SteveR Loc: Michigan

3-4 Million net loss in people covered. Like Pelosi said, "We have to open Pandora's box to see what's inside."

bygeorge Loc: Fl.<N.J.<Fl.

Jesus is watchful of you

tschmath Loc: Los Angeles

I absolutely do not believe your statement. Give us some proof. And no, I do not have to prove you wrong. You made the statement, you back it up with facts.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

2nd Paragraph.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/21/more-last-minute-fixes-to-obamacare-to-avoid-net-loss-uninsured-americans-by/

Also, ABC News carries the same number

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/12/white-house-allows-mandate-exemption-over-canceled-plans/

SteveR Loc: Michigan

bygeorge....I am not against healthcare reform, making healthcare available to the uninsurable or to more people, but I am against the restrictive and regulatory provisions of the ACA.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

bygeorge....I am not against healthcare reform, making healthcare available to the uninsurable or to more people, but I am against the restrictive and regulatory provisions of the ACA.

tschmath Loc: Los Angeles

If you read the ABC News story further, it states that only 500,000 of that 5,000,000 people were not able to find other insurance. Nice try.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

I admit, I didn't read all of the ABC story. Where did they find it if not on the marketplace, if not part of the million? It's my understanding that it was because of those that have lost their insurance that Obama changed the rules again the last couple of days and the insurance companies are going nuts. If you also read the stories, the administration is concerned that fewer people are insured than when the ACA began.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

I think that liberals will freak if we ever get a republican president and senate again given Obama's precedent for rule by fiat, and Reid's changing of the Senate's Filibuster rules...

So Tschmath, what was this last minute change to the law that was made yesterday?

Politico seems to think it confusing.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/obamacare-confusion-mandate-101385.html

tschmath Loc: Los Angeles

Here's what I don't understand about Republican outrage over the new rules. Any thinking person, whether or not you like the ACA, knew when it passed that it wasn't perfect. Everyone knew that as it rolled out, and glitches popped up, and unforeseen hiccups occurred, that changes would be needed. So Obama is lambasted for the whole thing before it even starts, and then as problems arise, and he attempts to fix them, he's skewered for that, too. So are you suggesting that he should not have given people a little leeway in getting coverage before they are fined? Seems to me that he's doing everything he can to make it work for as many people as possible, but nothing short of total repeal (which is NEVER going to happen, even with a Republican President and Congress) will make conservatives happy. I really don't get it.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

I don't think that the concrete has fully set on the ACA yet so I would be cautious with the use of the word never. What you say may be true, but the president has not been very judicious in his attempts to change the law and he completely screws his partners in the deal, namely the insurance companies as his so called tweeks create administrative nightmares that he somehow seems to think just because he said so that the insurance companies are physically capable of handling the mess that has been created by his administrations ineptness. Imagine a company is process centered around the digital processing of it's applications and billing records all of the sudden having to process millions of new customers by paper applications and then on top of that go back and audit all of the records for accuracy as the government has been sending miss-filled data forms in..

But regardless of that, under what authority does this president change a law that has been enacted by congress and at what point is it his duty to go back to congress for legislative action to fix the law?

This last minute change of his disrupts the actuarial work done in determining the plan rates, our president is changing the composition of the pools which the rates are based on... now can he just do these things on a whim?

Beyond the things that I have written here most of the changes he has made to the law are political, he is mostly concerned with lessening damage to the democrat party in hopes of holding the Senate, let's be honest, if he cared about the product or the American people he would have delayed the entire thing a year, but it was not good politics for him to do so.... or so he thought at the time.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Beyond what I wrote above, what is precluding these folks from purchasing insurance other than the requirements of the law itself? Is the exchange not working? Are the ACA compliant plans not available to these people? Is this the president's own admission that law is unfair to segments of our society? Why should these people not be made to comply with the "Law of the Land"? It would seem to me that this is the law that was passed and supported by the president and the democrat party, it would also seem to me that there is no logical reason that particular groups of people should be exempted from the law, are subsidies not available if they qualify? If they don't qualify then should they not have to comply as millions already have?

How does the president find the authority to subvert the actual intent of the law? Are you suggesting that the law did not intend for these people to be forced into ACA compliant policies which are offered in the exchanges?

I don't understand how this all works, maybe you can explain it to me.

tschmath Loc: Los Angeles

Whenever a law is enacted, it's left up to the responsible agency to enact the rules necessary to carry out the law. That's why we have the fiasco with the IRS changing the wording of the law that created 501 C non-profits. In establishing the rules for granting non-profit status, the IRS changed the word "exclusively" to "primarily", opening up the Pandora's Box we have now.

My non-expert opinion is that Obama is doing what any agency of the government would do in enacting this law. He's not ruling by fiat, as you claimed, he's setting up rules that govern the law. It may be unusual for a president to do that, but I don't know if it's illegal. I'm not well versed enough in federal law to know if what he's doing is legit, but I just don't see what the big deal is. I think this is much ado about absolutely nothing. I really think it's just another thing for conservatives to rail about when it comes to this president. He could cure cancer and end homelessness tomorrow, and Fox News and the right wing noise machine would still find fault with him.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

I don't think that anyone knows if what he is doing is legal including his own administration, it will take a party with standing to get it into the court system before it can be sorted out....

I would appreciate your thoughts on my second screed... as I think that it is more directly to the point and harder to deflect.

tschmath Loc: Los Angeles

I honestly don't know why there should be a delay. Maybe for a month or two to make up for the rollout fiasco, but I don't really see why the vast majority of people can't get insurance either through the exchanges or through private insurance. But I also don't see what the big deal is in granting the extension. There are so many other bigger things to worry about in this country. I mean, for crying out loud, Phil Robertson was suspended!!! Can anything possibly be more important than that? We need to get our priorities in order here, people. Health care before Duck Dynasty? Are we mad?