If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   O-Team tries hiding their latest health policy shift in the Friday afternoon document dump during a four-day weekend, and now won't bother checking health insurance applicants' income etc. until, y'know, whenever, after the elections   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 95
    More: Fail, health insurance, hiding, household incomes, documents, marketplace  
•       •       •

1612 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Jul 2013 at 4:10 PM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



95 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-07 02:41:07 PM
Thus Deathcare is a failure?
 
2013-07-07 02:50:56 PM
FTFA: The federal government also needs to know who receives health insurance coverage from an employer. Consumers who receive affordable health insurance from their company under a policy that costs less than 9.5 percent of their income do not qualify for tax credits under the Affordable Care Act.

Given that employers send copies of your W-2s to the IRS anyway, its hard to see how this won't simply be a part of that as well.
 
2013-07-07 02:53:09 PM
FTFA: Instead, the federal government will rely more heavily on consumers' self-reported information until 2015, when it plans to have stronger verification systems in place.

Since this being enforced through a tax penalty from the IRS anyway, why wouldn't they just use the ol' 1040s? But if they add additional layers of verification, perhaps that will catch/discourage additional tax cheats to begin with.
 
2013-07-07 04:16:07 PM
So we're back to Obama winning elections because he gives stuff away? Is that what we're going with this week?
 
2013-07-07 04:21:45 PM
Step 1:  Pass a bill
Step 2:  Decide to only selectively enforce parts of it.
Step 3:  Profit
 
2013-07-07 04:24:52 PM
Admitting that the program is going to take longer to efficiently be implemented and actually doing something about it versus sweeping it under the rug is a great example of how to be reactive and proactive when implementing large scale laws.

Of course, in GOP land that somehow translates to complete and total failure. Because... herp?

One benefit (aside from the obvious) is that it will get the GOP chasing its tail for another year trying to repeal it another 50 times before it goes into full effect. All the way through the 2014 elections. And they're stupid enough to think their continued temper tantrum is going to not be stale, if not offensive, after 4 years of pounding their chests over the (eventual) inevitable doom the ACA will reap upon us all.
 
2013-07-07 04:28:33 PM

mpirooz: Admitting that the program is going to take longer to efficiently be implemented and actually doing something about it versus sweeping it under the rug is a great example of how to be reactive and proactive when implementing large scale laws.


uhhh...they are being reactive
they passed a law without knowing what is in it (thanks for that line Speaker Pelosi).
They didn't give adequate time for analysis.
They whined when people said there needs to be more comment and evaluation.
And now, what a surprise, they had no clue about what they were doing.

Being proactive is creating a solid law, being reactive is the constant string of "oopsies, I didn't know that" that they have been doing.
 
2013-07-07 04:35:54 PM
I read it. It wasnt that difficult to understand.

Sorry a comprehensive healthcare plan for 300 million people is longer than your attention span.

Single payer would still be better, but you have to start somewhere!
 
2013-07-07 04:36:12 PM
When did the Washington Post turn into the Washington Times?
 
2013-07-07 04:37:07 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: mpirooz: Admitting that the program is going to take longer to efficiently be implemented and actually doing something about it versus sweeping it under the rug is a great example of how to be reactive and proactive when implementing large scale laws.

uhhh...they are being reactive
they passed a law without knowing what is in it (thanks for that line Speaker Pelosi).
They didn't give adequate time for analysis.
They whined when people said there needs to be more comment and evaluation.
And now, what a surprise, they had no clue about what they were doing.

Being proactive is creating a solid law, being reactive is the constant string of "oopsies, I didn't know that" that they have been doing.


You must really enjoy the smell of your own ass since your head spends so much time up it.
 
2013-07-07 04:38:37 PM

Outshined_One: When did the Washington Post turn into the Washington Times?


A few months ago in preparation for when it turns into the New York Post.
 
2013-07-07 04:41:03 PM

Somacandra: FTFA: The federal government also needs to know who receives health insurance coverage from an employer. Consumers who receive affordable health insurance from their company under a policy that costs less than 9.5 percent of their income do not qualify for tax credits under the Affordable Care Act.

Given that employers send copies of your W-2s to the IRS anyway, its hard to see how this won't simply be a part of that as well.


Somacandra: FTFA: Instead, the federal government will rely more heavily on consumers' self-reported information until 2015, when it plans to have stronger verification systems in place.

Since this being enforced through a tax penalty from the IRS anyway, why wouldn't they just use the ol' 1040s? But if they add additional layers of verification, perhaps that will catch/discourage additional tax cheats to begin with.


This, and that.

All this sounds like is another "can Benghazi be a scandal yet".  There's no "giving away" of anything.  Eligibility will be determined by your tax returns.  It's not like you can just not file those.
 
2013-07-07 04:46:23 PM
Fark headline: tries hiding their latest health policy shift in the Friday afternoon document dump during a four-day weekend

TFA: The Obama administration announced Friday


*rolls eyes*

They have cream for that butthurt, subby.
 
2013-07-07 04:48:35 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: they passed a law without knowing what is in it (thanks for that line Speaker Pelosi).


C'mon, whine about Michelle buying superexpensive dinners at the Waldorf Astoria. Or maybe the birth certificate. You're already bringing up other old debunked bullshiat talking points, why not go whole hog?
 
2013-07-07 04:49:46 PM
Need to make sure this monster of a bill doesn't ruin Democrats' election chances, which Obama believes that it will.
 
2013-07-07 04:57:56 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Step 1:  Pass a bill
Step 2:  Decide to only selectively enforce parts of it.
Step 3:  Profit


Tenpoundsofcheese - now upset that Obamacare is not in effect enough.
 
2013-07-07 04:59:09 PM

Nemo's Brother: Need to make sure this monster of a bill doesn't ruin Democrats' election chances, which Obama believes that it will.


Right, now Fart Hussein 0bama and his DemocRATS have to run on the less popular aspects of Fartcare, which is the lack of lifetime coverage limits and ;people not being dropped because of pre-existing conditions.

Seriously, I don't think the healthcare of 300 million people can be addressed with a 5 or 10 page bill.  Anyone who complains about how long the ACA is is a fool.  Although my preference was a one sentence bill- namely "All naturalized Americans are now eligible for Medicare."
 
2013-07-07 05:00:19 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Step 1:  Pass a bill
Step 2:  Decide to only selectively enforce parts of it.
Step 3:  Profit


Step 1: Read a headline (1a: Read an article; optional)
Step 2: Decide to only selectively comprehend parts of it.
Step 3: Threadsh*t?
 
2013-07-07 05:00:31 PM
I notice a pattern here:
1. Find a part of the ACA which when implemented might cause some issues.
2. Declare the ACA a failure due to these issues.
3. Have the White House implement some changes in the ACA to address these issues.
4. Declare the ACA a failure because it had to be tweaked in order to address certain issues with its implementations.

It is almost like certain people have a personal problem with the ACA and will criticize anything and everything about the ACA, even if that "thing" corrects a problem that they had with it initially. Of course all they will do is criticize and never offer a practical alternative to bringing affordable healthcare to the masses. They are awesome at saying how things will not work or calling the uninsured lazy. The only solution they offer is giving the rich more tax cuts and then the rich will donate enough to charity to pay for the uninsured; but despite record low federal tax rates this has failed to happen along with better pay and more jobs. Besides isn't making people dependent on charity as "un-bootstrappy" as depending on the government for a handout? At least the ACA promotes personal responsibility.

Basically I am saying to conservatives to either come up with a practical alternative to the ACA, admit you just do not give a damn about the uninsured, or STFU and let the grownups actually try to do something about it. It's one thing not to want to be part of the solution, but to try to propagate the problem out of spite is pathetic since it is people's lives you are farking with.
 
2013-07-07 05:02:48 PM

heavymetal: I notice a pattern here:
1. Find a part of the ACA which when implemented might cause some issues.
2. Declare the ACA a failure due to these issues.
3. Have the White House implement some changes in the ACA to address these issues.
4. Declare the ACA a failure because it had to be tweaked in order to address certain issues with its implementations.

It is almost like certain people have a personal problem with the ACA and will criticize anything and everything about the ACA, even if that "thing" corrects a problem that they had with it initially. Of course all they will do is criticize and never offer a practical alternative to bringing affordable healthcare to the masses. They are awesome at saying how things will not work or calling the uninsured lazy. The only solution they offer is giving the rich more tax cuts and then the rich will donate enough to charity to pay for the uninsured; but despite record low federal tax rates this has failed to happen along with better pay and more jobs. Besides isn't making people dependent on charity as "un-bootstrappy" as depending on the government for a handout? At least the ACA promotes personal responsibility.

Basically I am saying to conservatives to either come up with a practical alternative to the ACA, admit you just do not give a damn about the uninsured, or STFU and let the grownups actually try to do something about it. It's one thing not to want to be part of the solution, but to try to propagate the problem out of spite is pathetic since it is people's lives you are farking with.


It's that damn ACA, eating crackers like it owns the place is a law passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President
 
2013-07-07 05:04:47 PM

mpirooz: Admitting that the program is going to take longer to efficiently be implemented and actually doing something about it versus sweeping it under the rug is a great example of how to be reactive and proactive when implementing large scale laws.

Of course, in GOP land that somehow translates to complete and total failure. Because... herp?

One benefit (aside from the obvious) is that it will get the GOP chasing its tail for another year trying to repeal it another 50 times before it goes into full effect. All the way through the 2014 elections. And they're stupid enough to think their continued temper tantrum is going to not be stale, if not offensive, after 4 years of pounding their chests over the (eventual) inevitable doom the ACA will reap upon us all.


Am I the only one who sees this as the Obama Administration trolling the GOP to try and chase their tail around for the next year and lose sight of the elections? Not to mention most of it taking effect and being in place by that time anyway. Since the DNC usually does poorly in midterms this might be a way to try and even the playing field.

/loved the Forbes article advocating people to lie
//one good thing about Yahoo! going full derp, I get a front seat to the GOP idiocy since Yahoo! is still my homepage.
///links to AnnCoulter, Townhall, Motley Fool, etc...hilarious, comments even more priceless.
 
2013-07-07 05:09:22 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: they passed a law without knowing what is in it (thanks for that line Speaker Pelosi).


No liar. She said: "But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy." She didn't said they had not read it. Shes was remarking that the GOP was making up so much lies about the bill that only when it was in effect would people really understand what it did.

They didn't give adequate time for analysis.
Wrong. The bill took an entire year, to  be signed into law. It was also based on ideas that had been around for a very long time. how is that not enough time?

They whined when people said there needs to be more comment and evaluation.

The asked for Republican input. The Republicans boycotted all meetings to give input.
 
2013-07-07 05:11:37 PM

heavymetal: Of course all they will do is criticize and never offer a practical alternative to bringing affordable healthcare to the masses.


Pfft.

Step 1: Free-market solutions
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Problem Solved (A.K.A. "Profit")!

/stoopid libs
 
2013-07-07 05:19:45 PM
Yeah...like this won't bet abused.
calibermag.org
 
2013-07-07 05:34:30 PM

Job Creator: heavymetal: I notice a pattern here:
1. Find a part of the ACA which when implemented might cause some issues.
2. Declare the ACA a failure due to these issues.
3. Have the White House implement some changes in the ACA to address these issues.
4. Declare the ACA a failure because it had to be tweaked in order to address certain issues with its implementations.

It is almost like certain people have a personal problem with the ACA and will criticize anything and everything about the ACA, even if that "thing" corrects a problem that they had with it initially. Of course all they will do is criticize and never offer a practical alternative to bringing affordable healthcare to the masses. They are awesome at saying how things will not work or calling the uninsured lazy. The only solution they offer is giving the rich more tax cuts and then the rich will donate enough to charity to pay for the uninsured; but despite record low federal tax rates this has failed to happen along with better pay and more jobs. Besides isn't making people dependent on charity as "un-bootstrappy" as depending on the government for a handout? At least the ACA promotes personal responsibility.

Basically I am saying to conservatives to either come up with a practical alternative to the ACA, admit you just do not give a damn about the uninsured, or STFU and let the grownups actually try to do something about it. It's one thing not to want to be part of the solution, but to try to propagate the problem out of spite is pathetic since it is people's lives you are farking with.

It's that damn ACA, eating crackers like it owns the place is a law passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President


And ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court.
 
2013-07-07 05:41:49 PM
This is being implemented very smoothly. I have great confidence this will continue.
 
2013-07-07 06:03:19 PM
How does that jive with this article posted last week, about the massive networking requirements across multiple disciplines to verify everything a user says during the enrollment process?

"What color was your beat-up old Gran Torino?"
 
2013-07-07 06:04:30 PM

themindiswatching: Thus Deathcare is a failure?


A failure? Far too early to comment. But at this stage it does seem to be an expanding clusterfark.
 
2013-07-07 06:06:39 PM
Go ahead and fraudulently report, go ahead. I'm sure they can't possibly keep records for another year or two, then nail your ass when you are caught lying.

Protip: If your first thought is how people will abuse something and lie, you're the person who will abuse and lie. That's you. You're projecting.
 
2013-07-07 06:08:00 PM

js34603: This is being implemented very smoothly. I have great confidence this will continue.


It'll continue alright, especially when the NSA gets its claws on all that data.
 
2013-07-07 06:09:34 PM

acchief: js34603: This is being implemented very smoothly. I have great confidence this will continue.

It'll continue alright, especially when the NSA gets its claws on all that data.


You're worried about the government getting access to information filed with the government?
 
2013-07-07 06:10:59 PM

LasersHurt: Go ahead and fraudulently report, go ahead. I'm sure they can't possibly keep records for another year or two, then nail your ass when you are caught lying.

Protip: If your first thought is how people will abuse something and lie, you're the person who will abuse and lie. That's you. You're projecting.


So the government's enrollment verification requirements are a direct reflection of how much they're salivating over the successful avalanche of new data falling into their laps? You don't say.
 
2013-07-07 06:12:23 PM

acchief: LasersHurt: Go ahead and fraudulently report, go ahead. I'm sure they can't possibly keep records for another year or two, then nail your ass when you are caught lying.

Protip: If your first thought is how people will abuse something and lie, you're the person who will abuse and lie. That's you. You're projecting.

So the government's enrollment verification requirements are a direct reflection of how much they're salivating over the successful avalanche of new data falling into their laps? You don't say.


You'd prefer no verification requirements?
 
2013-07-07 06:13:34 PM

qorkfiend: acchief: js34603: This is being implemented very smoothly. I have great confidence this will continue.

It'll continue alright, especially when the NSA gets its claws on all that data.

You're worried about the government getting access to information filed with the government?


Credit reports and purchase histories are filed with the government? Since when were IRS records freely distributed across various government agencies?
 
2013-07-07 06:15:53 PM

qorkfiend: acchief: LasersHurt: Go ahead and fraudulently report, go ahead. I'm sure they can't possibly keep records for another year or two, then nail your ass when you are caught lying.

Protip: If your first thought is how people will abuse something and lie, you're the person who will abuse and lie. That's you. You're projecting.

So the government's enrollment verification requirements are a direct reflection of how much they're salivating over the successful avalanche of new data falling into their laps? You don't say.

You'd prefer no verification requirements?


Do you think verifying your identity entails reporting what color your first car was?
 
2013-07-07 06:30:10 PM
I'm going to say I only make sixty cents an hour so that I can get a Cadillac Fartcare plan for free.

And I'll get away with it forever! Just like my taxes and my meth lab!

/I've said too much.
 
2013-07-07 06:46:41 PM

acchief: Do you think verifying your identity entails reporting what color your first car was?


Do you think that's what we're talking about, and not verifying your income and eligibility?
 
2013-07-07 06:49:38 PM

Corvus: tenpoundsofcheese: they passed a law without knowing what is in it (thanks for that line Speaker Pelosi).

No liar. She said: "But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy." She didn't said they had not read it. Shes was remarking that the GOP was making up so much lies about the bill that only when it was in effect would people really understand what it did.

They didn't give adequate time for analysis.
Wrong. The bill took an entire year, to  be signed into law. It was also based on ideas that had been around for a very long time. how is that not enough time?

They whined when people said there needs to be more comment and evaluation.
The asked for Republican input. The Republicans boycotted all meetings to give input.


[OHSNAPflowchart.jpg]
 
2013-07-07 06:51:33 PM
This just gives the GOP more time to call up tried and true old sleeper cells and create new ones to propel the FUD.

I expect the campaigns to be filled with more whining about soshulism, sharia law, ghey abortions and killing grandma.

/and the GOP will finally start profiting from Citizens United.
 
2013-07-07 06:55:40 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Step 1:  Pass a bill
Step 2:  Decide to only selectively enforce parts of it.
Step 3:  Profit


Based on what I've seen lately (non-recess recess appointments, amnesty to a large swath of illegal immigrants, no enforcement of  employer health care mandate, etc.):
Step 1: See a law
Step 2: Ignore it
Step 3: Goto 1
 
2013-07-07 07:00:34 PM

jjorsett: tenpoundsofcheese: Step 1:  Pass a bill
Step 2:  Decide to only selectively enforce parts of it.
Step 3:  Profit

Based on what I've seen lately (non-recess recess appointments, amnesty to a large swath of illegal immigrants, no enforcement of  employer health care mandate, etc.):
Step 1: See a law blah president
Step 2: Ignore it oppose everything he says/does
Step 3: Goto 1


FTFY
 
2013-07-07 07:05:00 PM

LasersHurt: acchief: Do you think verifying your identity entails reporting what color your first car was?

Do you think that's what we're talking about, and not verifying your income and eligibility?


According to this article, that's exactly what we're talking about, in addition to verifying income and eligibility.
 
2013-07-07 07:22:03 PM
Like most other Federal vote buying projects I fully expect this one to be a fraud magnet. There will be no attempt to actually enforce any accountability. With a bit of luck the abuse will be of a magnitude that it cannot be ignored and swept under the rug. But, but Bush.... isn't going to be able to cover up for this one.
 
2013-07-07 07:44:49 PM

ex-nuke: Like most other Federal vote buying projects I fully expect this one to be a fraud magnet. There will be no attempt to actually enforce any accountability. With a bit of luck the abuse will be of a magnitude that it cannot be ignored and swept under the rug. But, but Bush.... isn't going to be able to cover up for this one.


Funny the old talking point was "Obamacare is going to hire hundreds of thousands IRS agents and investigate everyone!!" now the new talking point is "Obamacare isn't going to investigate people enough!!"?
 
2013-07-07 07:45:15 PM

acchief: LasersHurt: acchief: Do you think verifying your identity entails reporting what color your first car was?

Do you think that's what we're talking about, and not verifying your income and eligibility?

According to this article, that's exactly what we're talking about, in addition to verifying income and eligibility.


According to the article this THREAD is about, and which we're talking about. I can't help that you came in and decided to respond to my post with your thoughts on some other, different article.
 
2013-07-07 07:48:56 PM
Remember when this was the talking point:

Rep. Kevin Brady, a Texas Republican, warns that the IRS will hire up to 16,500 new enforcers in the coming months to go after citizens who do not pay the new Obamacare tax. The expansion is said to include criminal investigators who "make cases" in order to levy penalties on scofflaws.


Now the new talking point is they are not hiring enough "enforcers".
 
2013-07-07 07:51:48 PM

LasersHurt: Go ahead and fraudulently report, go ahead. I'm sure they can't possibly keep records for another year or two, then nail your ass when you are caught lying.


Medicare has been a fraud magnet since the get-go - as is any sufficiently immense federal program. The only way the private sector buys into Medicare is if they get to pad their bills while Uncle Sam winks and looks the other way. The ACA is going to work the same way.

The political pressure to keep the money flowing out outweighs the good-government pressure to watch where that money is flowing to.

All this, to pay for the management of disorders caused primarily by our own damn fool choices. We have a tendency to worry the most about some out-of-the-blue ailment ruining us financially, when it's far more likely that preventable lifestyle diseases will be the ones that get us. Note that I said "management" in my first sentence and not "cure". There's only finite cash flow and political benefit in actually curing a disease. When the next Jonas Salk comes along with a cure for something like AIDS or diabetes...chances are we'll never know his or her name. Nobody in business or politics wants cures any more. They want eternally-dependent customers. Some in medicine still hunt for cures, but they do so knowing like never before what they're up against.

My prediction is that in about 30 years we'll figure out that it was Michelle and not Barack who deserved a Nobel Peace Prize.
 
2013-07-07 07:56:06 PM

ex-nuke: Like most other Federal vote buying projects


I appreciate when right-wing extremists announce their lunacy right off the bat... thanks.
 
2013-07-07 07:56:51 PM

ex-nuke: Like most other Federal vote buying projects I fully expect this one to be a fraud magnet. There will be no attempt to actually enforce any accountability. With a bit of luck the abuse will be of a magnitude that it cannot be ignored and swept under the rug. But, but Bush.... isn't going to be able to cover up for this one.


Spell it out for us, professor: where's the potential for fraud?

You still have to pay your premiums if you buy health insurance on the exchanges -- you just get offsetting tax credits if your income is low. But the IRS knows what your income is, no matter what you put down on the exchange application.
 
2013-07-07 08:01:12 PM

Corvus: Remember when this was the talking point:

Rep. Kevin Brady, a Texas Republican, warns that the IRS will hire up to 16,500 new enforcers in the coming months to go after citizens who do not pay the new Obamacare tax. The expansion is said to include criminal investigators who "make cases" in order to levy penalties on scofflaws.


Now the new talking point is they are not hiring enough "enforcers".



You're having trouble handling the concepts? The IRS is there to make sure the amount of money coming in is maxed out.

Whatever 'oversight' will exist under the ACA will be to make sure the amount of money going out meets the correct political needs to sustain its popularity. It's not a health-care program. It's a check-cutting/vote-buying program. Same as Medicare, defense, and ag subsidies.
 
Displayed 50 of 95 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report