Showing posts with label CivilDisobedience. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CivilDisobedience. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Largest Act Of Civil Disobedience In History Of US?

Updates

April 1, 2014: this is just the tip of the iceberg. Over time we will see more and more stories with this as a theme. It may get worse in 2015 when folks realize they were fools to sign up for expensive ObamaCare policies with/without subsidies and high deductibles just to avoid the $95 penalty which the IRS probably won't go after anyway. CBS SF Bay Area is reporting:
Despite an extended deadline to sign up for health care under Covered California, some in the Bay Area are choosing to pay a penalty instead of insurance because of the cost.
ObamaCare is the law of the land. Like any law, it has penalties. Anyone "accepting the penalty" instead of signing up is demonstrating "civil disobedience" at some level. This is no different than breaking any other law. Over time, if the "law" is not enforced, more and more folks will simply see ObamaCare as an option, but not a "law."
 
Original Post

I could be wrong on this; I don't know US history all that well.

I opined some time ago that, in terms of numbers, the greatest (largest? biggest?) act of civil disobedience with regard to a federal law in the United States will be "mass" rejection of the ObamaCare individual mandate. [Speeding / breaking the law on the federal interstate system doesn't qualify because states set the speed limit. I think.] [Draft dodging in the 1960's got more ink but it only affected a small proportion of the male population. Drinking 16-oz drinks was only outlawed in NYC.][The revolutionary war occurred before we were a nation.][The US civil war: maybe that would be the exception.]

I don't know about you, but it seems folks think ObamaCare is "optional."

It's not.

ObamaCare is the law of the land. And yet if one just relied on the mainstream media, one would get the impression that ObamaCare is optional.

Now we're starting to get the poll numbers suggesting what I've been saying for a long time: not signing up for ObamaCare will be the biggest act of social disobedience in the history of the United States.

First, this poll: young adults are rejecting ObamaCare. Then, wasn't there an "opt-out" story, the other day?

Google.  college activists opt-out ObamaCare

Ah, here it is.

Yahoo!News is reporting: "Anti-Obamacare group entices students with models and a boozy party."

And then, this, another poll: 40% (that is, 4 out of 10) Americans would rather pay a fine (which they think is $95) than enroll in ObamaCare. 

Right, wrong, or indifferent: college activists enjoy the experience of actually doing something. Think "community organizer."

Right now there really isn't anything like the draft or the Selective Service in the '60s to demonstrate against. No draft card burning, for example. Students don't really have much to demonstrate against these days. Certainly they aren't going to demonstrate FOR Obamacare: not only would it not be cool to demonstrate FOR ObamaCare, but it would not be calling for an act of disobedience, which is generally what college activists are known for.

I don't think the "opt-out" movement will gain much VISIBLE traction, but the tea leaves certainly suggest there will be mass rejection of actually signing up for ObamaCare. It's a heck of a lot easier to PASSIVELY NOT sign up (and possibly face a $95 fine) than it is to ACTIVELY SIGN up.

I could be wrong. I don't have a dog in that fight, but this act of social disobedience is an interesting phenomenon to watch.

When only 44 people have signed up for ObamaCare in Oregon, it certainly suggests we are seeing a large-scale act of civil disobedience, the likes of which we have never seen in this country. The media voted Oregon to be the state most likely to overwhelmingly accept ObamaCare. The state spent $300 million, apparently, to sell ObamaCare and 44 folks signed up. Assuming many of these would have been married couples, we might be talking 30 family "units" actually signed up. I'm not good at math: is that $10 million per family unit?

In another life, in another time, both Mr Mandel and Mr Obama would have been part of this civil disobedience.

**********************************

Speaking of which,  the following quote is making the internet rounds. I do not know whether it was actually said by Don Imus:
Nelson Mandela is a leader Barack Obama should try  to emulate.
He could start by spending 27 years in  prison. 
                                                                                -- Don  Imus
The point is not that I agree or disagree or if I am even making a partisan / political comment. The interesting point is that a libertarian like Don Imus, who might have been among the elite who supported Obama at one time, [may have] said this.

**********************************

The government says they are easily on track to meet the enrollment numbers they need.  Read the linked article (NBC) and place your bets. [The government spokesman, focusing on "x" million is focusing on the wrong metric; see below.]

Don sent me the link. This was my response:
Yes, they need 7 million. The "real" drop dead date is March 31, 2013, but if one wants coverage to begin January 1, 2014, your date of December 23 is correct.

They are counting on procrastinators and as we get closer to March 31, 2013, the rate of enrollees will increase. That's their argument.

I'm with you. If they don't need health insurance by December 23, they don't need it. And worse, things may start to backfire, and the rolling snowball could get bigger: folks who signed up (they have only put the policy "in their cart") have not actually bought the policy. A lot of folks who signed up and are sent their first premium due, may not pay it, just quietly drop out. [The "rolling snowball" referred to the "opt-out" movement."]

However one writes about it, the fact is the insurers have to be very, very nervous. They needed several million enrollees by the end of December to start paying premiums to have the cash flow to pay claims. They can see the writing on the wall. The software is not yet written. They may see no cash flowing from these new policies by the end of January, and when the cash starts to flow, it could be from enrollees numbering far less than the 7 million they claimed they needed.

But this is even worse: the government spokesman is focused on the wrong metric. They needed a "good mix" in the 7 million, preferably MORE young adults and non-pregnant young male adults to subsidize the older, sicker patients, with pre-existing conditions. Pregnant women, seniors, and folks with AIDS and cancer (the most likely to have signed up) will disproportionately make up the "x" million that actually enroll, pay the first premium, and then keep paying the premiums. And submit the claims.
Remember: until the government bails the insurance companies out, which the federal government will do (the genie can't be put back into the bottle), the insurance companies are on the hook for unlimited liability. 

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

ObamaCare -- The Death Spiral Begins

Updates

December 22, 2013: "we need to pass this bill to see what's in it" -- well, now we know. If you make $100,000  or more annually you won't qualify for a subsidy. If you make $94,000 or less, you could qualify for as much as 50% in subsidies. Talk about a law that was put together without much thoughts. What folks don't understand is this: the IRS isn't going to audit what you say your annual income is. When asked how much you make, simply say $90,000. It's a nice round number. And it qualifies for a huge subsidy. What a great country.

December 20, 2013: individual mandate is now going by the wayside.
Another exemption to Obamacare.
The Obama administration has opened a small, but potentially important, hole in a key requirement of the new healthcare law, letting some people who have had insurance policies cancelled avoid the requirement to buy coverage next year. The change, announced Thursday night in a letter that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sent to a group of senators, marks the first exception the administration has allowed to the law's so-called individual mandate.
Under the new policy, people who have received notices that their health plans are being canceled would qualify for hardship exemptions allowed by the law. Under those exemptions, they could buy low-cost catastrophic health plans or skip buying health coverage altogether.
December 17, 2013: how bad are things going for the president? Things are so bad with regard to NSA spying he is starting to talk about how good things are going with regard to his Obamacare website. Everything is relative.

December 14, 2013: This does not bode well. ObamaCare accounts debiting bank accounts incorrectly. Link is at KGW.com (Washington State).

December 14, 2013: following the NPR article in which it was announced that the "2014 Lie of the Year" award goes to President's Obama's "you can keep your insurance" promise, I wrote this to a reader:
Yes, I think it becomes more and more difficult for Obama supporters to rationalize their support for him.  I still get a kick out of folks who say, "Well, I still support him, but everything he's done has screwed up my life."

Talk about cognitive dissonance.
December 11, 2013: the numbers, by state:

  • North Dakota, at 265, signed up the lowest number.
  • South Dakota, at 372 , signed up the second lowest.
  • Florida, at 17,908, led the nation (Florida, with all its senior citizens, is certainly not known for young, healthy males)
  • Illinois, at 7,043, certainly is not particularly noteworthy.
  • Delaware, at 7,650, was said to be "tiny."
  • Hawaii signed up 574, for $350,000 apiece.
  • California signed up 107,087.
  • Oregon, 44. 
Reminder: the ten (10) states most critical and the numbers needed to enroll:

  • California: 1.3 million
  • Texas: 629,000
  • Florida: 477,000
  • Washington State: 340,000
  • Oregon: 237,0000
  • New York: 218,000
  • Pennsylvania: 206,000
  • Georgia: 204,000
  • North Carolina: 191,000
  • Ohio: 190,000

November 23, 2013: this is getting confusing. I thought the "2014" deadline was March 31, 2014 (after being delayed from March 15, 2014) but now this:
People needing health insurance by January 1, 2014 will have eight extra days to sign up, officials said. The original deadline for year-end coverage was December 15, but now will be moved to December 23.
With the first enrollment period barely off the ground, the Obama administration also has decided to delay enrollment for the second year of the program to give insurance companies more time to calculate rates, White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters.
The delay will mean consumers will start shopping for insurance for Year Two of Obamacare on November 15, 2014 - more than a week after voters go to the polls for midterm elections, when congressional Democrats are expected to face tough questions about the policy they supported. [This means the official rates won't be available until after the election. The rates are predicted to soar. In fact, the rates will be "leaked" well before the election.]
November 22, 2013: Senator Al Franken joins a growing number of senators who are open to delaying ObamaCare. The employer-mandate has been delayed a week; the individual mandate has been delayed for two weeks.

November 22, 2013: days before launch, the ObamaCare website unable to handle even 500 users. Wow, talk about amateur hour. Reuters is reporting:
In the last days before the botched October 1 launch of President Barack Obama's healthcare website, the team in charge was seeing alarming results from performance tests, according to internal emails released by Republican lawmakers investigating the rollout.
HealthCare.gov was unable to consistently handle 500 users at once in the testing, and tests failed with 2,000 users over a three-day period, according to a series of emails between members of the information technology team at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS.
"I do not want a repeat of what happened near the end of December 2005 where Medicare.Gov had a meltdown," Henry Chao, the website's project manager at CMS, wrote in capital letters in an urgent message on September 26 to his team and contractors.
November 16, 2013: Apple, Google, and Drudge all report that 20% of internet users are unable to access their sites due to technology glitches inherent in their sites. Just joking; not true. But that's exactly what the developers of the ObamaCare on-line web site exchange are telling Americans. They expect that on December 1, 2013, when the website is working "smoothly," twenty percent (20%) of Americans will not be able to access the site. From a legitimate mainstream media outlet. I can't make this stuff up.

November 11, 2013: the president's tally will include those who have enrolled, but not purchased a plan. Call it his ObamaCare Mulligan

November 10, 2013: this is the best article to date that explains why ObamaCare will fail. It's not the website.
Since it is, stories about people like Dianne Barrette suddenly losing health insurance plans that cost $54/month in return for plans that cost $591/month were inevitable. There’s once again no such thing as a free good, and unless federally mandated insurance plans offering everything – including maternity benefits for men – were going to be given away by insurance companies hurdling toward bankruptcy, it was inevitable that what Obama promised was going to be accompanied by a much larger price tag for individuals.
Notice: these two words in the same sentence -- "bankruptcy" and "insurers."

November 10, 2013: folks familiar with how the White House functions suggest that the website will not be working smoothly by November 30, 2013.

November 10, 2013: according to a WSJ op-ed, these "dirty dozen" are at risk of losing their Senate seat. These democrats running for re-election in 2014 cast the decisive vote for ObamaCare: Mark Begich, AK; Dick Durbin, IL; Al Franken, MN; Kay Hagan, NC; Mary Landrieu, LA, Jeff Merkley, OR; Mark Pryor, AR; Jack Reed, RI: Jenanne Shaheen, NH; Mark Udall, CO; Tom Udall, NM; Mark Warner, VA. My hunch: 11 of 12 will win re-election. All politics is local.

November 7, 2013: the president says he is sorry to hear that millions have lost their insurance policies, and to hear that folks can't keep the doctor they have and/or like.

November 7, 2013: The ObamaCare website will be taken down daily, from 1:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. indefinitely for "routine maintenance." The administration official says it could be down more than that, but that's a starting point.

November 3, 2013: The Washington Post gives four Pinocchios to Mr Obama regarding his comments after the disastrous roll out.

November 3, 2013: the president should be pissed. His own people screwed him. They knew the website was not ready for prime time.
In May 2010, two months after the Affordable Care Act squeaked through Congress, President Obama’s top economic aides were getting worried. Larry Summers, director of the White House’s National Economic Council, and Peter Orszag, head of the Office of Management and Budget, had just received a pointed four-page memo from a trusted outside health adviser. It warned that no one in the administration was “up to the task” of overseeing the construction of an insurance exchange and other intricacies of translating the 2,000-page statute into reality.
Summers, Orszag and their staffs agreed. For weeks that spring, a tug of war played out inside the White House, according to five people familiar with the episode. On one side, members of the economic team and Obama health-care adviser Zeke Emanuel lobbied for the president to appoint an outside health reform “czar” with expertise in business, insurance and technology. On the other, the president’s top health aides — who had shepherded the legislation through its tortuous path on Capitol Hill and knew its every detail — argued that they could handle the job.
November 1, 2013: commentary on the trainwreck -- why the health insurers demanded that the employer mandate for ObamaCare be delayed for one year

October 27, 2013: Middle-class Californians are getting their ObamaCare health bills. Good for them. The Los Angeles Times is reporting:
Thousands of Californians are discovering what Obamacare will cost them — and many don't like what they see.
These middle-class consumers are staring at hefty increases on their insurance bills as the overhaul remakes the healthcare market. Their rates are rising in large part to help offset the higher costs of covering sicker, poorer people who have been shut out of the system for years.
Although recent criticism of the healthcare law has focused on website glitches and early enrollment snags, experts say sharp price increases for individual policies have the greatest potential to erode public support for President Obama's signature legislation.
October 25, 2013 Rush Limbaugh talked about it first, and now the mainstream media has it figured out. Rush is right. If you don't get a refund from the government, you can avoid the ObamaCare penalty. If the IRS assesses you the $95 / 1% family income penalty for lacking health insurance, they can only take if from your refund. If you have no refund, you won't get sent a bill. The ObamaCare bill was not well thought out. To say the least. Yahoo!Finance is reporting:
How exactly will the penalty be assessed? If you don’t have sufficient health coverage by the deadline, the “IRS will hold back the amount of the fee from any future tax refunds,” according to HealthCare.gov, the government’s marketplace website.

But what if you don’t get a tax refund? Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh picked up on this subject on his show this week, telling listeners: “The only way that they can collect the penalty or the fine is by taking money from your refund. If you are not owed a refund, they cannot get money from you.”

We asked Mark Luscombe, principal analyst at CCH Tax & Accounting North America, about that. Turns out Limbaugh is essentially right. If you don't get a refund next year, the “IRS could carry over the sum due and apply it against any refunds in future years. On a joint return, the penalty of one joint filer could be applied against the refund due to the other joint filer,” Luscombe says. 
I've maintained from the start that "this" is going to be the biggest "act of civil disobedience" in this country -- people finding ways to NOT enroll in ObamaCare. And I doubt the IRS is going to take folks to court of $95. 

October 25, 2013: increasing number of Senate dems want ObamaCare delayed.

October 25, 2013: in the "Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer," on CNN, three folks tried unsuccessfully for 90 minutes to enroll into ObamaCare. At the end of the 90-minute special, they were still trying to enroll. One would think this would be a FOX stunt, but no, this was on CNN, President Obama's #2 television station. MSNBC, of course, is #1 at the White House.

October 24, 2013: for archival purposes -- even the website developer could not log on

October 24, 2013: wow, I love these time-date stamps on the blog. You will note that I posted the original post last evening, noting that the "death spiral" for ObamaCare had begun. Now I see today, the mainstream media is referring to this as the "death spiral." Yahoo!News is reporting:
The politics editor at Business Insider, tells The Daily Ticker, "The government needs to get the website up and running as soon as possible." If it doesn't and only the sickest Americans sign up--because younger and healthier individuals don't--there could be an "insurance death spiral," says Barro.
He explains: "If only people who are especially sick buy health insurance, then you end up with a pool of people who are really expensive to cover, so insurers have to respond to that by raising premiums. Then more people drop out of insurance because it gets more expensive and you have a death spiral where only extremely sick people paying extremely higher premiums are in the insurance market."
The politics editor is talking about the "death spiral" for the health insurers, whereas my "death spiral" is a bit broader, encompassing the entire scam / debacle / trainwreck. 

Original Post 

For newbies, there are three components of ObamaCare:
  • the employer mandate
  • the individual mandate
  • taxes on medical devices
The employer mandate has been delayed on year.

The Tea Party lost the battle -- at least it was widely reported that the Tea Party lost the battle -- to defund ObamaCare, and lost the battle to delay the individual mandate. It is now being reported that:
  • the president may delay the individual ObamaCare
  • every Democratic senator up for re-election may, in fact, support a decision to delay ObamaCare
The issue of delaying the individual mandate is now moot.

It is well known that it is impossible to enroll via the webpage. There are other ways to enroll -- such as telephoning and in person. However, the "navigator" will most likely use the webpage to help folks enroll by telephone or in person.

If folks cannot enroll by the deadline date due to technological reasons, they certainly cannot be penalized by the IRS for failing to enroll. Of course, the IRS will attempt to go after them, but Congress will be forced to call off the IRS if folks complain that they tried to enroll but were unable to do so.

So, regardless of whether the individual mandate is delayed or not, anyone who is not enrolled by the deadline date, and is penalized by the IRS, an appeal will be made, arguing that they tried without success to enroll. No one can be fined for not enrolling until the system is working flawlessly.