Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Obama Sold Us a Lemon

This is a wonderfully well reasoned and intelligent piece written by an eminent neurosurgeon. I have put in bold type what I consider to be the essence of the piece. If we are to live in a true democratic free society where government is answerable to the people (government of the people, by the people and for the people), we cannot put the misdeeds of government beyond any means of righting them.

CARSON: A health care lemon

Americans have a right to an Obamacare refund


When I was a teenager, my mother broke her own rule of never buying someone else’s trouble and purchased a used car. We were quite excited because it was beautiful and sleek, and it was a convertible.
The salesman said the car was practically new and was the deal of the century. Before long, it was discovered that the engine was completely shot, and the car was essentially a beautiful piece of junk. The salesman did not know my mother, and in the end, gladly refunded her money and took the car back.
This kind of story is, of course, the reason that used-car salesmen have such a bad reputation. Just behind used-cars salesmen are politicians, who have also been known to sell people a bill of goods with no substance. Obamacare is such a bill of goods, one that was promoted as one thing and turned out to be something quite different. In the real world, it is frequently possible to gain legal relief in the case of a fraudulent deal, but in the case of Obamacare, we are being told that it is the law of the land and that you simply must live with it.

When you place misdeeds by the government beyond the reach of normal mechanisms of recourse, you establish a condition ripe for abuse. If a bill is passed under false pretenses, shouldn’t we question its legitimacy and. at the very least, reintroduce the bill after disclosing the aspects that were hidden previously? If the bill still passes after such disclosure, it would then become legitimate. We must remember that we are talking about one-sixth of the U.S. economy. We should not be playing fast and loose with the laws and details surrounding the most important possession we have: our health. I think this would be a fair-minded solution to anyone who does not have ulterior motives in health care reform.

It is important that we learn to be compassionate even toward those with whom we disagree. How compassionate is it in a free society that is supposed to be for, of and by the people to say, “Too bad sucker. This is now the law of the land” — no matter how it was passed? The reason that solutions such as amendments and repeals were established was to remedy unforeseen problems associated with various legislative endeavors. The last thing we need are political victories that impose complex legislative rules on others. Rather, we should be looking for solutions that work for all the people, are fair and not based on deceit and ideology. The patriots who founded America were trying to escape from rulers who were certain that only they knew what was good for everyone else.
Illustration by Alexander Hunter for The Washington Times
Illustration by Alexander Hunter for The Washington Times more >
There have been numerous suggestions regarding affordable health care reform that were made by people and groups outside the current administration, which deserve discussion. If we truly wish to give everyone who is an American citizen affordable health care, let’s analyze some of these other suggestions and select the best components of each one and work together to create a better choice. We can leave intact the various insurance plans that currently exist with the goal of creating something so much better that people will voluntarily choose it, rather than being forced into it.
As a nation, we need to decide how important honesty is. If dishonesty is employed to achieve a goal, do we just say, “OK, you put one over on us,” or do we address the solution legislatively, as we would in a civil case? What we have done with Obamacare is similar to boarding an airplane and then finding out that there are some severe mechanical problems about which we were not previously informed. We are then told that we cannot get off the plane once we’ve boarded and, therefore, everyone needs to help fix the problem and stop complaining. Obviously, we cannot stand for such outrageous behavior.
Fortunately, there are signs that the media are beginning to awaken and assume their duty of objective reporting. We must all realize that if we accept corruption as a means to an end, we will soon be like well-known radical elements in the world who feel that lying, cheating and even killing by beheading is OK and will even be rewarded in heaven, as long as these acts are perpetrated against the enemy.
We are better than this. We must reject the notion that slick political maneuvering and dishonesty are inevitable in government and must be tolerated. We no more need to tolerate such things than we need to tolerate tyranny. The choice is ours. Let us call upon our leaders and representatives to change the culture to one of trust and decency consistent with our Judeo-Christian values. If they refuse, we the people must remove them from office, which is our duty to ourselves and to our progeny.
Ben S. Carson is professor emeritus of neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University.

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

You Can't Hide Your Lyin' Eyes

The Eagles famously intoned this line back in their heyday and if President Obama has any conscience at all (clearly a questionable assumption), he must hum this to himself every time he looks in a mirror. We hate to repeat ourselves, but as humiliating as the website debacle has been, the fact that the middle market will soon see the plans disappear and the costs go up is truly beyond belief. You have to be six sheets to the wind to believe that the President could have honestly sold this plan if he were truthful about how it would impact people. If this is the best that we can expect from our government, regardless of party, then we are in sad shape. The next State of the Union address ought to be a real hoot.

 

Obama's Broken Promise (Chapter Two)

By Robert Samuelson - November 26, 2013
WASHINGTON -- President Obama's broken promise about people being able to keep their existing health insurance is much larger than we've been led to believe. Until now, attention has focused on the individual insurance market: people buying coverage for themselves and their families from insurance companies. Policies have been canceled because they don't comply with the Affordable Care Act (ACA). But the individual market is small, representing about 5 percent of the non-elderly population, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. What's unappreciated is that cancellations, under today's law, will ultimately spread to the largest insurance market: employer-provided coverage.
So Chapter Two of the broken promise looms. In 2012, 171 million Americans received health insurance from their employers, reports the Census Bureau. This dwarfs Medicaid (51 million) and Medicare (49 million), the next largest sources. Given the ACA's complexity, it's hard to know how many Americans with employer coverage might be hit by policy cancellations. But plausible assumptions suggest between 25 million and 50 million, mostly at small firms.
Just because policies are canceled, of course, doesn't mean people lose insurance. Gary Claxton of Kaiser says that modest modifications -- presumably at some extra cost -- might bring many plans into ACA compliance. Still, it seems increasingly clear that the ACA was sold on a premise that simply isn't true.
The debate's tenor was that the coverage mandated by the law would be an add-on to the status quo. As the president said, "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." The pledge was not a one-time exaggeration but a regular part of the administration's pitch. (For confirmation, see this video montage of 23 separate Obama sound bites.)
The White House faced a dilemma. On the one hand, it didn't want to scare people satisfied with their insurance; they had to be reassured. On the other, it wanted to define some basic level of "essential benefits" provided by insurance; otherwise, individuals and firms could buy flimsy policies to comply with the law's insurance mandates. So, for example, the ACA imposes an upper limit on patient deductibles: $2,000 for single coverage, $4,000 for a family. Policies with higher deductibles generally would not comply with the ACA.
But the goals collide: The stricter the standards for mandated coverage, the harder it becomes for existing policies to comply -- and the more likely they'll be canceled. That's now happening in the individual market. For legal reasons, most potential cancellations in the employer market are probably at least a year away.
The employer market divides into two parts. Most big firms (the IBMs, Procter & Gambles) self-insure. They define workers' benefits and pay the costs directly. The ACA largely exempts these plans from the "essential benefits" standards on the apparent assumption that the plans are generous. When the president said people wouldn't lose their existing coverage, he was probably referring to self-insured firms. About 60 percent of workers with employer-provided insurance receive it from these companies, according to government figures.
The other 40 percent get it from mostly smaller firms that buy coverage from insurance companies. The ACA "grandfathered" policies that existed when the law was passed. People could (as Obama promised) keep those plans, even if they didn't meet the law's standards. But there was a big catch that largely nullifies this protection: Minor changes to existing policies would cause firms to lose their "grandfathered" status. Not surprisingly, that's happened. In 2014, perhaps three-quarters of small firms (fewer than 100 workers) will no longer be grandfathered, estimates economist Stan Veuger of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.
How many people might be affected by cancellations is unclear. Veuger's estimate of vulnerable firms implies a maximum of about 50 million workers and dependents, but it could be much lower. Still, even half of that would be a lot. Cancellations won't hit immediately, because the administration allowed firms to renew existing policies through most of 2014. Interestingly, though the ACA doesn't require firms with fewer than 50 full-time workers to provide insurance, they must comply with the ACA's standards if they do buy it. This might cause some firms to drop coverage.
Embarrassed by cancellations in the individual market, the White House has urged states -- which approve insurance policies -- to allow old policies to be renewed for another year. It's also requested a further extension of existing policies in the small-employer market. Most states are considering the requests. Meanwhile, it's an open question whether the ACA would have been enacted if its supporters had acknowledged that millions of Americans couldn't keep their old plans. 

Sunday, November 17, 2013

Preserve, Protect and Ignore

'AND HE SHALL TAKE CARE THAT ALL THE LAWS BE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED"
-United States Constitution, Article 2, Section 3

The section of the Constitution regarding the powers of the President  can be interpreted pretty broadly, but you would have to stray awfully far off the reservation to convince yourself that President Obama has acted constitutionally in waiving both the employer and now the individual mandates with a wave of his hand. Clearly, he wanted no part of having to approach Congress, particularly after the acrimony of the shutdown, and ask (beg) them to legally amend PPACA. That would have been too much. But is what he has done legal? Can the President take a law that has been passed by both houses of Congress and signed by him and simply brush it aside because it is politically inconvenient to have it legally amended? Where is George Orwell when you need him?

Friday, November 15, 2013

Obama's Phony "Fix"

The President, under enormous political pressure from Democrats, offered a fix to try and blunt the backlash against policy cancellations and rate increases. What he did is beyond cynical, because he knows that the insurance industry will by and large not buy into this. Basically what he did was try and obliterate three years of work that the insurance companies have done to prepare for Obamacare. Even though the race has started, go back to the starting gate. Oh and by the way, you know that marathon that you have been training for, well we changed our minds and we're going to run a hundred yard dash instead.

This entire political ruse was designed to try and move this fiasco passed the 2014 elections, but it won't work. As we have repeatedly noted, the website problems were just the tip of the iceberg. People are now confronting head on what was buried in the 2,000 pages of PACA that probably nobody read before they voted for it. The President has destroyed his credibility, and the Democrats have Oba,acare stuck to them like flypaper.

"We have to pass the bill so that you know what's in it." Nancy Pelosi

The President's ObamaCare Backpedal

His proposal to allow people to keep their health plans will not provide a political escape hatch for beleaguered congressional Democrats.


Updated Nov. 14, 2013 7:23 p.m. ET
Succumbing to the growing panic over his health law, the president on Thursday moved to throw his party a political lifeline. As rescue apparatuses go, it is likely to do more harm than good.
Mr. Obama took to the podium in the White House briefing room to explain that yes, some Americans may indeed now keep the health-care plans they like. Maybe. If insurers can undo three years of work in a few weeks. If state regulators can move at similar lightning speed. So long as the old plans come with new warning labels. And with the understanding that those Americans lucky enough to receive a renewal option can only keep the plans they "like" for a further year. Those giant caveats aside, the president wishes you good fortune.
This small turnabout was nonetheless a humiliating concession for Mr. Obama, whose press secretary, Jay Carney, only a few days ago was ripping the idea of allowing insurers to continue selling "substandard" plans. His hand was forced by a growing mob of congressional Democrats who are getting slammed over cancellations, and who threatened revolt if the administration didn't act.
The primary purpose of the White House "fix" was to get out ahead of the planned Friday vote on Michigan Republican Fred Upton's "Keep Your Health Plan Act." The stage was set for dozens of Democrats to join with the GOP for passage—potentially creating a veto-proof majority, and putting enormous pressure on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to follow suit.
The White House couldn't risk such a bipartisan rebuke. Moreover, the Upton bill—while it lacks those GOP joy words of "delay" or "repeal"—poses a threat, since it would allow insurers to continue providing non-ObamaCare policies to any American who wants one. Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu's version of the bill would in fact (unconstitutionally) order insurers to offer the plans in perpetuity. Both bills undermine the law's central goal of forcing healthy people into costly ObamaCare exchange plans that subsidize the sick.
President Obama speaks from the White House briefing room, Nov. 14. Charles Dharapak/Associated Press
The president's "fix" is designed to limit such grandfathering, but that's why it is of dubious political help to Democrats. Within minutes of Mr. Obama's announcement, several Democratic senators, including North Carolina's Kay Hagan —whose poll numbers have plummeted in advance of her 2014 re-election bid—announced that they remain in favor of Landrieu-style legislation.
And the White House "fix" doesn't save Democrats from having to take a vote on the Upton bill. A yes vote is a strike at the president and an admission that the law Democrats passed is failing. A no vote is tailor-made for political attack ads and requires a nuanced explanation of why the president's "fix" is better than Upton's. Which it isn't. Politicians don't do nuance very well. This explains why the Democratic leadership on Thursday promised to soon introduce its own legislation that would "reinforce" the White House change (and, it hopes, provide its members better cover).
The White House "fix" was likely also groundwork to shift the blame for canceled policies to insurers and state regulators, trusting the public won't notice the difference between "can" and "may." It is highly unlikely that most insurers "can" rip up their business plans (rates, policies, eligibility, actuarial tables), get state regulator approval, reprogram their computers, send out notices and new explanations, give consumers time to think, and then re-sign people up in the one month that remains before the Dec. 15 deadline. But as Mr. Obama has now said they "may," and you can bet he'll blame the failure for this to happen on anyone but his administration.
The question is whether blame-shifting is even possible. The Obama announcement was designed to quell the cancellation furor, to push it beyond next year's midterms. But what's becoming clear to horrified Washington Democrats is just how successfully they re-engineered health care. ObamaCare's pieces are vastly complex, intricately linked, and built upon each other. For Democrats who want political cover, there are no "fixes" around the edges.
The White House's Thursday play will not end cancellation notices. Fixing Healthcare.gov simply gives more Americans access to the budget-busting premiums and limited networks within the exchange. Grandfathering, to the extent it happens, only pushes those premiums higher. So does a delay in the individual mandate. Further exemptions, say to taxes, strip money Democrats are banking on. Extending enrollment periods does nothing but provide Americans more time to contemplate their miserable choices.
Grandfathering current and canceled plans only adds to the confusion. And the White House's decision to do this administratively reopens questions over the legality (and illegality) of the White House's many ObamaCare actions. This doesn't restore credibility; it further undermines it.
A Democratic aide this week told The Hill that the party was concerned about "being dragged into this nonstop cycle" of bad news. It is way too late for that, especially if the GOP continues to stay out of the way and let this be about Democratic liabilities and divisions. The only real "fix" for this law—and for Democratic political pain—is to scrap it.

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Obamacare Madness Gets Worse


by
David Steinberg
Bio
November 12, 2013 - 8:30 am
Though a sideshow throughout Obamacare’s passage and litigation, Medicaid’s pivotal role in President Obama’s health care reform effort has become apparent following the law’s October 1 implementation. In many states, Medicaid enrollment through the Healthcare.gov portal is dwarfing the number of “private” insurance plan purchases.
While this development represents a major financial threat to the survival of Obamacare, new regulations established by Obamacare to cover Medicaid enrollment have created a major threat to the United States’ ability to administrate that far larger benefit program.Following is a summary of the problem:
While troubling, final approval of fraudulent applications represents a lesser element of the problem regarding non-citizen enrollment. The greater concern is initial approval:
  • Applicants attempting to register for Medicaid as non-citizens by using Healthcare.gov will have their identification checked in real-time by the SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) database. But if SAVE verification fails, the applicant is not prevented from enrolling in Medicaid/CHIP.
  • In fact, the opposite occurs: the applicant is likely enrolled in Medicaid immediately.
  • The applicant is then given a 90-day period to clear up the identification problem.
  • This “enroll first, confirm later” regulation, combined with the ACA’s easing of verification requirements, allows anyone, from a computer anywhere in the world, to successfully auto-enroll for 90 days of Medicaid by entering fraudulent information about being a certain category of legal alien living in the United States.
  • There is no guarantee that state governments will take action to cancel these enrollments at the end of each application’s 90-day period if identification is never provided. The cancellation of unverified enrollments is left to each state’s available manpower and political will.
  • At the end of the 90-day period, if states do indeed ask the applicant to produce identification or to have the enrollment canceled, the applicant is allowed to ask for an extension of the 90-day period. The applicant can get the period extended for significantly longer.
  • Obamacare does not allow any information entered into Healthcare.gov to be used for legal action against illegal immigrants. Like “catch and release,” an applicant could attempt to fraudulently enroll repeatedly.
  • Foreign entities looking to flood the Medicaid rolls with fraudulent auto-enrollments are, of course, beyond U.S. prosecution and able to cause such chaos.
  • An organized effort by domestic or foreign entities to create countless numbers of these fraudulent enrollments could challenge Medicaid with an unsolvable administrative situation.
In February of this year, James Edwards of the Center for Immigration Studies published a report titled “Immigration and Obamacare: Proposed Medicaid Rules for Verifying Status.” His report summarized the federal government’s January publication of such rules being proposed by the Health and Human Services Department and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. These proposed rules were later finalized on July 15 (click here for the 164-page “Final Rule” document).
Edwards’ report documented the security flaws developing as a result of the Obama administration’s political goal of enrolling as many people as possible in some sort of health care coverage.
Following are highlights from Edwards’ report, focusing on the easing of the non-citizen application process and the removal of safeguards:
  • Two, down from three, documents are to be required to establish one’s status. Attestation made about someone’s citizenship status in a single affidavit counts as one of the accepted forms of identity.
This means that a signed document from a second individual which simply states that the applicant is who he says is will be an accepted form of identification.
  • Electronic documentation begins to overtake presentation of authentic identification documents. Similarly, a record of identity or status verification is regarded as more important than having authenticated copies of valid, legitimate documents on record.
States do not need to file copies of the documents. They are only required to keep track of whether or not the documents were accepted. No paper trail.
  • If electronic verification of citizenship or immigration status fails or is delayed, applicants for health benefits must have a “reasonable opportunity period” in which to confirm their status. If otherwise eligible for Medicaid, states must grant Medicaid enrollment to unverified persons during this period. … “Reasonable opportunity” even applies, under this rule, to persons “unable to provide a SSN [Social Security number]“ — a rather glaring loophole for frauds to exploit.
Edwards’ use of the phrase “otherwise eligible” raises the issue of the expansion and easing of the verification process for Medicaid and CHIP under President Obama. For example, eligibility for CHIP was expanded during President Obama’s first term, and the necessary documentation was decreased.
So: how simple is it to fraudulently enroll for Medicaid under the rules governing Obamacare?
Submit electronic copies of a false affidavit and a false work document while claiming to be a member of the “presumed eligible” populations, and you are required to get at least 90 days.
Most troubling, the establishment of Healthcare.gov and the other state-run exchanges allows this fraud to be perpetrated from anywhere on the planet. I asked Edwards:
PJM: “Based on the HHS/CMMS rules, couldn’t, say, al-Zawahiri get himself auto-enrolled with a “reasonable opportunity period” from a laptop in Pakistan?”
Edwards: “I hadn’t thought of that. Yes.”
In addition to the economic risk of millions arriving at domestic health care providers with fraudulent approvals and Medicaid ID numbers, Medicaid databases could be so overwhelmed with fraudulent information so as to be rendered administratively unmanageable and unreliable.
Effectively, the databases would be useless and pointless. An organized entity could, rather simply, employ this tactic to economically damage and humiliate the United States.
Ironically, the massive failure of the exchange websites has postponed the risk until the websites are functioning properly.
If the Obama administration is able to get the electronic exchanges working, they will immediately face a fresh nightmare. Flaws in the ACA law itself may create much larger problems than slow enrollment, dropped coverage, and more expensive plans.

Saturday, November 9, 2013

President Barak Madoff

Andrew McCarthy is a former federal prosecutor who knows the law. The premise of this piece is fascinating and it really makes you think. If the CEO of a private insurance company made the representations to his policy holders that President Obama has made, and those representations proved to be utterly false, as President Obama's have been, the federal government would no doubt bring suit against the CEO for fraudulent misrepresentations. While  the President is clearly not going to be indicted for fraud, his behavior as measured against the federal guidelines is pretty eye-opening.

Obama’s Massive Fraud
If he were a CEO in the private sector, he’d be prosecuted for such deception.


Text  
Comments
398

‘If you like your health-care plan, you will be able to keep your health-care plan. Period.” How serious was this lie, repeated by Barack Obama with such beguiling regularity? Well, how would the Justice Department be dealing with it if it had been uttered by, say, the president of an insurance company rather than the president of the United States?
Fraud is a serious federal felony, usually punishable by up to 20 years’ imprisonment — with every repetition of a fraudulent communication chargeable as a separate crime. In computing sentences, federal sentencing guidelines factor in such considerations as the dollar value of the fraud, the number of victims, and the degree to which the offender’s treachery breaches any special fiduciary duties he owes. Cases of multi-million-dollar corporate frauds — to say nothing of multi-billion-dollar, Bernie Madoff–level scams that nevertheless pale beside Obamacare’s dimensions — often result in terms amounting to decades in the slammer.
Justice Department guidelines, set forth in the U.S. Attorneys Manual, recommend prosecution for fraud in situations involving “any scheme which in its nature is directed to defrauding a class of persons, or the general public, with a substantial pattern of conduct.” So, for example, if a schemer were intentionally to deceive all Americans, or a class of Americans (e.g., people who had health insurance purchased on the individual market), by repeating numerous times — over the airwaves, in mailings, and in electronic announcements — an assertion the schemer knew to be false and misleading, that would constitute an actionable fraud — particularly if the statements induced the victims to take action to their detriment, or lulled the victims into a false sense of security.
Advertisement
For a fraud prosecution to be valid, the fraudulent scheme need not have been successful. Nor is there any requirement that the schemer enrich himself personally. The prosecution must simply prove that some harm to the victim was contemplated by the schemer. If the victim actually was harmed, that is usually the best evidence that harm was what the schemer intended.To be more illustrative, let’s say our schemer is the president of a health-insurance company, and that it was clearly foreseeable to him that his company’s clients would lose their current insurance plans if the company adopted his proposal of a complex new health-insurance framework. In fact, let’s assume that the schemer not only had analyses showing that clients would lose their plans but that he also had a history of openly favoring a “single-payer” insurance system — i.e., an unconcealed desire to move everyone from private to government-managed insurance arrangements.
Now, suppose the schemer nevertheless vowed to the company’s clients, to whom he bore fiduciary obligations, that they needn’t fear his proposed new insurance framework; under it, he promised time after time after time, if they liked their current plans, they would be able to keep those plans. And let’s say that, on the basis of that repeated vow, the clients supported the schemer’s reappointment as president and his proposed new framework. On these facts, the clients’ subsequent loss of their current insurance plans helps prove the schemer’s fraudulent intent. The schemer has committed not just a fraud but a carefully thought-out, fully successful fraud, replete with suffering victims.
The concept of fraudulent deception, like the concept of perjury and other forms of actionable false statement, often entails not only affirmative lies — e.g., the general manager who tells a baseball player, “I will not trade you if you sign the contract,” and then proceeds to trade the player after he signs; the concept also commonly involves the omission of material facts (what’s called “material omission”) — e.g., the general manager who tells the player, “I will not trade you if you sign the contract,” under circumstances where, unbeknownst to the player, the general manager has already made arrangements to trade him.
A material omission is the intentional failure to state any fact the communication of which would be necessary to ensure that statements already made are not misleading. The concept of material omission is a staple of fraud prosecutions. A good example is the Obama Justice Department’s ongoing and transparently political effort to portray financial institutions — as opposed to government policies — as the proximate cause of the mortgage-industry collapse that resulted in our national economic meltdown.
Attorney General Eric Holder’s minions have recently sued Bank of America and UBS. The complaints filed in court by prosecutors allege that these financial institutions defrauded investors in the sale of mortgage-backed securities by failing to disclose important facts about the underlying mortgages. Indeed, prosecutors asserted that financial institutions’ statements about these securities were both lies and, even where arguably true, material omissions. That’s because the statements withheld from investors the fact that the institutions well knew, based on internal analyses, that many of the mortgages backing the securities would go into default.
Recall that President Obama knew three years ago, based on internal analyses, that because of his administration’s own regulation-writing, millions of Americans would lose the health plans he nonetheless continued to promise they could keep. The president hid the data . . . just as did those financial institutions that his trusty attorney general has sued. Comparatively speaking, though, the financial institutions defrauded significantly fewer victims. Thus it is noteworthy that Holder is now demanding that the institutions pay hundreds of millions of dollars for their fraudulent misrepresentations.
Even that is not good enough for some prominent Democrats. Senator Carl Levin, for example, blasted the Justice Department for not pursuing a criminal fraud case against Goldman Sachs. Goldman had not made false statements in marketing the securities in dispute; but it did fail to disclose that it had shorted the same securities — i.e., it was quietly betting against the same securities it was selling. (I wrote sympathetically toward Goldman here, and Nicole Gelinas posted a characteristically smart rebuttal here.) Senator Levin railed at Holder’s decision not to file criminal charges, portraying it as an abdication in the face of behavior that was “deceptive and immoral.” Of course, if you want to talk about “deceptive and immoral,” Obama was snowing ordinary Americans, not savvy investors; and he was not just betting against the insurance plans he was promising to preserve; he was personally working to wipe them out.
The Justice Department is notoriously aggressive when it comes to material omissions by public corporations. Any public statement — not just in a required SEC filing but in any public context — may be deemed actionable if its purpose is to deceive the general public about a company’s condition. For example, as I’ve noted before, the Justice Department indicted Martha Stewart for fraud over press statements that did not disclose damaging information about her company.
 s. Stewart, naturally, was fearful that truthful statements would send the stock price plummeting. Obama, by comparison, was not lying merely to prevent a company from losing value. His fraud was, first, to induce passage of a plan designed gradually to destroy the private health-insurance market — a plan that barely passed and never would have been enacted if he’d been honest. And later, his fraud was to procure his reelection and the guaranteed implementation of Obamacare; had he been honest, he would have been defeated and Obamacare forestalled.
Barack Obama is guilty of fraud — serial fraud — that is orders of magnitude more serious than frauds the Justice Department routinely prosecutes, and that courts punish harshly. The victims will be out billions of dollars, quite apart from other anxiety and disruption that will befall them.

The president will not be prosecuted, of course, but that is immaterial. As discussed here before, the remedy for profound presidential corruption is political, not legal. It is impeachment and removal. “High crimes and misdemeanors” — the Constitution’s predicate for impeachment — need not be indictable offenses under the criminal code. “They relate chiefly,” Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 65, “to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” They involve scandalous breaches of the public trust by officials in whom solemn fiduciary duties are reposed — like a president who looks Americans in the eye and declares, repeatedly, that they can keep their health insurance plans . . . even as he studiously orchestrates the regulatory termination of those plans; even as he shifts blame to the insurance companies for his malfeasance — just as he shifted blame to a hapless video producer for his shocking dereliction of duty during the Benghazi massacre.
It is highly unlikely that Barack Obama will ever be impeached. It is certain that he will never again be trusted. Republicans and sensible Democrats take heed: The nation may not have the stomach to remove a charlatan, but the nation knows he is a charlatan. The American people will not think twice about taking out their frustration and mounting anger on those who collaborate in his schemes.

Thursday, November 7, 2013

Pity the Invincibles

Key to the Obamacare plan is to get young healthy people who will not consume  much in the way of medical services to sign up. Since they won't use the system much, their premiums can go to pay for the older sicker people who will now be covered. The only problem is that early returns show that the so called "Invincibles" may not be signing up at the necessary rate. There's a good reason why that is happening. I put together a little chart that depicts a young single person working and living in New York City. Their gross salary is $50,000. Here's what happens when you start deducting all of the payroll and withholding taxes. After all of the necessary taxes are withheld, the monthly premium for the Obamacare Silver plan would represent 13% of the persons take home pay, and that does not include the out of pocket expenses which can be as high as $6350 a year. Why would a young healthy person want to spend over $4,000 a year for a service they won't use when the penalty for not complying is not even close to the cost. Guess who is going to pick up the tab if these folks don't sign up? I repeat, the website was the tip of the iceberg.



 Annual   Monthly 
Gross    50,000.00    4,166.67


                -  
FICA      3,100.00       258.33
Medicare          725.00          60.42
FIT      6,903.00       575.25
SIT      2,373.00       197.75
City      1,476.00       123.00
Total Tax    14,577.00    1,214.75




Net    35,423.00    2,951.92
Premium      4,624.00       385.33 13%   

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Obama's Shameful Deceit

 Kathleen Parker is no wild eyed screaming right wing looney. She is a very even handed observer of the political scene, and this is as good a description as you're going to get on the fraud that has been perpetuated by America's used car salesman in chief.

 
 

The sin of omission in Obamacare

Among the many rules I grew up with, two stand out. The first was to never call someone a liar, which was considered the worst character indictment one could issue. The accuser had best be prepared to fight or be fleet of foot.
The other was a dictum so oft- repeated that it is permanently tattooed on my brain: “If you’ll lie by omission, you’ll lie by commission.”




This first rule sheds light on why it was so shocking when in 2009 Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) shouted, “You lie,” as President Obama was addressing Congress. Beyond an insult to decorum, it was widely viewed as another tipping point in our descent into incivility.
Now that the Affordable Care Act (ACA), popularly known as Obamacare, has been released upon the land — sort of — Wilson is being regaled in Republican quarters as the voice of Cassandra, though his outburst was prompted by Obama’s saying the ACA wouldn’t insure illegal immigrants.
“The big lie,” as the president’s broken Obamacare promise is now known, was that everyone could keep his or her doctor and insurance policy under the ACA. No one, Americans were justified in inferring, would be remotely inconvenienced by Obamacare. Instead, the reality is well-known: Millions are expected to lose their insurance policies, while others will see their premiums skyrocket.
It is still jarring to my adult psyche to impugn another, especially the president of the United States, as a liar, so I won’t. But it is not possible to pretend that the American people have been told the truth. Nor is it possible to pretend that Barack Obama has been completely honest.
The question is, how much dishonesty from a president is tolerable? How can a dishonest president lead a nation? The truth is, if the president were not immune from such things, the American people could file a class-action suit on grounds that they were sold a product under false pretenses. In the private sector, we call that fraud.
Now the White House tells us that Obama always meant you could keep the insurance policy you like if it met the standards of the ACA. Apparently, plenty of people involved with the law, including the House minority whip, Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who recently said so, have known for at least three years that between 40 percent and 67 percent of those in the individual market would lose their policies.
White House press secretary Jay Carney explained: “What the president said, and what everybody said all along, is that there are going to be changes brought about by the Affordable Care Act that create minimum standards of coverage, minimum services that every insurance plan has to provide. . . . So it’s true that there are existing health-care plans on the individual market that don’t meet those minimum standards and therefore do not qualify for the Affordable Care Act.”
Well, as the guardian of the Emerald City gates said to Dorothy: “Bust my buttons! Why didn’t you say that in the first place?”
We know why. This sin of omission wasn’t an accidental oversight. It was a feint because many Americans wouldn’t have followed the wizard had they known the truth.
There’s a reason the ACA implemented the popular aspects of the bill first — allowing parents to cover their children until age 26 and eliminating their children’s preexisting-condition barrier to insurance coverage — before the 2012 election and postponed the nasty news until enough people were hooked on Obamacare’s sugar. And, of course, after the president was reelected. This is what Republicans were referring to when they wanted to impede the law before the rollout because people might like it. Sugar is addictive after all.
Former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau tried to explain otherwise. The president kept repeating the promise — some 23 times — because the White House was trying to keep things simple so as not to confuse people with too many details, he said. This is not only insulting on its face but also not precisely true. Some might have been alarmed by the details, but they wouldn’t have been confused. Either the White House doesn’t have faith in the people or it doesn’t have faith in its own plan.
To sum up, the American people were duped; the administration did not misspeak, as the New York Times editorialized. The administration knowingly misled with a false promise and a deliberate omission. Worse, it did so for your own good because you might be confused by the truth. Call it what you will.

Monday, November 4, 2013

LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE

How Obama said what he said with a straight face is now becoming more and more unbelievable. The level of deceit that the administration engaged in while selling, or rather conning, the American people about this program is mind numbing. As we have said over and over again it is way more than problems with the website that are going to get the public riled up. The Democrats are going to be in real trouble in 2014. They can't spin this by saying "Oh sure the cost went up, but they have a much better plan," That's not what Obama said, and so far his ludicrous $2,500 per family saving is nowhere to be found. This is really atrocious, and frankly the American people deserve better.Remember, these buffoons have basically taken over 18% of the United States economy.

For consumers whose health premiums will go up under new law, sticker shock leads to anger


Matt McClain/The Washington Post - Deborah Persico was recently informed that her health insurance plan was being canceled. She learned that a similar plan will cost her much more.


Americans who face higher ­insurance costs under President Obama’s health-care law are angrily complaining about “sticker shock,” threatening to become a new political force opposing the law even as the White House struggles to convince other consumers that they will benefit from it.
The growing backlash involves people whose plans are being discontinued because the policies don’t meet the law’s more-stringent standards. They’re finding that many alternative policies come with higher premiums and deductibles.
Graphic
A look at the consumer's route through the HealthCare.gov Web site and the potential failure points.
Click Here to View Full Graphic Story
A look at the consumer's route through the HealthCare.gov Web site and the potential failure points.
More health-care news



After receiving a letter from her insurer that her plan was being discontinued, Deborah Persico, a 58-year-old lawyer in the District, found a comparable plan on the city’s new health insurance exchange. But her monthly premium, now $297, would be $165 higher, and her maximum out-of-pocket costs would double.
That means she could end up paying at least $5,000 more a year than she does now. “That’s just not fair,” said Persico, who represents indigent criminal defendants. “This is ridiculous.”
If the poor, sick and uninsured are the winners under the Affordable Care Act, the losers appear to include some relatively healthy middle-income small-business owners, consultants, lawyers and other self-employed workers who buy their own insurance. Many make too much to qualify for new federal subsidies provided by the law but not enough to absorb the rising costs without hardship. Some are too old to go without insurance because they have children or have minor health issues, but they are too young for Medicare.
Others are upset because they don’t want coverage for services they’ll never need or their doctors don’t participate in any of their new insurance options.
“There are definitely winners and losers,” said Sabrina Corlette, a senior research fellow at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms. “The problem is that even if the majority are winners . . . they’re not the ones writing to their congressmen.”
The administration says that about 12 million Americans, or 5 percent of the population, buy individual polices — they don’t get coverage through their employers or programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Millions of them will be required to get new policies, but many will qualify for federal aid to pay for the premiums. Thus, they will end up with better coverage at lower costs, officials say. If they are sick, they won’t be denied coverage or charged more.
But conveying such information is difficult because of the “calamitous” launch of HealthCare.gov, former White House senior adviser David Axelrod said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” He said that “many of the people who have to transition are going to get better insurance for less money, but they just can’t tell that right now because they can’t get on the Web site.”
Republicans have showed little sympathy. Former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, appearing on the same program, attacked Obama for his often-repeated pledge that people would be able to keep their health plans if they liked them. Romney said that Obama has engaged in “fundamental dishonesty” that has “undermined the foundation of his second term.”

Friday, November 1, 2013

IRS Deceit on Obamacare

Yesterday I had the privilege and pleasure of attending a wonderful session with the libertarian Cato Institute at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in NYC. If you're not familiar with the Cato Institute and its wonderfully reasoned outlook on the world, you should be. They are just as tough on Republicans as they are on Democrats, and their website is loaded with really informative pieces.

At any rate, Michael Tanner their expert on healthcare gave a talk on Obamacre. We have previously maintained that the problems with the website are just the tip of the iceberg, and after yesterday's session, I'm thinking that this iceberg could sink about 300 Titanics.

During the question and answer period I asked Michael about PACA's prohibition against the IRS collecting the individual mandate penalty with its usual weapons of tax liens and garnishments. The law limits apparently limits the IRS to deducting the penalty from refunds. Michael said that I was right about what the law said, but that he was already hearing rumblings from the IRS about how they were planning an end run around the regulations. Suppose that you didn't comply with the individual mandate, and that based on your adjusted gross income you would owe a penalty of $1,000. Suppose you also owed $4,000 in income tax. You send in your return with a check for $4,000 for what you owe in taxes, and in your mind your done, right? WRONG! The IRS is taking the position that since money is fungible, they are going to take $1,000 of your "tax" payment and apply it to the penalty and then send you a bill for underpaying your taxes by $1,000. Pretty slick.

The underlying deceit that has been built into almost every aspect of this bill is really sickening and shows almost an unparalleled degree of contempt for the American people.