Apr
22
2013

Obamacare watch: the M-Word makes an appearance.

Moratorium.

Don’t be surprised if many Democrats in Congress join with Republicans later this year in calling for a one-year moratorium on the implementation of Obamacare. There’s even a chance the Obama administration will join them if the behind-the-scenes chaos at HHS gets bad enough. That wouldn’t be the kind of bipartisanship deal the establishment media has been calling for lately, but it might just be one of the most popular moves Washington could make.

John Fund has his ear to the DC ground; if he’s hearing this being whispered in April, there’s an excellent chance that it will be muttered in June and shouted by August…

13 Comments

  • zamoose says:

    This is a bad result, though, no? We want either full implementation or full repeal, prior to the ’14 elections. By offering a 1 year moratorium, they’re
    .
    a) Forcing employers and insurers to carry costs associated with reforms not yet implemented
    2) Putting the full recourse out of voters’ collective awareness and opportunity for redress until the Presidential election year of ’16
    D) Postponing the inevitable.
    .
    …No?

    • Moe_Lane says:

      I haven’t endgamed it out yet. One thing is for sure: if it happens, Obama will give another petulant speech.

      • acat says:

        Unless the moratorium applies both to the rules-making *and* the taxes, I am in agreement with zamoose.
        .
        The economy will continue to suffer as a birkenstock stomps its’ face, while uncertainty of the future regulatory environment keep squeezing….
        .
        The game is not pretty.
        .
        Mew

        • tnfriendofcoal101368 says:

          Dems want a moratorium because they don’t want to have to go face their consituents having increased their medical costs with a monstrosity of bill, they can’t even explain. Republicans, none of whom voted for Obamacare, should be shouting “We Told You So, Full Repeal” and force Dems to vote up or down on OCare permenantly. Sure, his Petulance will veto any repeal that passes but politically that’s still toxic for Dems, no?

          • acat says:

            That would require the GOP to want to win, tnfriend.
            .
            I’m not convinced a majority of the gutless D.C. variant do… or even understand what “winning” is.
            .
            Mew
            .
            .
            (except in the Charlie Sheen #Winning meaning…)

        • Darin_H says:

          This! One year moratorium on the taxes or bust.

        • qixlqatl says:

          Agreed, with this comment and your next. (no reply button in the next one…)

  • Brian Swisher says:

    Any attempts at a moratorium should be beaten into the ground with a large blunt object. I want to see a repeat of the 1938 congressional elections…

  • Spegen says:

    This will happen, just like the budget deals the GOP will cave instead of forcing real change or repeal

    • Christine says:

      Yep, I can see GOPers now jumping on this as a way to claim they “did what they could to fight ObamaCare”. They might even get a dinner invite out of it, and wouldn’t THAT be something.

      • qixlqatl says:

        Bad laws never go away, they just get “fixed” with another layer of bad laws over the top–
        kinda like trying to cover manure with garbage to get rid of the smell…….

  • Luke says:

    No. Just no.
    No more regulatory uncertainty. The medical providers have already been brutalized. A moratorium means they’ll have to absorb further costs, for an indefinite period of time. (After all, if a moratorium passes, continuing of the moratorium is likely.)
    All of the mergers and consolidations of the recent past have been caused by the costs and burdens of ObamaCare.
    .
    A moratorium would mean healthcare systems across entire regions going under.
    For instance, the vast majority of Idaho and Utah are now almost exclusively covered by the St. Luke’s/Select Health Partnership. The costs of regulatory compliance have forced this to be the case. But with the costs of consolidation and regulation, there isn’t a whole lot of liquidity left in the system.

RSS feed for comments on this post.


Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com