DescentBB

"It is still not clear how many navigators will be required. California, however, provides a hint. It wants 21,000."
http://washingtonexaminer.com/tens-of-t ... le/2526167

What is even more interesting is this question which should raise some eyebrows:

"The 61-page online Obamacare draft application for health care includes asking if the applicant wants to register to vote, raising the specter that pro-Obama groups being tapped to help Americans sign up for the program will also steer them to register with the Democratic Party."
http://washingtonexaminer.com/obamavote ... le/2525323

So why would there be a register to vote question in a health care application? And with a 61 page application I can see why they will need all these "Unbiased" navigators to steer the poor schmucks through a miasma of govt. speak verbiage to enroll.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011 ... are/?print

Hell no! We won't go! hehe

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:um, Will, most of the signup delay was due to the fact that the insurance provision doesn't go into effect until 2014........

You are dodging the point. The projections included tax revenue coming in for a number of years without paying anything out and even with that one time trick they came up short once the real numbers were used. Now they are seeing costs go up instead of down AND fewer people buying into it than their projections called for.

So to suggest they have started rationing coverage because the republicans are possibly going to do something to defund it that hasn't happened yet....is pathetic denial or shameless spin!

at no time did I suggest that care would ever BE rationed. It won't. It will just create a bureaucratic slowdown until such time as they can get everyone enrolled. In fact, that was one of the points I tried to make at the beginning of the thread.....no one is cutting back the program, nor changing the rolls, they merely suspended enrollment to allow them to catch up on the paperwork.

Suspending enrollment is rationing the coverage! You of course can call it anything you want.
Again why do you think Sebilius is trying to extort contributions from the providers to prop up the broke-from-day-one program?!?
The Mob does a similar thing...

Will Robinson wrote:Suspending enrollment is rationing the coverage! You of course can call it anything you want.

but, if you're suspending enrollment for a program that really doesn't start in full until 8 months from now, it is nothing of the sort. Do you suppose they intend to permanently limit participation? I see nothing, anywhere, even suggesting that.

Again why do you think Sebilius is trying to extort contributions from the providers to prop up the broke-from-day-one program?!?

what she is doing is asking them to promote a program that will financially benefit them, and only because the GOP house refuses to fund the process, which is obscene, but hardly shocking.

I’ll say this again…

This unfunded mandate was passed without a single Republican vote…so fund it the same way.

There is no way in hell, one party can pass a bill without the other one even giving at least minor support…then blame the problems on the other guys.

Sorry, not this time.

no problem with that reasoning, Spidey, but then again, it still remains an electoral argument that any blame for incomplete implementation can be due to the lack of support for funding by the GOP, every bit as much as the original vote FOR the bill by the Dems.......especially, in districts with GOP house members whose constituents could be shown to benefit from the provisions of the law. It will be an interesting election, as what I suggest would require very organized and skillfully presented campaigning around the subject, whereas the GOP can say, simply, "look, Obamacare isn't working so well".

callmeslick wrote:
what she is doing is asking them to promote a program that will financially benefit them, and only because the GOP house refuses to fund the process, which is obscene, but hardly shocking.

No Slickster, what Sebelius is doing is a crime. I suggest you google The Antideficiency Act (accepting voluntary services in excess of the money budgeted)
And read up on the ethics rule that bars officials from fundraising from any entity their agency might regulate. If Sebelius wants more money to run her department then she has to go through congress and not do so in some back door manner (Oh thats right, she is just following Obama's method of leading from behind )

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Suspending enrollment is rationing the coverage! You of course can call it anything you want.

but, if you're suspending enrollment for a program that really doesn't start in full until 8 months from now, it is nothing of the sort. Do you suppose they intend to permanently limit participation? I see nothing, anywhere, even suggesting that.

...

You obviously didn't read the PDF in the link or you would see that the more people that enroll the faster and further into negative numbers the plan goes!
It isn't that enough aren't enrolling in this plan it is that the plan was based on false projections. Each year they reach the limit sooner and in the last year it took only one month to have signed up all they can afford to cover!!

This particular plan started in 2010 but of course the real numbers needed to be withheld for some reason until the time was right...election perhaps?
This isnt some facet of the ACA that hasnt begun, this is a part that has been in effect and had to stop paying doctors and stop accepting new citizens signing up.
This year they only lasted one month before reaching the 5 billion dollar annual limit.

How do you think they will do when the millions of new 'amnesty citizens' enroll?

Hmm. Not good enough for the elite pigs of Congress. The bluff has been called. Hypocrites.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/17/3 ... -exit.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca ... yone-else/