Follow by Email

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

I Told You So!

Over the last few years, I’ve ranted and raved about the folly of Obamacare. From the beginning, I claimed it was being jammed through without enough time to peruse thoroughly the 2700 pages. That was enough to make me skeptical.
And then when you turn around and realize the document is written in such a manner as to be open to interpretation depending upon the mindset of those making the final decisions.
I caught some flak from those who disagreed. Nothing wrong with civil discourse. Some wasn’t quite so civil, but you and I both know that’s the level to which ignorance stoops when it is backed into a corner.
I’m just an average guy trying to make it from day to day, hoping for the best. Neither Democrat nor Republican, I want what is best for my family and our country. And I have always believed that the health bill, as written, is not good for us.
Before you pull out the tar and feathers, I hasten to add there are parts that are super for all of us. You know them, no one will be denied insurance; folks get help on medicines; and many others. There are those who need help, and in all decency, we should help.
No, what I’m talking about is the errors brought about by a fanatical rush to pass the law without proper discourse. Sometimes, maybe we can discuss our president’s true motives for jamming it through Congress, but now, let’s talk about a couple mistakes in the monster bill that could make the ‘affordable’ ‘unaffordable’ or that would permit couples making up to $60,000 eligible for Medicaid.
Yep, I said Medicaid, M-E-D-I-C-A-I-D. You know, that federal insurance designed to aid the less fortunate.
The New York Times, a predominant liberal newspaper, stated “a glitch in the language of Obamacare could make the “affordable” health plan unaffordable for millions of American workers.”
Let’s take a look at the ‘glitch’.
Of course, where Obama is concerned, even a full-fledged disaster is only a ‘glitch’.
But, let’s get serious. Obamacare says insurance provided by an employer is not affordable and thus eligible for subsidies if the employee’s premium is more than 9.5% of the household income.
So far, so good, Right?
Now, here’s how the bill sticks it to the average American.
IRS (and remember, the government hired 16,000 more agents to handle Obamacare), states this 9.5% is based solely on the individual coverage of the employee, not the cost of covering his family. I shouldn’t have to explain to anyone family coverage is considerably more.
For example, a family has income of $40,000. The employee’s premium is $200 a month, $2400 annually, but his family’s premium is another $2,400. That’s $4,800, around 12% of the family income. On the surface, they are eligible for help with premiums.
Now, here is the glitch.
Since the employee’s premium is less than 9.5%, he is not eligible for subsidies, but what about the additional $2,400 for his family? That puts him over the 9.5%. His family should be eligible for subsidy, but he is, according to Obamacare, not eligible for subsidized help on his premiums.
If you remember, last week I wrote about how complicated the bills were written, and now you can see why. The more confusing, the more lawyerish, the less the average Joe Sixpack wants to mess with them.
Hey, and there’s more.
The Mail Online’, a political watchdog, reported that up to three million people could qualify for Medicaid in 2014 because Obamacare includes a clause that Social Security benefits would no long be counted as income for determining eligibility for the program.
For Medicaid, the law states an eligibility of 133% of poverty level ($22,350.), which comes out right at $29,700 for a family of four in 2011. Say the retired husband and wife have a sum total of 2,500 SS benefits. That’s another $30,000 for a grand total of almost $60,000.
Extreme case? I hope so, but can you imagine the games the welfare cheats will play with this?
In all fairness, The House of Representatives passed a bill to rectify this mistake and sent it on to the Senate where nothing, as far as I can discover, has happened except they’re all on five weeks vacation now.
Doing nothing must be mighty tiring.
In forty-one years of teaching, I worked with thousands of youngsters. I tried to teach them to think for themselves, avoid dogma, and to always think though their decisions.
I wish those folks in Washington had done the same thing.

No comments: