ProPublica Analyst Charles Ornstein Thinks that another ObamaCare Surprise Is Going to Arrive in January— He Might Be Wrong — but I Think that the Act’s Complexity, and the Market it Operates in, Favor Ornstein’s Concerned Perspective — and My Comment regarding the Larger Message about America’s Political Leadership

13 November 2013

Citation — to Ornstein’s article

Charles Ornstein, Coming in January: Obamacare Rate Shock Part Two, ProPublica (12 November 2013)

ProPublica has no axe to grind — other than protecting the public’s overall interest by focusing on truth

Charles Ornstein wrote, in regard to ObamaCare’s trouble-plagued unveiling:

[C]ome January, a second rate shock may hit and could produce more bad news for Obamacare.

There are four types of plans being offered on the exchanges — bronze, silver, gold and platinum. As you move up the medal ladder, the premiums generally increase, as do the benefits.

A spokesperson for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees the marketplaces, said that when consumers apply for coverage, they will receive an eligibility determination detailing whether they qualify for tax credits and a cost-sharing reduction . . . .

“The website difficulties have meant that in much of the country people have yet to really see what the cost-sharing will look like in these plans, and they may be surprised for find out that the deductibles and co-pays in bronze and silver plans are higher than what one would find in typical employer-provided health benefits,” Larry Levitt, senior vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, said in an email.

“I think it remains to be seen whether people see these plans as offering them good protection against catastrophic health expenses — which they do — or are disappointed that they won’t generally provide much coverage for occasional visits to the doctor or prescriptions,” Levitt added.

That has been my concern, too

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote:

Given that the Administration very probably lied about many of us being able to keep existing insurance policies, why would anyone believe its statements about the comparative cost of their allegedly now required replacements?

How does anyone know whether these replacement plans will be reliably cheaper or equal in cost, when the Administration cannot even get the enrollment process that compares them off the ground?

And why should individual plan subscribers be happy at the prospect that they may be picking up a lot of added costs that employer and government-based plans do not?

This kind of rationale for Big Government lying — namely “it don’t matter, the outcome’s the same” — is BS. It does matter because people do not like being tricked and misled.

Then, there is the additional and unknown impact of the “Sequester” — on Government’s ability to fund some of the promised ObamaCare subsidies

The Heritage Foundation — usually known more for blind partisanship than truth — published the following tidbit. In this instance, the article’s thrust may be reasonably accurate, given the way the overlapping legal language works — at least as according to my former experience as both corporate and government attorney:

The BCA [Budget Control Act — meaning “sequester”] exempts only the premium subsidies, not the cost-sharing subsidies, from upcoming cuts.

Regrettably, the Obama Administration has not taken steps to inform the American people of this fact as they navigate coverage options in the government exchanges.

[According to its interpretation of the legal language implementing ObamaCare and the Sequester] the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has concluded that the cost-sharing subsidies under Section 1402 of Obamacare “appear to be fully sequestrable” under the BCA.

The Administration has likewise agreed that the cost-sharing subsidies are subject to sequestration spending reductions.

The [May 2013 Office of Management and Budget] report further estimated that a 7.2 percent cut in these subsidies, as required by sequestration, would reduce spending by $286 million in fiscal year 2014—a period that covers the first nine months of Obamacare’s coverage expansions, from January through September 2014.

However, the Administration has not been similarly forthcoming about how the 7.2 percent spending reductions will be applied.

The moral? — ObamaCare’s rough initial ride leads to a sad conclusion about the state of America’s national leadership

Politically, what should have been a clear win for Democrats — in view of Republicans’ obstreperous, obstructionist, and flagrantly empty-headed anti-Act posturing — has been, almost magically, converted into a symbol of genuinely egregious Administration incompetence and lying.

In consequence, it now seems likely that Baboon Clan One (Republicans) will snatch political victory from what should have been the arguably less nation-harming hands of Baboon Clan Two (Democrats).

Ergo, we learn that it’s wall-to-wall Baboons in charge of our once great nation.

PeteFree.com