Canada Free Press – by Dan Calabrese
Of all the ill-conceived elements of ObamaCare, the worst may be the individual mandate. Not only is it unconstitutional (Chief Justice Roberts’s inexplicable journey to the dark side notwithstanding), but it also presents a conundrum for which there is no plausible resolution: If you don’t enforce the mandate, the viability of the entire health insurance market is jeopardized because you need those young healthies to pay for all that “affordable care” for the old sickies. But if you do enforce it, people rightfully cry foul because you’ve already delayed the employer mandate not one year but now two.
So what to do?
If you’re the Obama White House, you have to come up with some sort of scheme – however warped – to split the difference. So here it is, courtesy of the intrepidly reported Wall Street Journal editorial page. You keep the mandate in place, but administratively create loopholes so broad that anyone who wants to make noise can get an exemption . . . but you don’t announce that to the public because, if you did, everyone would do it.
How did they pull this off? With a non-publicized administrative rule that expands a previously established “hardship” exemption for anyone who had their insurance cancelled as a result of ObamaCare. This was quietly issued last week, and most of the media were characteristically paying no attention. But the WSJ was:
In 2013, HHS decided that ObamaCare’s wave of policy terminations qualified as a “hardship” that entitled people to a special type of coverage designed for people under age 30 or a mandate exemption. HHS originally defined and reserved hardship exemptions for the truly down and out such as battered women, the evicted and bankrupts.
But amid the post-rollout political backlash, last week the agency created a new category: Now all you need to do is fill out a form attesting that your plan was cancelled and that you “believe that the plan options available in the [ObamaCare] Marketplace in your area are more expensive than your cancelled health insurance policy” or “you consider other available policies unaffordable.”This lax standard—no formula or hard test beyond a person’s belief—at least ostensibly requires proof such as an insurer termination notice. But people can also qualify for hardships for the unspecified nonreason that “you experienced another hardship in obtaining health insurance,” which only requires “documentation if possible.” And yet another waiver is available to those who say they are merely unable to afford coverage, regardless of their prior insurance. In a word, these shifting legal benchmarks offer an exemption to everyone who conceivably wants one.
For the White House, this may be the ultimate example of flying by the seat of their pants in the implementation of this fatally flawed law. The individual mandate is widely reviled – an egregious imposition on people’s right to choose their own health care arrangements. But you can’t socialize health care unless you impose an everybody-in-nobody-out mandate that is inherent to command-and-control systems. So Obama tries to split the difference. Everybody in, unless we let you out, which we will if you push us hard enough, but shhhhhhh! Don’t say anything about it, or everyone will want to do it!
And this is supposed to be better than the health care system – for all its flaws – we had before?
aide of all that’s unconstitutional and all..
here is something they also didn’t take into consideration with this O’blaimy care ACA..is
what if ACA was fully in place..and one of these silly Government Shut down occurs..LMFAO..now what ..who pays the bills than, how does it get paid? and when?
no fore thought with the douchebags and their duchebaggery
Cute. Can a guy say he won’t sign up for ObamaCare since he doesn’t think he should have to buy maternity coverage for himself?