Morning Jolt
. . . with Jim Geraghty March 13, 2014 The Individual Mandate Is Just Resting. It's Pining for the Fjords! So here's the good news. We, as in you, me, and everyone else who's been saying, as loudly as we can, that Obamacare is an unworkable mess, more or less forced the Obama administration to repeal the individual mandate. The bad news is that it's not really repealed, it's just sort of in this easily-waived-if-you-know-what-to-do limbo status for the next few years. If you lost your plan… you don't need to get a new plan or face a fine. Just check the box saying you can't afford a replacement one. Seriously: The Health and Human Services Department didn't think the details were worth discussing in a conference call, press materials or fact sheet. Instead, the mandate suspension was buried in an unrelated rule that was meant to preserve some health plans that don't comply with ObamaCare benefit and redistribution mandates. Our sources only noticed the change this week. That seven-page technical bulletin includes a paragraph and footnote that casually mention that a rule in a separate December 2013 bulletin would be extended for two more years, until 2016. Lo and behold, it turns out this second rule, which was supposed to last for only a year, allows Americans whose coverage was cancelled to opt out of the mandate altogether. In 2013, HHS decided that ObamaCare's wave of policy terminations qualified as a "hardship" that entitled people to a special type of coverage designed for people under age 30 or a mandate exemption. HHS originally defined and reserved hardship exemptions for the truly down and out such as battered women, the evicted and bankrupts. But amid the post-rollout political backlash, last week the agency created a new category: Now all you need to do is fill out a form attesting that your plan was cancelled and that you "believe that the plan options available in the [ObamaCare] Marketplace in your area are more expensive than your cancelled health insurance policy" or "you consider other available policies unaffordable." Got that? If you don't have insurance, and you don't feel like paying one percent of your income as a penalty, tell the government you think the remaining options are unaffordable. If you do that -- presto, change-o! -- your individual-mandate penalty gone. Break out the party hats . . . except as usual, the administration is insisting it didn't just do what it just did. The Hill summarized, "The Obama administration will not delay ObamaCare's individual mandate or the March 31 deadline for enrolling in the new healthcare law, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Wednesday." But that's a different aspect of the law, the deadline for the open enrollment that ends March 31. She didn't say that the hardship exemption wouldn't be so broadly defined as the regulations now indicate. Otherwise, it was a typical performance from Sebelius: REP. TOM PRICE (R-GA): Let me go to some specific questions. You mentioned in your opening remarks 4.2 million people have signed up on the exchange and I want to get to some of the concerns that others have. How many of those that have signed on, that have enrolled in Obamacare have paid their premium? HHS SECRETARY KATHLEEN SEBELIUS: I can't tell you that, sir, because I don't know that. Hey, remember how Obamacare was going to save the average family $2,500? Yeah, nevermind. Again. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said health-insurance premiums are "likely to go up" in 2015, an acknowledgment that the Obama administration doesn't believe the sweeping changes to the health-insurance marketplace will end premium increases in the near term. "I think premiums are likely to go up, but at a smaller pace than what we've seen since 2010," Mrs. Sebelius said, adding that she thought the likely increases would be less significant than they had been in the years before the federal health-care law was enacted. The range of premiums people will see in 2015 is expected to be an important measure of the health-care law's success. Supporters have staked its success on providing coverage that people consider to be "affordable," though they have generally stopped short of claiming that its provisions will directly lead to premium decreases. Democratic Panic Watch, Part One You know the political environment has changed dramatically when Democrats start touting their support for . . . George W. Bush. Seriously. A longtime House Democrat in electoral jeopardy this fall says he supported former President George W. Bush more than President Obama. Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), first elected in 1976, is a top target of Republicans in a state where Obama has long been deeply unpopular. He is facing a state senator, Evan Jenkins, who switched to the GOP to challenge him, and the House Democratic campaign committee recently added him to its "Frontline" list of members that need the most help saving their seat in November… "I probably have supported George Bush more than I have Barack Obama," Rahall said. "Am I going to switch parties because of that? No. I'm a Democrat, born a Democrat, am a Democrat and will die a Democrat." Indeed, Congressman, and you'll probably be voted out of office as a Democrat. But considering what we think of the Arlen Specters and Charlie Crists of the world, your determination to stick with your party even when it's unpopular is admirable on some level. Democratic Panic Watch, Part Two Here's Representative Lloyd Doggett (D., Texas) greeting Sebelius during her testimony Wednesday: "So much of the original promise of the Affordable Care Act has been undermined by faulty implementation," said Representative Lloyd Doggett, Democrat of Texas. In Texas, Mr. Doggett said, "more than 90 percent of the people for whom we wrote this law have not been covered." In parts of the state, he said, it is nearly impossible for consumers to obtain "in-person assistance" in selecting a health plan. Just How Many Russian Troops Are on Ukraine's Border? And Why? Courtesy the Daily Mail, this seems rather important: Ukraine warned last night that 80,000 Russian troops were massing on its borders and could invade – as world leaders told Vladimir Putin to back off. A senior security chief in Kiev said Moscow could launch a full-scale invasion and Russian troops would be in the Ukrainian capital within 'two or three hours' of the order to advance. Photographs of Russian tanks and armoured personnel carriers close to Ukraine's borders added to tensions. Last night senior British officials told the Mail they had received reports about Russian troops massing on the border since Tuesday and were concerned by the show of force. 
That's one count; another count of troops "close to" the border amounts to 220,000 troops, 1,800 tanks, and over 400 helicopters. Carlo Davis at the The New Republic pointed out a brutal possibility: If push came to shove, and Russia moved on the Eastern NATO members . . . most of the Western NATO members wouldn't do a darn thing -- including the United States: When it comes to Ukraine, "The United States is not about to risk a conventional war over Russia's neighbors because our interests there are limited and the dispute might escalate to the nuclear level," Joseph Parent, a University of Miami professor specializing in U.S. foreign policy, told me in an email. "Crimea isn't worth Charleston." Indeed, President Barack Obama, who came out in favor of Ukraine joining NATO while running for president, is probably thanking his lucky stars today that America's only commitment to Ukraine is an unenforceable 20-year-old memorandum. And he has made clear that a military response is not on the table in Ukraine. How much does that calculation change if Estonia or Latvia is in the crosshairs? Wednesday, President Obama met with Ukrainian prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk in the Oval Office. The first meeting between Obama and Yatsenyuk comes with the nation in danger of breaking apart when the predominantly ethnic Russian region of Crimea holds a Moscow-backed referendum Sunday on switching over to Kremlin rule: 
On Tuesday, he was focused on… other matters. 
To read more, visit www.nationalreview.com
| Why not forward this to a friend? Encourage them to sign up for NR's great free newsletters here. Save 75%... Subscribe to National Review magazine today and get 75% off the newsstand price. Click here for the print edition or here for the digital. National Review also makes a great gift! Click here to send a full-year of NR Digital or here to send the print edition to family, friends, and fellow conservatives.
| 
Follow | 
Tweet | 
NR Podcasts | 
Send | National Review, Inc.
Manage your National Review subscriptions. We respect your right to privacy. View our policy. This email was sent by:
National Review, Inc.
215 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10016 | 
No comments: