Over/under date for Obamacare 1-year delay?

[glenn1]

The 1-year delay in the Obamacare individual mandate that Republicans couldn't get in the shutdown is looking like it may be forced upon the Administration by events. Between the problems in the Healthcare.gov rollout and the corresponding low enrollment numbers, it looks like the "death spiral" is a serious concern. It's entirely logical that those who fight through difficulties in enrollment are those who stand most to benefit, either because they are unhealthy/older and thus benefit from "guaranteed issue" or the very poor and thus enrolling under expanded Medicaid.

What is your projection for the individual mandate in light of recent events? And if you think there will be a 1-year delay, when do you think the Administration will "throw in the towel"?

 

[nageov3t]

I don't think it'll happen... but it would be hilarious if the Obama admin asked for a delay and Republicans blocked it.

 

[fskimospy]

Taking any and all bets from people who think the ACA will be delayed a year. Glenn? Bet round 2? lol.

 

[EagleKeeper]

No way Obama will allow for it to be delayed. Political suicide for him and the Democrats.
Let it roll and tap dance the issues as needed.

There will be problems after Jan 1;
People are running around in panic mode at present and can not institute/execute a proper testing plan in 2 months. The testing plans are required to identify the issues; it is obvious by just what little has been done in 3 weeks, that the testing was rubber stamped

 

[diesbudt]

I don't think it'll happen... but it would be hilarious if the Obama admin asked for a delay and Republicans blocked it.

This would be the single greatest moment in American government history. It would literally show the 2 sides as 2 children doing a normal sibling "fight"

 

[boomerang]

I don't think it'll happen... but it would be hilarious if the Obama admin asked for a delay and Republicans blocked it.

Yeah, they're kinda backed into a corner now. :biggrin:

What will happen is that sign-ups will continue and the date for mandatory compliance will be moved ahead one year. New deadline, Jan 1, 2015.

The problem is going to be keeping the program afloat in the interim. Should be interesting. But, those big printing presses just keep rolling and rolling along.

 

[glenn1]

Taking any and all bets from people who think the ACA will be delayed a year. Glenn? Bet round 2? lol.

Yep, I'm sure the a wager will influence the outcome. But fine, if that's what makes things interesting for you then find a 3rd party site like Intrade and pick the proposition to wager.

 

[fskimospy]

Yep, I'm sure the a wager will influence the outcome. But fine, if that's what makes things interesting for you then find a 3rd party site like Intrade and pick the proposition to wager.

I'm just pointing out that you're once again saying things out of a fit of ideological pique that you know in your gut are wrong. You just want them to be true so badly.

 

[glenn1]

I'm just pointing out that you're once again saying things out of a fit of ideological pique that you know in your gut are wrong. You just want them to be true so badly.

I guess no bet then?

What exactly do I "know in my gut is wrong"? That the healthcare exchanges are experiencing problems? That it is possible that the mandate could be delayed for a year? (the probability is a separate question). My thread is about asking others what they think will happen and on what timeline. Feel free to state you think it won't happen, but trying to hijack the conversation with projection about "wanting it to be true so badly" does not reflect well on you.

 

[Fern]

If problems persist I think they might push back the sign up date/deadline. I'm guessing 3-6 months depending upon the severity of the problems and the numbers already signed up.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

I guess no bet then?

What exactly do I "know in my gut is wrong"? That the healthcare exchanges are experiencing problems? That it is possible that the mandate could be delayed for a year? (the probability is a separate question). My thread is about asking others what they think will happen and on what timeline. Feel free to state you think it won't happen, but trying to hijack the conversation with projection about "wanting it to be true so badly" does not reflect well on you.

You know in your gut that it is wrong to ever question government, for government art wise and there to help you.

If problems persist I think they might push back the sign up date/deadline. I'm guessing 3-6 months depending upon the severity of the problems and the numbers already signed up.

Fern

I could see 3-6 months as a reasonable accommodation. No way will they push it back a year, given that was what the Pubbies wanted. Surely by throwing more hundreds of millions at the problem, a longer delay won't be necessary.

 

[First]

Nope, it'll be ironed out within weeks, a couple months maybe. Law will meet or exceed expectations and Repubs will lose the House and Presidency (again) in 2016 for having zero ideas to run on.

 

[compuwiz1]

The government is funded. Obamcare is still not. 35 pages and I don't see funding for Obamacare in it, but I think I detect some pork. Maybe someone else knows how to comprehend these things better.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=...es/2013/10/amendment10-16-13c.pdf&chrome=true

 

[Balt]

I don't think you understand how Obamacare works if you think there's going to be a one year delay of the mandate. The system will fail completely if only a bunch of sick and previously un-insurable people sign up. They need the mandate in place so that the young and presumably healthy will have to put money into the system and pay for the high-risk people in the pool.

There may be an extended enrollment period, but that's about it.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Everything will be fine when the repub's get tired and give up their DOS attack, they are playing it like Candy Crush :awe:

Ted Cruz is in the lead with 176,242 sign ins

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think it's hilarious.

No delay and lots of cockups.

 

[sactoking]

The most likely scenario to me is that Healthcare.gov doesn't function properly until after 12/15/13, so HHS uses the "hardship exemption" clause to issue individual mandate exemptions to tens of millions of affected individuals. This leaves the mandate in place, preserving political face, but doesn't penalize individuals who can't purchase insurance. HHS is then sued under the equal protection clause but the lawsuit is thrown out for lack of standing.

 

[Genx87]

Oh it is possible they will be sued anyways. For stealing open souce software.

 

[glenn1]

The most likely scenario to me is that Healthcare.gov doesn't function properly until after 12/15/13, so HHS uses the "hardship exemption" clause to issue individual mandate exemptions to tens of millions of affected individuals. This leaves the mandate in place, preserving political face, but doesn't penalize individuals who can't purchase insurance. HHS is then sued under the equal protection clause but the lawsuit is thrown out for lack of standing.

This seems reasonable, but others have asserted that without the mandate in place (and the paid premiums associated with it) then Obamacare fails. Thankfully I'm not an Obama administration official who needs to square the circle of needing people to enroll to support the program, meanwhile the technical solution prevents a critical mass of them from doing so. There has to be a Plan B, doesn't there? Please tell me the backup plan isn't to have millions of people dial a call center where they'll have paper forms mailed to them to enroll? That's what Obama built as the backup plan ensure the viability of his "signature legislative accomplishment," what he hopes will be his future legacy?

This whole thing is starting to remind me of the scene from "A Few Good Men" and Col. Jessup's astonished question:

"Now, are these the questions I was really called here to answer? Phone calls and foot lockers? Please tell me that you have something more, Lieutenant. These two Marines are on trial for their lives. Please tell me their lawyer hasn't pinned their hopes to a phone bill."

 

[werepossum]

The government is funded. Obamcare is still not. 35 pages and I don't see funding for Obamacare in it, but I think I detect some pork. Maybe someone else knows how to comprehend these things better.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=...es/2013/10/amendment10-16-13c.pdf&chrome=true

Pretty sure Obamacare was set up as an entitlement, which means it goes ahead regardless of specific government funding authorization.

I don't think you understand how Obamacare works if you think there's going to be a one year delay of the mandate. The system will fail completely if only a bunch of sick and previously un-insurable people sign up. They need the mandate in place so that the young and presumably healthy will have to put money into the system and pay for the high-risk people in the pool.

There may be an extended enrollment period, but that's about it.

Everyone says that, but is it true? Rates for the young have skyrocketed, leaving them a choice between paying a relatively small fine and buying a very expensive health insurance policy. That suggests recruitment will be far below initial projections. If young healthy people don't sign up in projected numbers then the insurance companies take a hit, but there are mechanisms in place for them to be reimbursed part of those losses and they can raise next year's premiums to make up the shortfall.

The most likely scenario to me is that Healthcare.gov doesn't function properly until after 12/15/13, so HHS uses the "hardship exemption" clause to issue individual mandate exemptions to tens of millions of affected individuals. This leaves the mandate in place, preserving political face, but doesn't penalize individuals who can't purchase insurance. HHS is then sued under the equal protection clause but the lawsuit is thrown out for lack of standing.

That sounds like a pretty reasonable compromise, everything considered.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Nope, it'll be ironed out within weeks, a couple months maybe. Law will meet or exceed expectations and Repubs will lose the House and Presidency (again) in 2016 for having zero ideas to run on.

Bahahahaha!!! Beautiful sarcasm!!

In the off chance you were being serious, you've just shown your complete lack of knowledge of systems like this. A fix for this botched abortion is months away at best.

 

[sactoking]

This seems reasonable, but others have asserted that without the mandate in place (and the paid premiums associated with it) then Obamacare fails.

This is true, but it really only works on the front-end, meaning you have to scare someone into doing something. They can just wait until open enrollment is over befor ethey announce a plan, meaning that the threat of the mandate was in effect during the entirety of open enrollment.

 

[glenn1]

This is more opinion than news, but nothing else really looks worthy of posting here today. It has a bit more positive spin on things.


http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115289/obamacare-website-fail-politics-policy-and-polls

Obamacare Has Had a Brutal Few Days, But It's the Next Few Weeks That Count

President Obama’s Rose Garden speech Monday was supposed to send two messages—one, that he is determined to fix Obamacare’s troubled federal websites and, two, that the law is already helping many people get insurance. I happen to believe both claims, but I doubt the event convinced anybody with doubts.

The president had appeared alongside average people who would benefit from the law. But, as the official biographies had made clear, most had not yet gotten insurance. The president had also reminded people that they could use other methods of enrollment, including paper applications and a call center. But reporters who tried calling had trouble getting through. Offstage, administration officials were dealing with a barrage of tough questions: Why had the Department of Health and Human Services released figures for applications but not enrollments? When would Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius give Congress a formal report? Were officials prepared to delay the individual mandate?

<snip>

 

[Fern]

-snip-

-snip-
two, that the law is already helping many people get insurance.

I find the word "many" questionable at best.

I didn't see much of Obama's speech, but little I did see he seemed to be pushing O'care for those who otherwise couldn't get affordable care. I'm don't think that's the right 'marketing angle'. I think the concern should be that the people signing up are mostly those with pre-existing conditions. That may be a big problem. They need many many others, particularly those who are young and healthy, to sign up to make this work.

They've got two big challenges: (1) enroll a sufficient number (said to be about 7 million) and (2) have a proper mix of those who are healthy compared to those who have pre-existing conditions etc. It doesn't look promising now. The website foul-up may help them in the end. It could give them some political cover. If we get to March 15 and the necessary numbers haven't been reached that's a big problem. They can now use the botched website as an excuse and extend the sign up date for 3-6 months and launch a new marketing campaign. Otherwise they would have had to just admit O'care's unpopularity and unworkability.

Fern

 

[spacejamz]

This whole thing is starting to remind me of the scene from "A Few Good Men" and Col. Jessup's astonished question:

"Now, are these the questions I was really called here to answer? Phone calls and foot lockers? Please tell me that you have something more, Lieutenant. These two Marines are on trial for their lives. Please tell me their lawyer hasn't pinned their hopes to a phone bill."

This whole thing reminds of this quote:

John Hammond: All major theme parks have delays. When they opened Disneyland in 1956, nothing worked!

Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, but, John, if The Pirates of the Caribbean breaks down, the pirates don't eat the tourists.