Friday, November 15, 2013

Upton vs. Landrieu

Upton Passes 261-157 (39 Dems Vote Yes, 4 Republicans Vote No) Credit where it's due: Boehner, Cantor, et al have played this very well. - Ace

These seem to be the differences between Upton and Landrieu: - Ace Of Spades
Upton provides only for a year-long ability to buy your old policy. Landrieu's bill says the policy must be offered until there are no longer any subscribers to the policy. Advantage: Landrieu

Landrieu's bill applies only to people who actually had the policy before October 1st. Upton is much more expansive: Upton says that if the policy is being offered to anyone, then new customers may buy into that policy as well. Landrieu thus seeks to limit the pool of people who can self-exempt from Obamacare, whereas Upton seeks to expand it. Advantage: Upton

Upton's bill says that insurance companies may offer the old plans. Landrieu says they must...more at the link
Analysis of the Landrieu and Upton Bills - Rush Limbaugh
Upping the Stakes: Include a State-by-State Opt Out Clause as Part of Upton or Landrieu - Ace Of Spades
Why not? Make Red State Democrats vote against the proposition that their own citizens should have the right to exit themselves from this disastrous law.
Oh, My: Rubio Wants to Repeal Obamacare's Pre-Planned Bailouts for Insurance Companies - Ace Of Spades
I guess when I said that Republicans have to make the insurance companies fear them more than they fear Obama, Republicans were already thinking along those lines.

Make the Democrats vote to affirm each and every egregious and unpopular part of this bill.

Make them own it, until they beg us to let them repeal it.

The White House has been trying to shift blame for cancellation letters for several weeks. According to Robert Laszewski, yesterday's presser proves all the previous statements to the effect that Obamacare was not to blame were false. - Breitbart
Megyn Kelly teed up Laszewski with a series of video clips of various White House surrogates suggesting the cancellation letters are a merely a business decision being made by insurance companies. But as Laszewski pointed out, that claim is completely undercut by the President's offer of a "fix."

"If the insurance companies didn't have to cancel people then why did the President give a press conference and announce that insurance companies don't have to cancel people?" Laszewski asked. "The administration just changed the rules so the insurance companies don't have to cancel people" he continued, adding "Well, I guess they had to before then, didn't they Megyn?"
Has Obama Invited the Supreme Court to Revisit His Obamacare Tax? - Ace Of Spades
It is well known that Chief Justice Roberts reversed his legal opinion on Obamacare, that it was unconstitutional, to offer a political opinion, that it was a tax and thus constitutional, in order to save the law. And he did this for political considerations, to preserve the public's good-will towards the Court and maintain its image of nonpartisanship.

...Obama has given him a pretext to write a new opinion. The Court would never simply reverse itself in a year.

But if the facts have sufficiently changed, and if Obama is interpreting his "tax" in a lawless way, claiming it only applies to groups which aren't becoming a political headache.... That gives Roberts the cover to say not "I was wrong" (which he won't say) but "I was right, and as I said previously this is a tax, and taxes must be levied even-handedly, and therefore this law must be struck for failure of the executive to apply it equally to all citizens."