Another Obamacare 'Twist,' and Another AP Failure to Admit That Almost No One Read or Understood the Bill
In the run-up to the passage of Obamacare in March 2010, Nancy Pelosi infamously told a friendly audience: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."
Fifteen months later, we still haven't learned everything about a bill which no honest congressperson or senator can claim to have read and fully understood.
Today's "discovery" is that some couples in their early 60s earning up to $64,000 a year can qualify for Medicaid. As has become establishment press custom since Obamacare's passage, Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar at the Associated Press reports on the "anomaly," without getting to its root cause, namely that nobody who voted for the 2000-page legislation knew it was there:
President Barack Obama's health care law would let several million middle-class people get nearly free insurance meant for the poor, a twist government number crunchers say they discovered only after the complex bill was signed.
The change would affect early retirees: A married couple could have an annual income of about $64,000 and still get Medicaid, said officials who make long-range cost estimates for the Health and Human Services department.
Up to 3 million more people could qualify for Medicaid in 2014 as a result of the anomaly. That's because, in a major change from today, most of their Social Security benefits would no longer be counted as income for determining eligibility. It might be compared to allowing middle-class people to qualify for food stamps.
Readers will be displeased to know that some leftists and Democrats predictably consider this a feature, not a bug, as Alonso-Zaldivar later explains:
Indeed, administration officials and senior Democratic lawmakers say it's not a loophole but the result of a well-meaning effort to simplify rules for deciding who will get help with insurance costs under the new health care law. Instead of a hodgepodge of rules, there will be one national policy.
"This simplification will stop people from falling into coverage gaps and may cause some to be newly eligible for Medicaid and others to no longer qualify," said Brian Cook, spokesman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
... Some early retirees who worked all their lives may not want to be associated with a health care program for the poor, but others might see it as a relatively painless way to satisfy the new law's requirement that all Americans carry medical insurance starting in 2014. It would help tide them over until they turn 65 and qualify for Medicare.
... A spokeswoman for the Senate Finance Committee, which wrote much of the health care law, said if the situation does become a problem there's plenty of time to fix it later.
"These changes don't take effect until 2014, so we have time to review all possible cases to ensure Medicaid meets its mission of serving only the neediest Americans," said Erin Shields.
Sure, Erin. I'm certain that we won't hear a peep from any of the three million "inadvertently" eligible people who are about to board the gravy train. I'm sure AARP and other alleged representatives of seniors will let a repair bill pass without any objection whatsoever. Oh, and those "senior Democratic lawmakers" who in the story essentially said "Oops, but that's good news for us, because it creates more dependents" will be the first on the repair bill bandwagon. (/sarc).
Everyone who voted for Obamacare should be asked by their constituents why they didn't see this coming. The only honest answer is: "I didn't know it was in there because I didn't read it" -- or, in rare instances, "I didn't know it was in there because I didn't understand it." If you didn't read it or understand what you read, you either shouldn't have voted, or should have voted "no."
The fact is that most Americans would agree with the idea that anyone who is willing to vote for pivotal legislation they have failed to read or understand should not be serving in public office, up to and including the aforementioned Ms. Pelosi. This explains why the AP and the rest of the establishment press will never, ever acknowledge how and why Obamacare passed.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
- Tom Blumer's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
The repubs could bring this insanity to a halt with one vote
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 4:17pm.
Too bad they don't have the guts to do it.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
The bill
Submitted by Too Old To Be Cool on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 4:35pm.
If only the media had inspected the bill as thoroughly as Sarah Palin's e-mails...
!!!!!!!!!!
Submitted by MidAmerica on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 5:02pm.
Alright!!! Yes!!! I'm cashin in!!!
I will fit in that category. Hope and Change lives!
You Right Wing wingnuts can go pound sand.....
cashing in
Submitted by Huapakechi on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 5:30pm.
Ya had just better hope that the wait for a doctor's appointment does not exceed the time you can survive without treatment, and when you need them spendy medications the death panels will deny the means to keep you alive because you are too old or too sick.
Look at the English "healthcare" system. They're already doing this. It's a great way to cut the number of retirees on the social security rolls by killing 'em off.
(snicker)
Submitted by MidAmerica on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 5:33pm.
I hope you weren't taking me serious.
Hay Mid America,
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 6:10pm.
No good post goes unpunished, same thing happened to me... lol
A post out of the Blue...as it were.
Just kuz i forgot that ..../s.
You Didn't Build That.
yeah
Submitted by MidAmerica on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 10:15pm.
This 'glitch' that allows a couple to make $64,000 and be on public aid may make sense in New York City but in the area I live you can live quite comfortably on $64,000. That's a good illustration of the reason centralized one size fits all programs are inefficient.
CBO didn't pay much attention either
Submitted by Callawyn on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 6:34pm.
Clearly, the CBO missed this as well, when scoring the bill, or it would have come in with an additional $450 Billion cost added to the price tag.
They must be forced to revise their score!
If it is not found unconstitutional by SCOTUS, we will be trying to get it repealed in 2013 under reconciliation rules (unless we are very fortunate and win 60 Senate seats). The CBO score will be important again because bills passed under Reconcilition are required to reduce the deficit and the current CBO score for Obamacare shows it 'saving' over $100 Billion. Their current score is absurd, of course, but the D's will use it to try to block repeal.
Liberal solutions*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 6:59pm.
If you have a joint income of $60,000 but never contributed to Social Security, you are now eligible for Medicaid. If you make more than a joint income of $250,000, you are considered rich and now pay higher taxes since 01-01-11 . Now folks, what does that sound like to you?
Oh woe the middle class!
Wait until the other obamacare provisions are made public
Submitted by ThisnThat on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 8:11pm.
Medicaid is written in this bill to cover the following:
I don't know why no one has talked about these, yet. The dims packed everything they could under Medicaid, assuming no one would every tough the "health care for the poor" program.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
This was all by design.
Submitted by JohnMcGrew on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 10:22am.
"This is a situation that got no attention at all," added Foster. "And even now, as I raise the issue with various policymakers, people are not rushing to say ... we need to do something about this."
Of course not. This is because this was not an anomaly, but done on purpose. The Progressive goal has always been to get the “middle class” absorbed into Medicaid and other programs originally meant for the “poor”. The reason is simple: To buy and own voters. When programs are exclusively for the “poor”, they are seen as “necessary evils” and their growth is limited because the middle class feels as though they are paying for other people’s free ride. They rarely vote for expansion of those programs. But once the middle class gets assimilated into those programs themselves, the view changes; they themselves see it as a “freebie” and become dependant, and will vote to continually maintain and expand the benefits. (Look in the headlines under “Greece” to see how that plays out) What the Democrats are really doing is expanding their permanent voter base. Once assimilated, all future elections will include the phrase “Vote for us, because if you don’t the Republicans will take your (insert program name here) benefits away”. BTW, this was the line used immediately after Social Security was passed, and has been used ever since.
Indeed, administration officials and senior Democratic lawmakers say it's not a loophole but the result of a well-meaning effort to simplify rules for deciding who will get help with insurance costs under the new health care law.
Of course it is!