White House: Key Obamacare provision is not "viable"
File this under "we have to pass the bill to know what's in it." The Administration has decided to kill the long term care program tucked into ObamaCare (I had completely forgotten about that). “I do not see a viable path forward for . . . implementation at this time,” said HHS czarina Sebelius.
So I guess they had to enact this program to figure out how useless it was. Except they didn't -- critics knew all along that the long term care program wouldn't be viable (including Democrat Kent Conrad who called it a "Ponzi scheme"). The program is voluntary and so the government finally realized that it couldn't sustain it without charging -- brace yourself -- market rates. One interesting point: getting rid of the program eliminates $86 billion of the deficit reduction gimmicks of Obamacare. Because the program would collect premiums for a decade before paying out benefits, it was deemed to cut the deficit. On the bright side, I suppose the GOP can now claim the the administration has just increased the deficit by 86 bil. I mean, as long as we're playing fantasy economics....
- Comment (7)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Re: White House: Key Obamacare provision is not "viable"
I'm shocked, shocked, that this administration decided to kill the program that was only included to make Obamacare seem like less of a fiscal disaster. What is this world coming to?
And I'm sure the media will apologize for those "fact checks" of conservatives who claimed this was gimmickry all along, right?
Re: White House: Key Obamacare provision is not "viable"
"And I'm sure the media will apologize for those "fact checks" of conservatives who claimed this was gimmickry all along, right?" Mollie, Anderson Cooper will surely be all over this. After, he specializes in "keeping 'em honest."
Dec '10
Re: White House: Key Obamacare provision is not "viable"
Adam, never has so much been lied about, to so many, by so few. You can quote me.
May '10
Re: White House: Key Obamacare provision is not "viable"
Entirely predictable, if you remember how this thing got passed in the first place.
(Note: that narrative may not be entirely accurate.)
May '10
Re: White House: Key Obamacare provision is not "viable"
The degree to which Obamacare delegates details and discretion to the executive branch is a scandal . . . and an opportunity! An opportunity to a future conservative president who isn't afraid to fight fire with fire. If vast swathes of Obamacare are optional, a president with the will to do so could simply waiver it away.
The more I read about the left, the more I'm convinced that reality holds no interest for them. Gesture is all. Perhaps this is the passive-aggressive bargain they have secretly offered us all along: they get to "pass" a "law" and declare a "historic" "victory"; we on the Right get no real change from the status quo.
Edited on Oct 15, 2011 at 7:53pmDec '10
Re: White House: Key Obamacare provision is not "viable"
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.: I'm shocked, shocked, that this administration decided to kill the program that was only included to make Obamacare seem like less of a fiscal disaster. What is this world coming to?
And I'm sure the media will apologize for those "fact checks" of conservatives who claimed this was gimmickry all along, right? · Oct 15 at 7:04pm
No adult remains in Washington to turn off the lights. No word coming out of the mouth of any member of the budget committee can be taken seriously. No petty dishonesty such as using a reserve account, meant for future expenses, to offset current liabilities—the exact definition of Ponzi scheme—can remain solitary, confined to itself. It is the exposed claw of the griffin and it only sees us as its carrion.
Jul '10
Re: White House: Key Obamacare provision is not "viable"
Adults have never been a reliable commodity in DC. My chief beef with Gingrich is still that, when he had the spotlight and the power and the insight required to actually include federal obligations (e.g., Social Security trust fund) as a component of formal federal budget calculations he ran from it like a scalded monkey. If the obligation component had been factored in to this farcical program the deficit reduction claims would have evaporated like a morning mist.
Corporations trying to pull this would be crucified in the public square.
It's the dishonesty, stupid.
Amusingly, the only venue where I have seen this issue argued passionately by large numbers of people is in the Tea Party. The first time I've seen a congressional candidate take up the issue and promise to fight for zero-based budgeting (rather than the baseline doublespeak and, again, dishonesty) was one addressing a Tea Party. I am sure that news readers would aside from the handicap of, well, being news readers.
Edited on Oct 16, 2011 at 3:05am