A few weeks ago, we highlighted the, um, interesting logic employed by soon-to-be-former Senator Max Baucus on why he now views the ObamaTax as a "train wreck."
Today's example comes to us via FoIB Holly R, who sent us a link purportedly explaining why Golden State politicos are pushing back against smoker surcharges in their Exchange-based ObamaPlans.
No, that's not a typo: these rocket surgeons want to prohibit carriers from charging smokers more because, well, in their own words:
"[A] surcharge for smokers would mean they wouldn't get the benefit of the subsidy that's supposed to make buying insurance through the marketplaces in 2014 more affordable ... If the state opted for the maximum surcharge, health insurance would become unaffordable for those with the lowest incomes ... it's that group that's most likely to smoke."
You cannot make this stuff up.
Today's example comes to us via FoIB Holly R, who sent us a link purportedly explaining why Golden State politicos are pushing back against smoker surcharges in their Exchange-based ObamaPlans.
No, that's not a typo: these rocket surgeons want to prohibit carriers from charging smokers more because, well, in their own words:
"[A] surcharge for smokers would mean they wouldn't get the benefit of the subsidy that's supposed to make buying insurance through the marketplaces in 2014 more affordable ... If the state opted for the maximum surcharge, health insurance would become unaffordable for those with the lowest incomes ... it's that group that's most likely to smoke."
You cannot make this stuff up.
Posts
