Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, March 4, 2014

Jenkins bill to delay individual insurance mandate would be vetoed, White House says

March 4, 2014

Advertisement

A proposal by U.S. Rep. Lynn Jenkins to delay the individual health insurance mandate for one year under the Affordable Care Act would be vetoed by President Barack Obama, the White House said Tuesday.

The House is set to vote on the bill this week.

"The Simple Fairness Act will give hardworking Americans a one-year delay of the individual mandate tax to provide relief and protect families from this unworkable law," said Jenkins, the vice chairwoman of the Republican conference, whose district includes Lawrence.

According to media reports, Obama mocked the bill, citing the numerous votes by Republicans to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

"You know what they say: 50th time is the charm," Obama said.

Under the Affordable Care Act, individuals will face a fine of $95 or one percent of their taxable income for not purchasing health insurance in 2014.

The White House issued a statement that said rather than attempting to repeal the ACA, the House should join the president in focusing on "greater economic opportunity and security for middle class families and those working to get into the middle class."

Comments

Julius Nolan 7 months, 4 weeks ago

Another nutcase bill from a nutcase GOP member. Then someone references another nutcase site (thehill.com) to support the bill.

5

Fred Mertz 7 months, 4 weeks ago

Explain why delaying the employer mandate through EO is okay, but delaying the individual mandate is a nutcase bill? Time to put up Julius.

0

James Howlette 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Because the employer mandate is more complicated than the individual mandate, and the rules and system for individual coverage through the exchanges is already set up, even if it did take a while to get the website running. Honestly, I think kicking it back to 2016 was irresponsible, but I didn't make the call.

0

Chris Jeter 7 months, 4 weeks ago

Another person who thinks anyone that doesn't agree with their point of view is a nutcase...

5

Bob Smith 7 months, 4 weeks ago

Ah, the overweening hubris of the true believers.....

0

James Howlette 7 months, 4 weeks ago

You're really racking up those irony awards.

1

Greg Cooper 7 months, 4 weeks ago

Bob, just as a point of information, would you cite your reason, supported by fact, please, for being so against the ACA that you resort to name calling of the President?

It is easy for any of us to disagree and to make sweeping statements about the bill and the poeple who are for ar against, but far harder to point to facts that support the case to repeal or ignore the law. I'd be interested in your reasoning and facts supporting your reasoning.

2

Beator 7 months, 4 weeks ago

For me, Obama's plan limits my liberty of choices.

thanks

1

Phillip Chappuie 7 months, 4 weeks ago

OK, I have to ask. Mr. Beaton, how is your liberty of choice limited?

You either buy a health insurance plan or you don't. If you do buy a plan and chose from one through the exchange, yes your choice is limited. In Kansas for the most part I understand it is BCBS or Coventry. However, if you chose you can go buy a plan from any other provider with literally dozens of choices. Choosing to not be insured is not much of a choice.

7

James Howlette 7 months, 4 weeks ago

My store only serves five flavors of pie. Oh, the liberty of my choices has been limited!

1

Kathleen Ammel 7 months, 4 weeks ago

You answered your own question...you either buy insurance or you don't. If you don't, you get fined & if you do, you pay through the nose for a product you don't want & in many cases don't need. So, your choice is to pay the insurance company or to pay the government. You deprive someone from making a choice because you judge it to be not much of a choice? Who are you to judge?
And furthermore, what if I judge that purchasing an overpriced insurance plan with unnecessary coverage is not much of a choice? Why is my money taken from me and used to support someone else's poor choice?

0

Greg Cooper 7 months, 4 weeks ago

No, that's not the range of choices. One still has the option of choosing from several insurance plans. One still has the option of not choosing to have insurance. One still has all those options and the fact that you choose not to choose is not anyone's fault but yours.

As for supporting someone else's poor choice, we have been doing that for decades by paying, in higher insurance rates, for the people who chose not to have insurance in the first place. Their doctor of choice has been the emergency room, for which they did not pay, so the hospitals, as good businesses will, passed unpaid for costs on to those of us who did have insurance. If that's your choice, fine for you, but I do not like it and am looking forward to paying my own costs rather than those of the ones who took advantage of the system.

4

Beator 7 months, 4 weeks ago

thanks Kathleen Ammel

Additionally, some of the Obama coverage choices I do not need nor should have to pay for.

0

Andrew Dufour 7 months, 4 weeks ago

Mike that's the entire point of insurance, you pay for things that you'll either never need or hopefully never will and someone else is doing the same thing for something they'll never use but you end up needing. Regarding Kathleen's statement, to claim "something I don't need" is a misnomer, you'll never know if you need it and the moment you do need it and don't have it, your healthcare costs end up affecting everyone else because costs go up when people without insurance get treatment and don't pay for it.

4

Beator 7 months, 4 weeks ago

I don't need someone else making that choice for me. I'd like the liberty to make a choice for myself.

Why do I not have the liberty to make a choice for or against having Obama's type of insurance.

thanks

0

Andrew Dufour 7 months, 4 weeks ago

what do you mean "Obama's" type of insurance. If you're talking about the required benefits that must be included in policies now it's kind of a misnomer to call it "obama's".

First: states have been mandating benefits on their own for decades.

Second: the mandated coverage is meant to mirror what is commonly offered in the state, in fact the benefit mandate for a given state is based on the most popular small group policy in that state.

Third: the choice to have or not have insurance isn't as simple as a personal liberty argument, there is a larger concern about what happens when large swaths of a society are uninsured.

1

Beator 7 months, 4 weeks ago

Earlier today, the Obama White House released a 3-paragraph statement on the legislation, noting that Obamacare “helps millions of Americans stay on their parents’ plans until age 26”—which, of course, has nothing to do with the individual mandate or the fine/“tax” for violating it—and saying that if President Obama were presented with the legislation, “he would veto it.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/bill-make-fine-0-violating-individual-mandate-passes-90-votes_784223.html

0

Andrew Dufour 7 months, 4 weeks ago

So you're focusing on the liberty to choose not to buy insurance? If that's your only beef I'll direct you to the myriad of people who have tried to explain why the mandate is necessary and how your exercise of your "liberty" actually does have an effect on the costs for everyone else when you get sick. Unfortunately you cannot choose whether or not you're going to cost us all money, ergo the only solution is to insure against that risk.

1

Beator 7 months, 3 weeks ago

There is no amount of your complex critical thinking that can justify taking my liberty of choice.

Thanks for your complex, comprehensive critical thinking.

"Unfortunately you cannot choose ..." Your bullying does not justify it either.

Thanks

0

James Howlette 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Here's this. You can choose. If you choose the unwise option, you pay the fine. If you choose the wiser option, you have insurance. There you go. You have a choice. Quit whining that you don't have one.

0

Fred Mertz 7 months, 4 weeks ago

One reason to dislike the legislation is that the president lied to get it passed. He said it wasn't a tax and the SCOTUS said it was. He also said you could keep your health plan but that too was a lie.

It will hurt business which is why he is delaying the employer mandate.

It is not the role of government to force people to buy a product.

0

Mark Rainey 7 months, 4 weeks ago

People don't see it more like fire protection-we all pay the fireman, few need him. If misfortune strikes, i don't think most want the fireman to stand and watch your house burn because you did not pay. Society will step in,put out your fire,and we all will pay.

2

Richard Payton 7 months, 4 weeks ago

Why has Obama allowed a big business delay but not an individual mandate? Appears President Obama favors big business much like Bush. The middle class don't get the same treatment as the big donors. This President it appears wants complete control over healthcare. The President lied about being able to keep your doctor. The website isn't secure so many individuals are concerned about signing up.

0

Cille King 7 months, 4 weeks ago

".. Medicare’s top cybersecurity official testified Thursday that the revamped website passed full security tests Dec. 18, ..."

http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/free/20140116aca-website-passes-key-security-test.html

1

Commenting has been disabled for this item.