare.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

No. You quoted text from the ACA which authorizes changes. I've already said that was not the dispute. The change in the method of calculation is the bone of contention. WTF indeed. Quit playing games.

Does a change in the method of calculation require passing legeslation.

 

[humbolt]

Does a change in the method of calculation require passing legeslation.

This one does. HHS is proposing a tax increase. They can't do that all by their little selves.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Yay! More conspiracy theories!

Yeah!

More tolls!

 

[Fearandloathing]

Note All those Little light blue words that our links to the validated sources.....and or references of who said what where and when. Just sayin!

Validated sources do not count with them, they never use them, won't read them unless they have been redacted and approved by the White House.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Where is the proof? Because TownHall reported it? If they were really "illegal" wouldnt the GOP be jumping all over this? I mean they are the most fervent anti-ACA people around...

Please try the links provided.

Meanwhile, please show reliable evidence no one lost their plan.

Or, maybe an apology for having lied, like a real man would do...

 

[sangha]

Nowhere does the ACA legislation contemplate abandoning the "budget neutrality" requirement regarding risk adjustment. The change in calculation offered with this new regulation does exactly that to avoid the rate increases insurers were anticipating would be required. IOW, there is no budget neutrality and HHS is illegally handing taxpayers a bill in yet another attempt to hide the dismal failure that is Obamacare.

AFAIK, budget neutrality is not a requirement nor does the change in calculation make the program non budget neutral. The CBO continues to project budget neutrality

 

[sangha]

This one does. HHS is proposing a tax increase. They can't do that all by their little selves.

No, it doesn't require new legislation. I've quoted the text that authorizes the change

 

[MMC]

Validated sources do not count with them, they never use them, won't read them unless they have been redacted and approved by the White House.

Heya F&L. :2wave: Well I didn't think it would be that hard to count from 2 to 5.....or adding 2 with 20. To come up with an answer of 22.

Are you telling me this is to to much? :mrgreen:

 

[humbolt]

No, it doesn't require new legislation. I've quoted the text that authorizes the change

You're simply willfully ignoring the point. You haven't read the provided links within the OP article. Get back to me after you do.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Heya F&L. :2wave: Well I didn't think it would be that hard to count from 2 to 5.....or adding 2 with 20. To come up with an answer of 22.

Are you telling me this is to to much? :mrgreen:

well not for you and I.....


However, if you paid close attention to the words of the rock opera Tommy, it can happen.

 

[sangha]

You're simply willfully ignoring the point. You haven't read the provided links within the OP article. Get back to me after you do.

I have read the links from the OP. I've also read the relevant sections of the law. I've even quoted them.

Congress authorized the Secy to make changes to the calculations. It's that simple

 

[humbolt]

Heya F&L. :2wave: Well I didn't think it would be that hard to count from 2 to 5.....or adding 2 with 20. To come up with an answer of 22.

Are you telling me this is to to much? :mrgreen:

Uh huh. Don't expect much and you won't be disappointed. That generally leads to reading only good news, and getting really, really mad when reality intrudes, much like our president.

 

[humbolt]

I have read the links from the OP. I've also read the relevant sections of the law. I've even quoted them.

Congress authorized the Secy to make changes to the calculations. It's that simple

Yeah.. I'm certain that for you it is.

 

[pdog]

And I have already noted that is not the argument. You just want that to be the argument because the changes made by this proposal fall outside the legislative authority granted under the ACA.

I've been following along. Can you explain why the bolded text in #35 does not adequately allow for LEGAL changes?

(b) Criteria and Methods.--The Secretary, in consultation with
States, shall establish criteria and methods to be used in carrying out
the risk adjustment activities under this section. The Secretary may
utilize criteria and methods similar to the criteria and methods
utilized under part C or D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act.

For right or wrong, this seems to have enough wiggle room to drive a truck thru.

 

[1750Texan]

There sure is something. It's called "Sec 1343 of ACA"SEC. 1343. <<NOTE: 42 USC 18063.>> RISK ADJUSTMENT.

(a) In General.--
(1) Low actuarial risk plans.--Using the criteria and
methods developed under subsection (b), each State shall assess
a charge on health plans and health insurance issuers (with
respect to health insurance coverage) described in subsection
(c) if the actuarial risk of the enrollees of such plans or
coverage for a year is less than the average actuarial risk of
all enrollees in all plans or coverage in such State for such
year that are not self-insured group health plans (which are
subject to the provisions of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974).
(2) High actuarial risk plans.--Using the criteria and
methods developed under subsection (b), each State shall provide
a payment to health plans and health insurance issuers (with
respect to health insurance coverage) described in subsection
(c) if the actuarial risk of the enrollees of such plans or
coverage for a year is greater than the average actuarial risk
of all enrollees in all plans and coverage in such State for
such year that are not self-insured group health plans (which
are subject to the provisions of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974).

(b) Criteria and Methods.--The Secretary, in consultation with
States, shall establish criteria and methods to be used in carrying out
the risk adjustment activities under this section. The Secretary may
utilize criteria and methods similar to the criteria and methods
utilized under part C or D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act.
Such criteria and methods shall be included
in the standards and requirements the Secretary prescribes under section
1321.

Did their brains freeze over reading this?

 

[sangha]

Did their brains freeze over reading this?

Read it?

If it's not printed at TownHall.com or Breitbart, they don't read it.

 

[MMC]

Uh huh. Don't expect much and you won't be disappointed. That generally leads to reading only good news, and getting really, really mad when reality intrudes, much like our president.

Yeah HB.....as you can see its look for, the other out. As the Supporters thereof......just don't care how much BO's failed concept costs. Whats an extra 3% here or a couple extra percentage points there. Then its hope to hope on the CBO and the reports they get from BO.

Another reason why they went off on a tangent about the Law thats in the SCOTUS anyways.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Please try the links provided.

Meanwhile, please show reliable evidence no one lost their plan.

Or, maybe an apology for having lied, like a real man would do...

What the proof is an article that quotes someone from Town Hall to validate that its illegal? ""If conservatives want to stop the illegal Obamacare insurance bailout before it starts they must start planning now," wrote Conn Carroll, an editor of the right-leaning news site Townhall.com."

 

[humbolt]

I've been following along. Can you explain why the bolded text in #35 does not adequately allow for LEGAL changes?

It does allow for legal changes, and this has been known since the legislation passed. It's not unusual. The changes proposed exceed the limits described, however. Ask yourself why a regulation change was initiated if the existing legislation addressed the issue. In short, the existing law does not allow for the change they are proposing.

For right or wrong, this seems to have enough wiggle room to drive a truck thru.

True, but if you read the relevant sections of the SS regs regarding risk adjustment, you will see that there are limits.

 

[sangha]

It does allow for legal changes, and this has been known since the legislation passed. It's not unusual. The changes proposed exceed the limits described, however.

I do not see any limits in the text I quoted. Please explain what limit you're talking about and how this change exceeded that limit

Ask yourself why a regulation change was initiated if the existing legislation addressed the issue. In short, the existing law does not allow for the change they are proposing.

No regulation was changed. HHS was given the authority to make these regs. To that end, HHS has issued interim rules so interested parties could comment on the proposed rules. Now, after considering those comments, HHS has issued the final rules. IOW, until now there has been no rule on this, so how could a rule that didn't exist be changed?

Answer: It hasn't. The only thing that has happened is that the HHS issued a rule as the legislation authorizes it to do.

True, but if you read the relevant sections of the SS regs regarding risk adjustment, you will see that there are limits.

If you read the summary (page 12) you'll see the only change to the risk adjustment program is "modifications to the way we calculate the annual limit on cost sharing so that we round this parameter down to the nearest $50 increment".

Are you really getting so hysterical over $50 in a multi-billion program?

 

[humbolt]

I do not see any limits in the text I quoted. Please explain what limit you're talking about and how this change exceeded that limit

Oh, please. You quoted what you consider to be beneficial to your viewpoint, and that hardly tells the story at all. You're suggesting that these programs operate free from any appropriation constraint.

No regulation was changed. HHS was given the authority to make these regs. To that end, HHS has issued interim rules so interested parties could comment on the proposed rules. Now, after considering those comments, HHS has issued the final rules. IOW, until now there has been no rule on this, so how could a rule that didn't exist be changed?

Answer: It hasn't. The only thing that has happened is that the HHS issued a rule as the legislation authorizes it to do.

If that were true, then this proposed regulation change wouldn't be necessary at all.

If you read the summary (page 12) you'll see the only change to the risk adjustment program is "modifications to the way we calculate the annual limit on cost sharing so that we round this parameter down to the nearest $50 increment".

Are you really getting so hysterical over $50 in a multi-billion program?

Again, please don't play stupid just to make a false point. http://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/20140123CRSMemo.pdf

 

[humbolt]

I do not see any limits in the text I quoted. Please explain what limit you're talking about and how this change exceeded that limit

Oh, please. You quoted what you consider to be beneficial to your viewpoint, and that hardly tells the story at all. You're suggesting that these programs operate free from any appropriation constraint.

No regulation was changed. HHS was given the authority to make these regs. To that end, HHS has issued interim rules so interested parties could comment on the proposed rules. Now, after considering those comments, HHS has issued the final rules. IOW, until now there has been no rule on this, so how could a rule that didn't exist be changed?

Answer: It hasn't. The only thing that has happened is that the HHS issued a rule as the legislation authorizes it to do.

If that were true, then this proposed regulation change wouldn't be necessary at all.

If you read the summary (page 12) you'll see the only change to the risk adjustment program is "modifications to the way we calculate the annual limit on cost sharing so that we round this parameter down to the nearest $50 increment".

Are you really getting so hysterical over $50 in a multi-billion program?

Again, please don't play stupid just to make a false point. http://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/20140123CRSMemo.pdf

 

[sangha]

Oh, please. You quoted what you consider to be beneficial to your viewpoint, and that hardly tells the story at all. You're suggesting that these programs operate free from any appropriation constraint.

Since you haven't posted an explanation about the limits or how the regs exceed them, I'll assume it's because you can't do so

If that were true, then this proposed regulation change wouldn't be necessary at all.

There is no regulation "change". They issued final regulations

 

[humbolt]

Since you haven't posted an explanation about the limits or how the regs exceed them, I'll assume it's because you can't do so

Didn't read the link I provided, I take it, or if you did, you don't understand that the law exists as passed with attached budget neutral appropriations. The proposed changes disregard budget neutrality.

There is no regulation "change". They issued final regulations

Earlier here you stated that change is allowed - switching your tune, huh.