Thursday, February 07, 2013

W C Fields and Obamacare

As the story goes, W. C. Fields, a lawyer and comedian (there is a joke in there somewhere),  was reported to have been observed looking through a Bible while on his deathbed. Fields, a self professed atheist, when asked why he was just now reading the Bible responded that he was "looking for loopholes".

Since SCOTUS has declared the Obamatax mandate legal, it seems several folks are also looking for loopholes.

Thankfully the IRS has provided a crib sheet.
The Fact Sheet further, not so subtly, rebranded the directive as the “individual shared responsibility” for “minimum essential coverage,” indicating that, like the terms “ObamaCare” and “exchanges”, the Administration is keenly aware of the forthcoming battle to promote provisions of the health reform bill.

Shared responsiblity and minimum essential coverage makes it sound more like a 60's love fest than a government takeover of health insurance, personal responsibility and personal freedoms.
The health insurance exchanges – or marketplaces – will be responsible for exempting those who file for a “hardship” exemption (which is peculiarly defined) or are exempt due to religious conscience.
So now the government is interested in my religious beliefs? Will a note from my minister, priest or rabbi suffice?

The “hardship” exemptions were the most notable for many health care experts because, although vague, they illuminate two very important questions about those with low incomes. The first hardship of note asserts that individuals, who cannot enroll in an exchange because there are no affordable options in that exchange, will be exempt.
The second, and probably most contentious hardship exemption states that individuals, who would be eligible for Medicaid but for their state’s choice not to expand Medicaid to the ACA’s required level, will be exempt. This section on Medicaid expansion highlights the Administration’s desire (or need) for states to expand, and further reiterates the current federal position on not allowing a partial expansion.
Here we go again, defining affordable.
As for Medicaid expansion, at least DC is acknowledging they really don't want any part of the states that follow the SCOTUS decision and opt out of the expanded qualifications.
Seems only fair since they are stepping all over states rights.
Welcome to the Obamacare love fest.
blog comments powered by Disqus