text:
Dodge: Charger News
gavriil
Moderator Alumnus
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Dodge set to revive Charger name for new rear-wheel drive sedan - - By RICK KRANZ | Automotive News - - Source: Autoweek
Dodge will add a full-sized rear-wheel-drive sedan to its lineup next year, company sources said.
The car draws inspiration from the Dodge Charger muscle car of the late 1960s, said a person familiar with the program who spoke on condition that he not be identified. He said the car likely will be called the Charger.
Spokesman Jason Vines declined comment, citing the company's policy not to talk about future products.
Sources said the sedan will be developed off the automaker's rwd LX platform, which is shared by the 2005 Chrysler 300 sedan and the Dodge Magnum wagon.
At the Geneva auto show last week, Trevor Creed, Chrysler group's chief designer, hinted that such a vehicle was planned.
"We will be looking at a very sporty version of this platform for Dodge," he said.
"However, we will not do badge engineering anymore. You will not see a Dodge version" that shares sheet metal with the Chrysler 300.
He added: "You've got to have a four-door, (but) there's no market for a coupe."
The 300 and Magnum go on sale this spring. They share about 20 percent of their parts, in terms of value, with the Mercedes-Benz C and E classes.
The 340-hp 5.7-liter Hemi V-8 is the centerpiece of the LX models. While the Magnum has drawn favorable comments from the automotive press, some Dodge dealers are worried about marketing a wagon without a full-sized family sedan.
Intrepid production ended last summer, and dealers have been pressing the automaker for a sedan.
The Dodge sedan will be the third derivative based on the LX platform. At least one other LX derivative is planned, said a Chrysler group insider. In Chrysler parlance, LX derivatives are defined as models with extensive sheet metal differences.
Meanwhile, the company is studying whether to develop a police package for one of the LX cars. Representatives of the California Highway Patrol and Michigan State Police have driven a car with the package, said Burke Brown, chief engineer for the Chrysler 300 and Dodge Magnum.
"It is a natural, isn't it? We'll talk about that in a while," said Brown, who was interviewed last month at a Chrysler press event in Palm Springs, Calif. The law enforcement agencies "have shown intense interest in what we are doing with the chassis."
While awd will be optional on the LX cars, he said neither agency has shown interest in that option.
Find More Posts by gavriil
Gah ... what wimps ... they should have built that Charger concept.
Red-CL
Doin' da crack shuffle
Location: Philly and Bowie
Re: Chrysler LX platform will spawn the Dodge Charger
Originally posted by gavriil
"You've got to have a four-door, (but) there's no market for a coupe."
Everybody's saying this now.
I wonder what happened to make people not love coupes anymore.
Visit Red-CL's homepage!
Find More Posts by Red-CL
Yeah there's no market for a coupe.
Oh, except that Honda just released a new one and so did Toyota. And then there's that darn Mustang thing that just NEVER sells well ... There's no market for a complete POS turd like the Sebring coupe that is $29k.
Originally posted by charliemike
Hehehehe.... I cant argue with your Mustang permise. Truly.
Minch00
Pit Stop?
Location: Orlando FL
That bitch was badass. I saw it in person and went
Visit Minch00's homepage!
Find More Posts by Minch00
Originally posted by Minch00
I saw a Dodge Chrager Concept at the Philly Auto Show 3 years ago. If they would have put it in production, I would definately have one.
The CLS was another car I was drooling over though.
Black CL-S 4-Life
Floyd Mayweather Jr.
Location: The City of Syrup Screwston, Texas
Anyone have a pic of the concept Charger?
Find More Posts by Black CL-S 4-Life
Originally posted by Black CL-S 4-Life
AcuraFan
Honda and Toyota just released new coupes? I don't remember that happening...when was this?
And I thought the Mustang sold rather well, I see them everywhere. But regardless...wether it's true or not, Honda says they're isn't a market for coupes. They might change their mind eventually. Hopefully.
Find More Posts by AcuraFan
Originally posted by AcuraFan
I say "just" as in Accord and Solara coupes in 2003.
If there were truly no market, there's no way they'd have built them ...
That's what I figured you meant. But I don't think these "one-offs" count though. A coupe version of a popular sedan isn't the same as developing (or selling) a sports coupe like we're asking them to do.
Loseit
Changin bulbs since '73
Location: Chi-town burbs
why the fuck would you call a four door car a charger....dumbasses
Find More Posts by Loseit
GreenMonster
Location: Swansea, MA
I don't know, but a 300 with cop suspension, cop shocks, cop brakes, and a 340Hp Hemi, etc. sounds interesting.
Hmmm.. I wonder if they'll offer a COPO (coporate office production option) that's available to the general public.
I think anyone can order the P71 (police package) on the Crown Vic (or buy the more expensive Maurader).
Find More Posts by GreenMonster
24_karat
looks like a 4dr Camaro
Find More Posts by 24_karat
phil2
has Gloryhole Girls in
Location: Ballston Lake, NY
Originally posted by 24_karat
its a fucking land yacht
Find More Posts by phil2
The Charger's Back - - By Marty Padgett - - - Source: AutoExpress
There's another US legend set to charge on to the scene. The Dodge Charger is making a comeback, and it looks like it will flex its muscles in the UK.
Dodge first hinted that the name could return when it unveiled the Charger R/T concept in 1999, and while it hasn't been officially confirmed, a production version is tipped to debut at next year's Detroit Motor Show. It could be on sale in the US by spring 2005.
A spokesman for the firm said: "Dodge is launching across Europe in 2006, and there are very few reasons why the Charger won't be part of the range once the brand is up and running. Having a performance car lots of people recognise would be very exciting."
The Charger is the model that put Dodge on the muscle car map. It first appeared in rear-wheel-drive mode in 1966. In the Seventies, it was phased out, only to re-emerge briefly a decade later as a front-wheel-drive coupé.
This time around, Dodge is said to want the new version to fight it out in America with mainstream cars from Toyota, Honda and Ford - and to that end, the revived Charger is said to look very different from earlier models.
Based on the 300C's running gear, it would be rear-wheel-drive in standard mode, although a 4WD option is under consideration. It would also be available in two and four-door form. Prices have yet to be discussed seriously, but insiders expect the new Charger to be in the mid-$20,000 (£14,000) range.
Nicky Pass
Fuct in the hed!
Location: Chicagoland-ish
That Charger looks like a Vette and a Saleen Mustang mixed!
Find More Posts by Nicky Pass
Source: http://www.discountpartcenter.com
I don't like the looks of this one but I the other one.
If Dodge is going to build a four-door, it should be like the original Charger concept and not a traditional sedan.
CHONATION
Is the root of all evil
Location: M Clean, Ginia
4-door is ok.
But usually they destroy the design of the car by "bubble-ing" out the rear of the cab.
For example....
Visit CHONATION's homepage!
Find More Posts by CHONATION
Couldn't you pick a better example?
Originally posted by Red-CL
matteichenfels
That POS Sebring you talk about is an Eclipse. Built on the same platform with the same engine, BY Mitsubishi
Visit matteichenfels's homepage!
Find More Posts by matteichenfels
I Feel Too Old Here
this would be fawkin awesome, i'd def hit it with a hemi. it looks mean as hell...
Dodge confirms Charger will be name for upcoming '05 sedan - - By MARY CONNELLY | Automotive News - - Source: Autoweek
Dodge will bring back the Charger name on a full-sized rear-wheel-drive sedan in 2005, a company insider has confirmed.
Its exterior will draw on the heritage of the late 1960s Charger muscle car but will not be "retro," says the source, who asked not to be named.
Analyst Michael Bruynesteyn at Prudential Equity Group LLC, described the Chrysler group's new products as "appealing" in a report to investors. Financial analysts were briefed on Chrysler's upcoming products in a meeting last week.
The Charger will be a 2006 model and will be based on the Dodge Magnum. The Magnum will be the subject of a national promotion at Dodge dealerships June 17. About 2,000 Dodge dealers will host "Premiere Night" events to showcase the wagon.
Dodge's NASCAR drivers will be available via satellite to talk with shoppers.
it says it will be available in 2 and 4 door!!
cool beans!
where'd this pic come from? is whats under the sheet really it?
Python2121
The hair says it all
Location: Manhattan, NYC
wow, thanks for that great pic
Visit Python2121's homepage!
Find More Posts by Python2121
Got if from some forum...
ahh another name to ruin
cusdaddy
Originally Posted by Crazy Sellout
I think it may live up to it's name somewhat... It will probably have the Hemi and will probably have some decent styling. I'm looking forward to seeing what they come up with
Find More Posts by cusdaddy
heyitsme
Maybe, or it just might be a 300c rebadge with the magnum grill.
Find More Posts by heyitsme
On the Way - 400HP+ Chrysler 300 SRT-8, Dodge Charger SRT-8
SRT to Expand
By Kevin Kelly
WardsAuto.com, Jul 14 2004
Plans for the expansion of Chrysler's LX rear-wheel-drive family of vehicles includes an SRT-8 performance package for the Chrysler 300 and Dodge Charger, as well as an all-new 6.1L Hemi V-8.
Performance-car fans should get ready for a series of sport-bred vehicles based on the newly introduced Chrysler Group LX rear-wheel-drive platform. The performance derivatives are set to debut in first-quarter 2005.
Sources within the auto maker tell Ward's Chrysler will introduce a 300C SRT-8 early in 2005, with a Dodge Charger SRT-8 following in September.
Both vehicles will be powered by the all-new 6.1L version of Chrysler's highly acclaimed Hemi V-8 engine.
Sources claim the new powerplant will produce 420 hp and 390 lb.-ft. (528 Nm) of torque, a significant 24% horsepower boost from the 340 hp rating of the current 5.7L Hemi.
Sources also indicate the 6.1L Hemi will not feature Chrysler's much-touted multi-displacement cylinder-deactivation system. The higher-output 6.1L Hemi will be reserved only for performance applications, where fuel economy routinely is not a top priority.
"We'll keep the 5.7L for mass production applications, but the 6.1L will be reserved for limited high-performance vehicle production," a Chrysler insider says.
The Charger SRT-8 will feature a 6-speed manual transmission as standard equipment, boosting the vehicle's performance potential.
Pilot production of standard Chargers already has begun in preparation for the return of the Charger moniker to Dodge showrooms shortly before the SRT package launches.
The source also indicates the auto maker is toying with the idea of launching a 2-door version of the Charger, as well as a 4-seat convertible, based loosely off the Chrysler Hemi C concept vehicle that debuted at the 2000 North American International Auto Show in Detroit.
"I've seen some mock-ups, but I'm not sure if it's been given the green light," the source says.
Separately, the auto maker confirms it has begun production of all-wheel-drive variants of the 300 Series and Dodge Magnum passenger cars in Brampton, Ont., Canada. The AWD models will go on sale this fall.
Dodge will debut AWD versions of its Magnum SXT and RT wagon a few months before the system is available on the Chrysler 300 Limited, Touring and 300C in the fourth quarter.
The '05 Magnum SXT AWD will base at $27,900, and the Hemi-powered RT AWD at $31,370.
Base price of the '05 Chrysler 300 Touring AWD will be $29,370 with the 300 Touring AWD starting at $31,215. The Hemi-powered 300C AWD will base at $34,195.
Yeah, it's got a Hemi... and AWD. All-wheel Drive Joins Rear-wheel Drive on 2005 Chrysler 300 and Dodge Magnum
• New All-wheel-drive Choices Added to Line-up for Outstanding Performance in All Weather Conditions
• All-wheel-drive Vehicles to Go On Sale This Fall Starting at $27,900 (MSRP excluding $625 destination)
One wheel? Two wheels? Three wheels, four? All wheels your preference? Who needs more? Chrysler Group is rounding out its Dodge Magnum and Chrysler 300 family with all-wheel-drive (AWD) versions of the highly popular vehicles.
For those Dodge customers who prefer all-wheel drive, the 2005 AWD Dodge Magnum SXT and AWD Dodge Magnum RT will be introduced this fall. Later in the fourth quarter, Chrysler all-wheel-drive fans will be able to choose from AWD Chrysler 300 Touring and AWD Chrysler 300C models, as well as an AWD package that will be available as an option for the Chrysler 300 Limited.
"The rear-wheel drive Dodge Magnum and Chrysler 300 have proven themselves in the marketplace as popular performers all across the United States, and we look to these new all-wheel-drive choices to continue that momentum," said George Murphy, Senior Vice-President, Global Brand Marketing.
By continuously driving all wheels, the new all-wheel-drive system provides excellent cornering balance and traction under all driving conditions. Combined with standard features such as Electronic Stability Program (ESP), All-speed Traction Control, four-wheel anti-lock brakes and Emergency Brake Assist, performance and stability are outstanding in the new AWD members of the Dodge Magnum and Chrysler 300 lineup.
"While chassis electronics and tire technology improvements help control our Chrysler 300 and Dodge Magnum rear-wheel-drive models, some customers may still opt for the all-wheel-drive choice," said Murphy. "With this latest option, we are able to offer what the customer wants in each case."
The new all-wheel drive system adds a front differential and a transfer case to the standard rear-wheel-drive configuration. All-wheel drive continuously divides the power between the front and rear axles at a 38-percent to 62-percent ratio.
In addition to the front differential and transfer case, the all-wheel drive system adds a unique short- and long-arm front suspension to accommodate the front drive axle and related components. This unique suspension uses a forged upper control arm and single-piece case-iron lower control arm, efficiently packaged around the front-axle drive system. The steering gear effort and response and the suspension characteristics also are tuned to the handling characteristics of all-wheel-drive vehicles.
2005 AWD Dodge Magnum SXT Model
The Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) for the 2005 AWD Dodge Magnum SXT model is $27,900 (excluding $625 destination). This includes the added front differential, transfer case and all-wheel-drive front suspension, a five-speed automatic transmission with AutoStick®, 18-inch wheels and touring tires, performance disk brakes and a 19-gallon fuel tank with the 3.5-liter V-6 High Output engine.
2005 AWD Dodge Magnum RT Model
The MSRP for the 2005 AWD Dodge Magnum RT model is $31,370 (excluding $625 destination). This includes the addition of the front differential, transfer case and all-wheel-drive front suspension. (The five-speed automatic transmission, 18-inch wheels and touring tires, performance disk brakes and 19-gallon fuel tank already are included as standard equipment on the Dodge Magnum RT.)
2005 AWD Chrysler 300 Touring Model
The MSRP for the 2005 AWD Chrysler 300 Touring model is $29,370 (excluding $625 destination). The added front differential, transfer case and all-wheel-drive front suspension, a five-speed automatic transmission with AutoStick, 18-inch wheels and touring tires, performance disk brakes and a 19-gallon fuel tank are included with the 3.5-liter V-6 High Output engine on the AWD Chrysler 300 Touring model.
2005 Chrysler 300 Limited AWD Option
The 2005 Chrysler 300 Limited will be offered as an all-wheel-drive vehicle through an option package. In addition to the Limited model's standard equipment, this package will add the front differential, transfer case and all-wheel-drive front suspension, a five-speed automatic transmission with AutoStick, 18-inch wheels and touring tires, performance disk brakes and a 19-gallon fuel tank with the 3.5-liter V-6 High Output engine. The MSRP for 2005 Chrysler 300 Limited vehicles with the AWD option is $31,215 (excluding $625 destination).
2005 AWD Chrysler 300C Model
The MSRP for the 2005 AWD Chrysler 300C model is $34,195 (excluding $625 destination). This includes the addition of the front differential, transfer case and all-wheel-drive front suspension and 18-inch wheels. (The five-speed automatic transmission, touring tires, performance disk brakes and 19-gallon fuel tank already are included as standard equipment on the Chrysler 300C.)
The 2005 AWD Dodge Magnum and AWD Chrysler 300 will be built at the Brampton Assembly Plant in Brampton, Ontario.
Nashua_Night_Hawk
Happy CL-S Pilot
Location: Nashua, NH, USA
WOW... Chrysler is on a roll... it is nice to see a 420 6.1L charger with AWD!
Find More Posts by Nashua_Night_Hawk
From the October Car and Driver mag.
Source here
Quick Reply: Dodge: Charger News


text:
Stockton Stops Gulls' Streak
December 4, 2021 - American Hockey League (AHL) - San Diego Gulls News Release
The San Diego Gulls fell 4-1 to the Stockton Heat tonight at Stockton Arena, snapping San Diego's season-long five-game win streak. Despite the setback, the Gulls have earned points in seven of their last nine games (6-2-1-0) and nine of their last 13 overall (8-4-1-0).
Danny O'Regan scored his fourth goal of the season and his second goal over his last three games (2-1=3). Brogan Rafferty earned the primary assist on the play giving him three assists in his last three games (0-3=3).
Nikolas Brouillard collected his team leading 10th assist of the season. Brouillard has recorded points in nine of his last 11 games (3-10=13) and leads AHL defensemen in assists (10) and points (13) since Nov. 1st.
Lukas Dostal made 26 saves in the setback.
San Diego and Stockton will conclude the weekend back-to-back tomorrow at Stockton Arena (6 p.m.).
POSTGAME QUOTES
San Diego Gulls
Danny O'Regan
On what he liked about the team's play in the first period:
We came out, we played a great first period. We kept it simple, got pucks in deep and were really good in the d-zone. The d were doing a good job getting pucks out, beating their forecheck. One shot on net against a really good team was a really good start for us.
On the second period and what the team needs to improve on:
We definitely just got away from it. Kind of fell asleep a little bit and you know, let them get on the forecheck, have the puck and (we) weren't as good on the forecheck, in the o-zone or the d-zone. Our special teams- our penalty kill was okay- but our power play wasn't generating a lot of momentum for us and that's important against a good team like that.
On how to break through Stockton's penalty kill:
They did a good job, they were a high-pressure team and that, some pucks bouncing a little bit. Guys were, if you hold onto it for an extra second, those guys are right on you. So, we've got to regroup, do a better job of just getting rid of it and talking a little bit more on the ice, supporting each other and getting some pucks to the net will be important for us.
On the team's discipline and how they plan to take less penalties:
If we can just play in the o-zone, and they're a good team. When they get the puck, they kind of just attack and that kind of makes us haul them down or makes us some bad stick decisions. We just got caught up in it and playing a little too much run and gun and took too many penalties.
Head Coach Joel Bouchard
On what needs improved for tomorrow's game:
Well, I liked the start. I thought we were right on target with what we want to do versus a really good team. Realistically, with a very young lineup on the road, I feel the adversity got to us and we kinda crumbled. We showed our youth and our, kind of, emotion. Which is expected a little bit in the growing process. So, I'm not surprised about it. I'm not even mad or disappointed. The guys, I think, is just part of growing up to be a hockey player and learning how to match other teams when they raise the stakes. Because after the first period, it was a really good game...road period for us, as good as it could be against a good team. So, just growing, more excited and intrigued to how we're going to react tomorrow to some of the area where we fell tonight. Why we let the game get away a little bit from us.
On the power play:
Well, that's kinda one of the things that I think it affected us. That didn't go our way. I think it affected us that we were not as free as we wanted to be. Ice was not very good, so it's not a power-play ice. Which is not an excuse, but I think we just showed our youth in not finding solutions to problems. Or not finding solutions to counter match maybe their maturity and their capability of managing some area. They didn't have a great first period in some way and they managed really well after that. So, which is kinda what we're trying to match here as a team.
On the quick turnaround:
Listen, just everything we do we're doing minor hockey. It's AHL, a lot of young guys in our lineup. They gotta grow. They gotta learn. As much as we'd like to think that they can learn in a video room or learn in a school, there's no university of hockey. You gotta be on the ice and you gotta feel it and you gotta grow. I think we didn't really manage our emotions very well. We got frustrated. Things didn't go our way. I don't think then you have a chance to win if you start showing that, especially against the other team.
Check out the San Diego Gulls Statistics
American Hockey League Stories from December 4, 2021
Wild Fall to Wolves, 2-1 - Iowa Wild
Moose Open Weekend with 3-1 Win over Belleville - Manitoba Moose
Monsters Fight Falls Short in 5-4 Loss to Admirals - Cleveland Monsters
Islanders Upset Comets in OT - Bridgeport Islanders
Griffins Grab Early Lead and Skate to 6-2 Victory over the IceHogs - Rockford IceHogs
Wolves Triumph at Iowa - Chicago Wolves
Comets Drop Contest to Islanders in Overtime, 3-2 - Utica Comets
Eagles Recall Bradley from ECHL's Utah Grizzlies - Colorado Eagles
Panthers Assign Aleksi Heponiemi and Matt Kiersted to Charlotte - Charlotte Checkers
Rangers Recall Goaltender Adam Húska from Wolf Pack, Reassign Wall to Hartford - Hartford Wolf Pack
Anderson-Dolan, Tynan Recalled by LA Kings - Ontario Reign
5 Things: Heat vs. San Diego - Stockton Heat
Rockford IceHogs Medical Update - Rockford IceHogs
Heat Look for Weekend Sweep of San Diego - Stockton Heat
Blackhawks Recall Ian Mitchell from Rockford - Rockford IceHogs
Syracuse Crunch Reschedule 11th Annual Stanley Steemer Tired Teddy Toss for December 8 - Syracuse Crunch
Game #16: Tucson at Colorado - Tucson Roadrunners
Weekend Preview: Bridgeport Hosts Utica, Charlotte - Bridgeport Islanders
American Hockey League Postpones Tonight's Rochester-Syracuse Game - Rochester Americans
Syracuse Crunch, Rochester Americans Game Postponed - Syracuse Crunch
American Hockey League Postpones Tonight's Rochester-Syracuse Game - AHL
IceHogs Wrap up Road Trip Tonight in Grand Rapids - Rockford IceHogs
Roadrunners Earn Fourth-Straight Win In 4-1 Road Victory Over Colorado Eagles - Tucson Roadrunners
Stockton Stops Gulls' Streak - San Diego Gulls
Mackey, Heat Outpace Gulls, 4-1 - Stockton Heat
Tucson Uses Three-Goal First Period to Race to 4-1 Win over Eagles - Colorado Eagles
Other Recent San Diego Gulls Stories
San Diego Gulls Announce Updates to 2021-22 Regular-Season Schedule
Elvenes, Gulls Sneak past Stockton
Anaheim Ducks Announce Roster Moves
Gulls Withstand Barracuda Charge, 4-2
Groulx to Gulls as Manson, Two Coaches Join COVID List

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Safari 3.1 will be FAST!
I just spent a few hours running tests on the latest version of WebKit for Computerworld.
The upcoming builds of WebKit/Safari are really realy fast. The unoptimized WebKit is often twice as fast as the current standard Safari in page load times. And Safari is supposed to be the fastest desktop browser out there!?
Whenever the new WebKit code gets pushed into Safari (soon?), you'll notice these significant speed increases and possibly even more after the code is optimized. Download the latest WebKit here, compiled for both Mac and even PC to get a preview or check the article for more results.
Oh and Firefox users (like myself) should also see similar speed improvements in coming versions.


The process of pinpointing and labeling the underground services requires proper skills and modern technology. The services include electricity distribution, gas, telecommunication, fiber optics, streetlights, cable television, and sewer. Consulting a company that offers such services is vital if you are looking to avoid the pitfalls that befall many contractors. When it comes to professional utility mapping Sydney experts provide many options.
The knowledge will make a huge difference, indicating that seeking help from an experienced GPS professional is extremely important. Doing your homework sensibly before you choose your favorite consultant, however, will determine the time you need to realizing your dreams.
By a state-of-the-art GPS equipment becoming very expensive, every contractor is trying to find a dependable technique to decrease their expenses in the quest to label the cables. By choosing the cheapest project execution strategy that gives you an upper hand, you can meet your goals on a shoestring budget. For a builder who hopes to reduce the overall cost, an affordable product makes a huge impact with regards to deliver the goods cost-effectively.
If you wish to enjoy the long-term benefits of a modern product and make headway at a cost effective cost, be sure to ask a respectable professional to get an alternative that matches your aspirations. One of the cutting edge options feature flexible perks that could have transformed how the demanding client undertakes the process, and you have to insist on the contemporary service that cut your costs tremendously.
For several people who wish to accomplish such tasks without spending a fortune, the growing popularity of these services in the contemporary industry is attributable to their unsurpassed contribution, especially in achieving this goal in the shortest time possible. Once you identify your aspirations from the beginning, you can concentrate on the practical areas that can get you one step ahead. If you intend to work things out easily, the modern trends demand the cutting edge GPS technology that comes with a broad variety of groundbreaking perks.
Surprisingly, doing your due diligence cleverly before you pinpoint your suitable option, however, might possibly influence the amount of money you need to realize your goals. Whatever your stratagem, you can identify an affordable option that saves you money as you embark on this activity by evaluating whatever you need and equating the choices extensively.
At the present, you have the possibility to take advantage of specifics of what you need via the internet. The best method to acquire the best expertise is simply to choose a knowledgeable individual that provides the services that you need.
In case you desire to enjoy the lasting advantages of the contemporary GPS technology and make headway at an inexpensive price, be sure to ask a respectable professional to provide an option that suits your aspirations. The new alternatives feature low-cost rewards that might have transformed how the demanding client shops for such equipment, and you should remember to pinpoint a reliable product that can lessen your overall costs tremendously.
You can find a detailed list of the advantages and benefits of using professional utility mapping Sydney services at http://www.utilityscan.net right now.


text:
Q: T-SQL right outer join doesn't seem to work I am having trouble with a right join that doesn't seem to be doing what I want.
The query below doesn't bring back all of the records from the grp table.  I'm expecting a few rows matching the 30555 gl record and 30 rows from the grp table with nulls for the gl columns.  Instead I get the expected few rows for the 30555 gl record and only 3 matching grp rows instead of the 30.
select gl.Tran_Number, gl.Amount, gl.Cost_Center, ' - ' as blank, grp.*
from GL_DETAIL_MC gl
    right outer join EM_COST_GROUP_LIST_MC grp on grp.Cost_Center_Code = gl.Cost_Center and grp.Company_Code = gl.Company_Code
where
    (gl.Company_Code = 'RCL' or grp.Company_Code = 'RCL')
    and (gl.Tran_Number = '30555     ' or gl.Transaction_ID is null)

Not really sure where I've gone wrong here.  Oh and I should mention that I tried creating a similar table structure in a test database and everything works as I expected.  This leads me to thing that there is a database setting that is changing how the query is returning results.

A: The outer join is fine.  The problem is the where clause.
I presume you intend:
select gl.Tran_Number, gl.Amount, gl.Cost_Center, ' - ' as blank, grp.*
from EM_COST_GROUP_LIST_MC grp LEFT JOIN
     GL_DETAIL_MC gl
     on grp.Cost_Center_Code = gl.Cost_Center and
        grp.Company_Code = gl.Company_Code and
        gl.Company_Code = 'RCL' and
        gl.Tran_Number = '30555
where grp.Company_Code = 'RCL' or gl.Company_Code is not null;

I much prefer left join to right join.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
In less than two weeks time I will be in London, hopefully drunk, possibly pissing behind some foliage and definitely watching Prince William and Kate Middleton getting married on a big screen – because, my friends, I am going to Camp Royale in Clapham Common. For three magnificent days, this park will be turned into a campsite with the sole purpose of Royal Wedding perving. You are provided with a free cup of Yorkshire Tea every morning, hot showers, "attractive fencing", phone charging points and 24 hour security against those stabby London-types you hear about in the news. It's like T in the Park for losers and I, for one, cannot wait for the utter restrained madness.
I love the Royal Family. As a Scottish person this may seem like a bit of a controversial statement but I shit all over that controversy. I am also one to sell out my patriotic ideals for free tea and a toilet that doesn't have used sanitary towels stuck precariously to the ceiling causing my bowels to retreat into my throat and stay there trembling in fear for the whole bloody weekend (yes V Festival '99, I am talking to you – not cool). I also doubt that I will witness a drunk, generic teenage girl taking a dump up against a wall whilst clinging desperately to a glass of champagne, or a young gentleman falling on someone's tent, breaking it, spewing on it, standing up, pissing on it, falling back onto it and instantly going to sleep in his own lumpy juices (to be fair, those last two examples were from T in the Park '07 so all in all, pretty impressed with the high standard of behaviour).
Probably the main reason I love the Royal Family is because they are so mental they make my family look like the Waltons. Prince Philip – my favourite by a mile – is a racist, sexist, homophobic liability who never fails to say the wrong thing at the right time. It's nice to see that, no matter how much money you have, literally no one can escape that embarrassingly inappropriate grandparent. If anyone else said the things he said I would get seriously violent but when he says them I just want to give him a Werther's Original and a pat on the head. Here are some examples of some real things that he really said:
To two Aborigine tribes in Australia – "Djabugay, Yirrganydji, what's it all about? Do you still throw spears at each other?"
When asked if he would like to visit The Soviet Union -"The bastards murdered half my family."
To a driving instructor in Scotland – "How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to get them through the test?"
To a Mr Patel at a reception for 400 British Indian businessmen at Buckingham Palace – "There's a lot of your family in tonight."
To a group of British students in China – "If you stay here much longer, you'll all be slitty-eyed."
After accepting a gift from a Kenyan woman – "You are a woman, aren't you?"
To a group of deaf children standing next to a Jamaican steel drum band – "Deaf? If you are near there, no wonder you are deaf."
To a 13-year-old aspiring astronaut – "Well, you'll never fly in it, you're too fat to be an astronaut."
Talking about his daughter, Princess Anne – "If it doesn't fart or eat hay, she isn't interested."
"I smell shit/Lady Gaga"
The Queen, on the other hand, is so devoid of personality it's almost admirable. She spends her entire life walking around like someone just took a massive turd on her face. If it wasn't for her amazingly coordinated old-lady outfits and exquisitely well-crafted false teeth I would probably forget she even existed. I did applaud her restraint, however, when she met Lady Gaga at the Royal Variety Show wearing that monstrosity of an outfit. She was wearing a fucking ruff!! Does she think Blackadder is a documentary and that ruffs are mandatory attire for royal engagements? Or was she trying to be clever? In which case, don't take the piss out of the Queen, Lady Gaga – because you won't win. If I was the Queen I would have cut her balls off and threw her in the Tower of London.
Prince Harry is also a favourite of mine, partly because I think he is going to be our generation's Prince Philip and partly because I want to do him. Even so, what the hell was he thinking wearing a Nazi costume to a fancy dress party? No matter what angle you look at it, that was a bad decision. I feel a bit sorry for him though, I think he just wants to be a normal boy but he's not allowed. I've seen interviews with him and he actually has banter, it's a shame he'll spend the rest of his life trying, and probably failing, to restrain that part of his personality.
Andrew and Edward? Or is it Edward and Andrew? I don't know, let's just call them "a pair of cunts".
Now for the other two, Edward and Andrew – I'm not going to lie, I have no idea which one is which. They both look the same, talk the same and dress the same, however one is fairly innocuous and the other one likes to hang around with paedos and has a ginger mess of an ex-wife who looks like an alcoholic shoe – Yet another example of bad judgment from this undoubtedly affected family. Everyone fucks up, I agree, but when you are a member of one of the most scrutinised families in the entire world, the sheer volume of fuck-ups they have been responsible for can only be attributed to clinical insanity. That is why I love the Royal Family – they prove to us civilians on a near daily basis that no matter if you're well-bred and rolling in money or one of those dirty minks who puts their living-room furniture in the front garden when the sun comes out – people are all fundamentally selfish skanks incapable of controlling their urges. If the Royal Family were as 'perfect' as everyone wanted them to be, they would be nowhere near as fun and they wouldn't make me feel so good about my relatively low-level dysfunction.
I want to taste her baking.
The only exception to this is Prince William. He seems to be the only one with any sense in that family. The poor guy must wake up every day, take a look at Charles, Philip, the Queen and the chemically-preserved horse's ball-sack that took the place of his mother and wonder which disabled child he drop-kicked in a past life to deserve this. That's why I'm so glad he's marrying Kate Middleton. She seems pretty sane and is possibly the most beautiful thing I've ever seen. She looks like she's good with kids and smells of daffodils. She makes a refreshing change from all the tacky, materialistic, overdone cock-gobblers with the dead eyes and obvious self-esteem issues and proves to little girls that you don't have to look like the month old corpse of a gypsy-prostitute-clown to be beautiful.
The other reason that I'm a fan is because, without a monarchy, I think British culture would be pretty weak. Yes Scotland has kilts and bagpipes, Ireland has Guinness and shamrocks, Wales has……..leek hats (?) and England has……..stuff, but when other countries think of Britain as a whole, I sometimes wonder what characteristics they associate with the UK. Morris dancing? Beefeaters? Tea & scones? I'm fucking zoning out here! When I think of Britain as a colour, I think of a dull medieval puddle brown. Our food is so bland that our national dish – Chicken Tikka Masala – is a rip off of Indian food and even our weather is meh. Over the centuries the Royal Family has added some much needed colour to British culture. It has provided the world with a bit of historical authority, humour, scandal, mental illness, excess, hereditary disease, war, wealth – a bit of fucking excitement! When all this Royal Wedding stuff first came about, Prince William and Kate Middleton said they didn't want it to be a flash affair because they don't want to rub in the fact they have loads of money in today's 'economic climate'. That's really nice of them and everything but for fuck's sake!! All I hear about nowadays is how no one has any money, the cost of living is going up, the property market is plummeting, Libya is falling apart, Japan is getting nailed by tsunamis every 5 minutes – it's making me want to kill myself! I want something to cheer me up. I want an over the top, shiny, happy Royal Wedding. I want unicorn on a spit, baby panda slow-roasted in a swan sauce, naked virgins dancing on rugs made from polar bear. Self-indulgence is about the only thing this lot are good at, so come on, make it happen!
Admit it, our Royal Family kicks ass. It is one of the most celebrated institutions in the world – everyone knows about the British Royal Family but not a lot of people know that Morocco or even Spain has a monarchy. They've been through (and achieved) a lot since their establishment and without them all we'd have to show for ourselves would be old men with bad teeth dancing with sticks in a beige puddle eating stolen curry. We should be glad that the Windsor's and their ancestors are here to take the focus off all the shit things we have to offer the world – and before anyone gets all up in my grill about the fabulous, ground-breaking inventions that Britain has given the world, you only need to watch an episode of Dragon's Den to see that that ship has sailed. Reggae Reggae Sauce is the best thing we've come up with since penicillin and it tastes like baboon gouch.
Yeah I did. Ebay, £12.99, free delivery.
Author: JillianD
Tagged: Britain, British Royal Family, Camp Royale, Clapham Common, Kate Middleton, Lady Gaga, London, Monarchy, postawekk2011, Prince Harry, Prince Philip, Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh, Prince William, Queen Elizabeth, Royal Family, the gaming tramp, The Queen, UK
Previous Post The Royal Wedding Recovery Position
Next Post The Mystery of the Forest-Dwelling Loaf(er)
One thought on "The Royal Wedding – I Am All Up in Dis Bitch"
Paul lockwood says:
Yay to naked virgins dancing on polar bear rugs…………… Oh and yay to other things in the post I agree with…….


text:
Tag: District of Columbia
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Doesn't Understand How Obamacare's Exchanges Work
On Twitter Sunday evening, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) complained about what she viewed as the daunting prospect of having to choose her health insurance plan for 2020.
It's not the first time Ocasio-Cortez has taken issue with the health coverage for members of Congress. She griped about the process last year, as a newly elected official just taking her seat.
But, as someone who has gone through the process of buying health insurance as a DC resident for years, I can characterize most of the points she makes in the tweet as inaccurate, or rooted in the special privilege she receives as a member of Congress.
She's Not Buying 'Off the Exchange'
To start with, Ocasio-Cortez claimed that "Members of Congress also have to buy their plans off the Exchange." That statement contains numerous false elements. Most obviously, she cannot buy her insurance off the exchange because the District of Columbia abolished its private insurance market "off the Exchange."
Upon seeing her tweet, I went to eHealthInsurance, a private market away from the government-run exchange, and tried to search for a plan. (Disclosure: I used to represent eHealth more than a decade ago as a paid lobbyist.) When I typed in a DC-based ZIP code, I found the following:
eHealth doesn't offer insurance plans in the District of Columbia, because it can't offer them. DC law prohibits anyone but the exchange from selling insurance to individuals.
Rather than purchasing coverage "off the Exchange," Ocasio-Cortez buys her health insurance through DC's small business exchange, as opposed to its marketplace for individuals. As a Congressional Research Service paper on health coverage for members of Congress and their staff explains, both groups buy insurance through the DC small business exchange to obtain their (illegal) employer subsidy.
Admittedly, Ocasio-Cortez may have meant "from the Exchange" when she said "off the Exchange." But her imprecise language implies that she does not understand the important distinction between buying plans from the Exchange directly and not doing so. (Only Exchange-purchased plans qualify for subsidies under the Obamacare statute.)
She Gets Access to More Plans as a Member of Congress
Ocasio-Cortez complained about having to choose from 66 different insurance plans. She wouldn't have that problem if she weren't a member of Congress. People who buy insurance on DC's individual exchange have far fewer options. I know, because I have to buy coverage there. Take a look at the "choices" my personalized webpage presented to me: Only 23 plans—about one-third the number available to Ocasio-Cortez:
Some may think that 23 plans still represent a large number to choose from, but my reality proved far different. To begin with, those plans come from only two carriers: CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield and Kaiser Permanente, which only offers HMO options. If you don't want to get locked into an HMO's provider network—and I don't—you have exactly one choice of carrier: CareFirst.
Couple my preference for non-HMO coverage with my desire for insurance that includes a health savings account option, and I ended up with only two plans to choose from: CareFirst's Bronze HSA plan, and its Gold HSA plan.
I would prefer more choices for health insurance. I would particularly appreciate the opportunity to buy coverage that doesn't need to comply with the Obamacare insurance regulations that have driven up premiums and priced millions of people out of coverage. But DC's insurance regulators have prohibited carriers from offering non-complaint plans, because they're from the government and they're here to help.
She Gets Special Privileges as a Member of Congress
To say that members of Congress and congressional staff receive kid-glove treatment from the DC small business exchange would put it mildly. This flyer (from 2013) shows that the DC exchange conducted no fewer than 12 separate in-person enrollment events for members and staff during Obamacare's first open enrollment period.
Congressional staff confirmed to me that the in-person enrollment sessions continued on Capitol Hill this year. Congressional staff also confirmed that House and Senate benefits counselors can walk them through the entire enrollment process.
Even as an individual DC exchange participant, I received no fewer than five separate e-mails, starting on Friday afternoon, reminding me that Sunday represented the last day to sign up for coverage taking effect on January 1. The timing of Ocasio-Cortez' tweet suggests that she waited until the last minute to examine her coverage options, but she can't say she wasn't warned. Maybe if she and her colleagues spent less time focused on impeachment, Ocasio-Cortez could have found more time to select her plan sooner?
Ocasio-Cortez Gets an Illegal Subsidy
I and others have made this point before: members of Congress and their staff represent the only group that can receive a subsidy from their employer on the exchange. That subsidy came through a rule promulgated by the Office of Personnel Management in 2013, but several analyses have called that rule illegal.
Ocasio-Cortez claimed that "Members of Congress have to buy their plans off the Exchange." Just as the off-exchange claim holds no basis in fact, she and other members of Congress do not have to buy plans via the DC small business exchange. Nothing in law forces them to do so—unless they want to receive the (illegal) subsidy.
In fact, at least one member of Congress has turned down the (illegal) congressional subsidy. Dr. Michael Burgess frequently mentions at hearings, including the House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on single payer last week, that he buys his own coverage with his own money, not taxpayer funds. As someone who earns less than members of Congress do, and has no access to (illegal) insurance subsidies, I appreciate Burgess' integrity in this regard.
If Ocasio-Cortez wanted to do something other than complain—and if she didn't want so many choices—she could ditch the special, and illegal, subsidies she receives as a member of Congress, and buy coverage with the hoi polloi like me. She's welcome to do so any time she likes, but I'm not holding my breath.
UPDATE: This post was updated after publication to clarify potential interpretations of Ocasio-Cortez' comments about "off the Exchange" coverage.
This post was originally published at The Federalist.
Author chrisjacobsPosted on December 17, 2019 December 31, 2019 Categories Coverage, RegulationsTags Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, CareFirst Blue Cross, Congressional Research Service, DC Health Link, District of Columbia, eHealthInsurance, Exchange subsidies, Exchanges, House Energy and Commerce Committee, Illegal, Kaiser Permanente, Michael Burgess, Office of Personnel Management, Single payer, The Federalist
Three Reasons to Oppose the Swampy Budget Deal
On Monday, congressional leaders and the Trump administration announced agreement on legislation that would set budget and spending parameters for the next two years. The agreement would suspend the debt limit through July 2021, and establish spending levels for lawmakers to enact appropriations measures for the remainder of this Congress.
Conservatives have rightly criticized the agreement as abandoning the principles of smaller government, with a return to the trillion-dollar deficits seen under Barack Obama (and this time under a more robust economy). Among the many reasons to oppose the agreement, three in particular stand out.
1. More Spending Now
By loosening existing spending caps, the agreement would increase federal spending by more than $300 billion in the next two fiscal years. Of that more than $300 billion, the agreement pledges only $77.4 billion in offsets, with those coming from an extension of the Medicare sequester and an extension of customs fees. The administration proposed a total of $150 billion in offsets—about half of the spending increase contemplated by the agreement—but in the end Democrats would agree to offset only about one-quarter of the total spending increase.
When the Budget Control Act, which established the existing spending caps, passed in the summer of 2011, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)—then the minority leader, now the majority leader—famously said it would slow down the "big government freight train."
But in the time since that bill's enactment, McConnell and his colleagues in Congress have repeatedly increased the Budget Control Act's spending caps, speeding up the big government freight train over and over again.
2. More Spending Later
In many respects, the biggest policy failure comes from what the agreement excludes rather than what it includes. By not extending the Budget Control Act's spending caps, it will allow them to expire. Effectively, therefore, the bill will raise spending by nearly $2 trillion over the coming decade, with a mere $77 billion of that new spending paid for.
On one level, the agreement at least wins points for honesty, by abandoning the pretense that Congress has any interest in controlling spending. However, future generations will wish that Congress had substituted some actual fiscal discipline for profligacy.
3. No Policy Improvements
To assuage the conservative concerns about the package's spending binge, Republican leaders have pointed to other language in the agreement. Specifically, the text states that Republican leaders and the White House would have a veto on any appropriations riders passed by the Democratic House that would seek to (for instance) defund regulatory actions by the current administration:
Congressional leaders and the Administration agree that, relative to the [Fiscal Year] 2019 regular appropriations acts, there will be no poison pills, additional new riders…other changes in policy or conventions…or any non-appropriations measures unless agreed to on a bipartisan basis by the four leaders with the approval of the President.
In theory, this language blocks Democrats from eliminating restrictions on taxpayer funding of abortion, among other liberal priorities.
But what Republican leaders have tried to sell as a "win" for conservatives represents nothing of the sort. In the past two years, Republicans have not enacted many, if any, new appropriations riders, despite having control of the House, Senate, and White House. For instance, as I noted last year, Republicans on the Senate Appropriations Committee specifically voted against an amendment defunding the District of Columbia's health insurance mandate, because Democrats objected to it.
If Democrats could block Republicans from enacting appropriations policy riders over the past two years, despite serving in the minority, could Republicans have blocked Democrats from enacting their own policy riders with continued control of the Senate and White House? That question should answer itself—provided Republicans had any spine (admittedly an uncertain prospect).
Instead, Republicans agreed to hundreds of billions of dollars in additional spending to "win" something they already had—an understanding that neither side would enact appropriations policy riders. Taken from the most cynical perspective, the agreement uses the pro-life community's worries about Democratic riders—riders which both the White House and Republican Senate already had the means to stop—to rationalize congressional Republicans' continued spending binge.
Trump came into office pledging to "drain the swamp." But the new government spending contemplated by this agreement wouldn't drain the swamp so much as grow it. Conservatives, and the American people as a whole, deserve better.
Author chrisjacobsPosted on July 24, 2019 July 29, 2019 Categories Costs, Regulations, TaxesTags Budget Control Act, Debt limit, District of Columbia, Government spending, Individual mandate, Mitch McConnell, Senate Appropriations Committee, Sequester, The Federalist, Unsustainable
D.C. Council's Motto: "Obamacare for Thee — But Not for Me!"
On the first of the month, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser held an event at Freedom Plaza to celebrate the start of Obamacare's annual open enrollment period. She appeared with Mila Kofman, head of the District's health insurance exchange, D.C. Health Link. In conjunction with the event, the mayor issued a proclamation declaring the open enrollment period "Get Covered, Stay Covered" months, and noting that "residents should visit [D.C. Health Link's website] to shop for and compare health insurance."
But in encouraging others to "get covered," and promoting the D.C. Health Link site, Bowser omitted one key detail: She does not buy the policies that D.C. Health Link sells. My recent Freedom of Information Act request confirmed that Bowser, like most of her D.C. Council colleagues, received taxpayer-funded insurance subsidies to purchase their coverage through the District government, rather than through D.C. Health Link. Thus, DC spent nearly half a million in taxpayer funds because the mayor and council won't be bothered to enroll in Obamacare.
Armed with this information, I asked Bowser about her insurance choices at a recent event. She noted that the Affordable Care Act doesn't ask individuals to give up their employer-based insurance — a true enough statement. Individuals such as Bowser and members of the council can purchase insurance through Obamacare exchanges like D.C. Health Link, but they must forego their employer subsidy to do so.
Forfeiting generous employer subsidies might seem like an unreasonable request to make of the mayor and council. But earlier this year, the council passed, and Bowser signed, legislation requiring all District residents to buy health coverage or pay a tax — including tens of thousands of residents who do not qualify for subsidies.
According to public records, Bowser receives an annual salary of $200,000; council members receive $140,600 annually. This year, I will receive less income than any of them, and as a small business owner my income is far from guaranteed, unlike public officials' salaries. Yet the mayor and council have required me to buy health coverage without a subsidy, even as they refuse to do so themselves.
I asked Bowser about this obvious inequity. Under Obamacare, an individual with income of $50,000 — one-quarter of Bowser's salary — does not qualify for an income-based subsidy. Bowser required this individual to buy coverage without assistance, while earning much more in salary and retaining her employer subsidy. Did she see a double standard in her conduct?
When it came to the issue of equity and fairness, she didn't have a substantive answer, nor did her council colleagues. I asked staff for each council member about their health insurance coverage, and any subsidies received. Most staff never responded to my outreach. Staff for Councilman Robert White said they would ask him about his coverage, but never sent a reply. Staff for two councilmembers, Phil Mendelson and Brandon Todd, replied with explanations about the subsidies being provided as an employer benefit.
But neither Bowser nor the council members could justify requiring other District residents, including many with lower incomes than they, from buying coverage without a subsidy even as they will not do so themselves. And how could they? Quite often, it seems liberals who preach frequently about "fairness" regarding others' actions fall eerily silent when doing so would cost them personally. "Obamacare for thee — but not for me" doesn't provide a particularly compelling slogan, but the mayor and council have sent that very message by their actions.
Official Washington contains numerous examples of hypocrisy and double standards, but that doesn't make either a "D.C. value." If Bowser wishes to abide by the D.C. values she campaigned on, she and the council members should give up their subsidies and buy health insurance just like ordinary residents do. If they find that task too difficult or costly, then perhaps they should repeal the exact same requirement they put on everyone else.
Author chrisjacobsPosted on December 7, 2018 January 4, 2019 Categories Costs, Coverage, Premiums, Regulations, TaxesTags Affordability, Brandon Todd, DC Health Link, District of Columbia, Employer-provided health coverage, Exchange subsidies, Government spending, Hypocrisy, Individual mandate, Mila Kofman, Muriel Bowser, Phil Mendelson, Property seizure, Robert White, The Federalist
Let the Individual Mandate Die
In May New Jersey imposed a health-insurance mandate requiring all residents to buy insurance or pay a penalty. More states will feel pressure to follow suit in the coming year as the federal mandate's penalty disappears Jan. 1 and state legislatures reconvene, some with new Democratic majorities intent on "protecting" Obamacare. But conflicts with federal law will make state-level health-insurance mandates ineffective or unduly onerous, and governors and legislatures would do well to steer clear.
While states can require citizens to purchase health coverage, they will have trouble ensuring compliance. Federal law prohibits the Internal Revenue Service from disclosing tax-return data, except under limited circumstances. And there is no clear precedent allowing the IRS to disclose coverage data to verify compliance with state insurance requirements.
Accordingly, mandates enacted in New Jersey and the District of Columbia earlier this year created their own coverage-reporting regimes. But those likely conflict with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, which explicitly pre-empts "any and all state laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan." The point is to protect large employers who self-insure workers from 50 sets of conflicting state laws.
No employer has used ERISA to challenge Massachusetts' 2006 individual mandate, which includes reporting requirements, but that doesn't mean it's legal. Last month a Brookings Institution paper conceded that "state requirements related to employer benefits like health coverage may be subject to legal challenge based on ERISA preemption."
A 2016 Supreme Court ruling would bolster such a challenge. In Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual, the court struck down a Vermont law that required employers to submit health-care payment claims to a state database. The court said the law was pre-empted by ERISA.
Writing for a six-justice majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted the myriad reporting requirements under federal law. Vermont's law required additional record-keeping. Justice Kennedy concluded that "differing, or even parallel, regulations from multiple jurisdictions could create wasteful administrative costs and threaten to subject plans to wide-ranging liability."
Justice Kennedy's opinion provides a how-to manual for employers to challenge state-level insurance mandates. A morass of state-imposed insurance mandates and reporting requirements would unnecessarily burden employers with costs and complexity. It cries out for pre-emptive relief.
Unfortunately, policy makers have ignored these concerns. Notes from the working group that recommended the District of Columbia's individual mandate never mention the reporting burden or ERISA pre-emption. And in August the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services approved New Jersey's waiver application that relied in part upon funding from that state's new individual mandate, even though money from the difficult-to-enforce requirement may never materialize.
States already cannot require federal agencies to report coverage. This means their mandates won't track the 2.3 million covered by the Indian Health Service, 9.3 million receiving health care from the Veterans Administration, 8.8 million disabled under age 65 who are enrolled in Medicare, 9.4 million military Tricare enrollees and 8.2 million federal employees and retirees.
If a successful ERISA challenge also exempts some of the 181 million with employer-based insurance from coverage-reporting requirements, state insurance mandates become farcical. States would have to choose between mandates that run on the "honor system"—thus likely rife with cheating—or taking so much time and energy to verify coverage that administration becomes prohibitively expensive.
States should take the hint and refrain from even considering their own coverage mandates. But if they don't, smart employers should challenge the mandate's reporting requirements. They'd likely win.
This post was originally published at The Wall Street Journal.
Author chrisjacobsPosted on November 19, 2018 January 4, 2019 Categories Coverage, Regulations, TaxesTags Anthony Kennedy, Brookings Institution, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, DC Health Link, Department of Veterans Affairs, District of Columbia, Employer-provided health coverage, ERISA, FEHBP, Fraud, Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual, Indian Health Service, Individual mandate, Internal Revenue Service, Massachusetts, Medicare, New Jersey, Pre-emption, Romneycare, Supreme Court case, Tricare, Verification, Waivers, Wall Street Journal
Bill Cassidy's "Monkey Business"
Last we checked in with Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, he was hard at work adding literally dozens of new federal health care requirements to a Republican "repeal-and-replace" bill. This week comes word that Cassidy continues to "monkey around" in health care — this time quite literally.
STAT reports: "Sen. Bill Cassidy is trying to help hundreds of chimpanzees enjoy an easy retirement in his home state of Louisiana. The Republican is pushing for an amendment to a major appropriations bill winding its way through Congress this week that would force the National Institutes of Health to make good on a 2015 promise to move all its chimps out of research facilities."
Don't get me wrong: I oppose animal cruelty as much as the next person. If NIH lacks a compelling scientific justification to conduct research on chimpanzees, or any other animal, then it should cease the research and provide alterative accommodations for the creatures affected.
But on at least three levels, Cassidy's amendment demonstrates exactly what's wrong with Washington D.C.
Problem 1: Skewed Priorities
The federal debt is at more than $21 trillion and rising — more than double its $10.6 trillion size not ten years ago, on the day Barack Obama took office. American troops remain stationed in Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the world. Russia still looks to undermine American democracy and to meddle in this year's midterm elections. The situation with North Korea remains tenuous, as the North Koreans continue to develop intercontinental ballistic missile technologies and their nuclear program.
So why is Cassidy trying to consume Senate floor time with a debate and vote on the chimpanzee amendment, after having already sent a letter to NIH on the subject? On a list of America's top policy issues and concerns, the fate of 272 chimpanzees wouldn't register in the top 100, or even in the top 1,000. So why should members of Congress (to say nothing of their staffs) spend so much time on such a comparatively inconsequential issue?
Problem 2: Cassidy Doesn't Want to Repeal Obamacare
Rather than spending time on a chimpanzee amendment, Cassidy — like his Senate Republican colleagues — should focus on keeping the promise they made to their voters for the past four election cycles that they would repeal Obamacare. But unfortunately, many of the people who made that promise never believed it in the first place.
Based on his record, Cassidy stands as one of those individuals opposed to Obamacare repeal. As I noted in June, Cassidy does not want to repeal the federal system of regulations that lies at the heart of the health care law. In fact, a health care plan released earlier this summer seemed designed primarily to give lawmakers like Cassidy political cover not to repeal Obamacare's most onerous regulations — even though a study by the Heritage Foundation indicates those regulations are the prime driver of premium increases since the law passed.
Problem 3: Cassidy Just Voted to Entrench Obamacare
Earlier this month, I noted some Republicans in the Senate would likely vote to allow the District of Columbia to tax individuals who do not purchase health insurance, after having voted to repeal that mandate in last year's tax bill. After I wrote that story, Cassidy became one of five Senate Republicans to do just that, by voting to table (or kill) an amendment defunding Washington's new individual mandate.
Because Cassidy voted to keep the mandate in place in D.C., he voted to allow District authorities to seize and sell individuals' property if they do not purchase "government-approved" health coverage. Rather than voting to repeal Obamacare, Cassidy and his colleagues voted to entrench Obamacare in the nation's capital — for which they have sovereign jurisdiction under the Constitution.
Even apart from Cassidy's flip-flopping on repeal of Obamacare and its individual mandate, the contrast with the letter to NIH raises its own questions. In that letter, Cassidy emphasized that former research chimpanzees should have "the opportunity to live in mixed-sex groups and … daily access to nesting materials."
This all sounds well and good, but why does Cassidy seemingly care so much about giving freedom to chimpanzees and so little about giving freedom to District of Columbia residents to buy (or not buy) the health coverage they wish to purchase?
Congress, Stop Monkeying Around
Five years ago, Democratic Rep. Frank Pallone famously called a congressional hearing on the healthcare.gov debacle a "monkey court." Five years later, the Cassidy amendment on chimpanzee research demonstrates how Congress continues to "monkey around."
Republicans should stop the primate-related sideshows and focus on things that really matter. Like sticking to the promise they made to voters for eight years to repeal Obamacare.
Author chrisjacobsPosted on August 23, 2018 January 4, 2019 Categories Costs, Premiums, RegulationsTags Bill Cassidy, Chimpanzees, Debt, Defund Obamacare, District of Columbia, Exchanges, Frank Pallone, Government spending, Graham-Cassidy, Heritage Foundation, Implementation failure, Individual mandate, Monkey court, National Institutes of Health, Pre-existing conditions, Premium increases, Property seizure, Regulations, Repeal Obamacare, Stat News, The Federalist
About That "Junk" Insurance
On Wednesday, the Trump administration released its final rule regarding short-term, limited-duration insurance coverage. For all critics' carping about how short-term coverage epitomizes "junk insurance," these plans will provide another option for individuals who find Obamacare-compliant policies unattractive and unaffordable.
Pros and Cons of the Rule
The Cato Institute's Michael Cannon lists a good summary of the rule's benefits. At a time when the market for unsubsidized coverage away from the exchanges has dropped by nearly 40 percent, short-term plans will allow individuals who find Obamacare-compliant coverage unaffordable to purchase coverage.
The rule also expands consumer protections. By extending their maximum term from three to just under 12 months, the rule will protect people who buy short-term plans then develop a pre-existing condition. Moreover, individuals can purchase short-term plans that renew for up to 36 months, along with separate renewal guarantees—essentially, the option to buy insurance at some later date—that will protect them further into the future from higher premiums if they develop a pre-existing condition.
Whereas the Obama administration defined "consumer protections" as "protecting people from being a consumer" of anything other than exchange plans, the Trump administration's rule allows consumers to buy coverage that actually protects them from future harmful health events.
That said, the rule brings with it two notable drawbacks. First, the administration believes it could raise federal spending by $28.2 billion over a decade. The estimate comes because some healthy people likely will leave the exchanges to buy more affordable short-term coverage, raising premiums—and thus premium subsidies—for those who remain in Obamacare-compliant plans. While the Congressional Budget Office estimated a much smaller (and slightly positive) fiscal impact, the rule could end up increasing spending at a time when the federal government has racked up $21 trillion in debt (and counting).
Second, the rule doesn't repeal Obamacare—an obvious statement, but one with important implications. Another president can easily revoke the Trump administration's actions, and the next Democrat will almost certainly do just that. While helpful, the rule itself should not serve as an excuse for Congress not to take action to repeal Obamacare's harmful regulations—because if you like your short-term plan, and Congress does nothing, you probably won't be able to keep it.
What's the Real 'Junk Insurance'?
While Obamacare supporters have frequently derided short-term plans as "junk" insurance, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Judging by their behavior, more liberals than you might think consider Obamacare plans sub-standard. Take, for instance, the executive director of the District of Columbia's Health Benefit Exchange Authority, Mila Kofman. Last October, she called President Trump's executive order paving the way for short-term plans "an all-out assault on the Affordable Care Act."
But as I wrote last week, Kofman has refused to buy an Obamacare plan, because she claims she requires an employer subsidy—this despite making more than $217,000 per year. Given her sizable income, Kofman must not think exchange policies unaffordable, even without an employer subsidy.
After all, the Exchange Authority recently endorsed, and the District enacted, a mandate requiring people with far less income than her—that is, people like me—to buy unsubsidized coverage or pay a tax. Why does she not buy the insurance policies she sells—because she considers them "junk insurance?"
She's not alone. At a briefing last month, Sara Collins, a vice president at the Commonwealth Fund, asked whether short-term plans and other non-Obamacare policies would have "warning labels on them." Collins neglected to provide a warning of her own: She has not purchased an exchange plan. Lest one think she cannot afford to do so, Commonwealth's tax filings reveal that for the 12 months ending in June 2017, Collins received $334,353 in total compensation (including benefits).
But for sheer chutzpah in the coverage department, Sabrina Corlette of Georgetown University's Center for Health Insurance Reform may take the cake. In 2013, Corlette called limited-benefit policies similar to those envisioned by the short-term plans rule "really crappy." On Twitter Tuesday, she cited a report indicating that short-term plans pay out a comparatively small percentage of premium dollars in medical claims to call them "the very definition of junk insurance."
I consider the very definition of "junk insurance" a policy that one encourages others to buy but refuses to purchase. On that, Corlette has a sterling track record. At a 2016 briefing, her presentation included a bullet point about the need to increase exchange sign-ups. She went further in her oral remarks: "I think it's critical to do everything we can do boost enrollment."
But when I asked Corlette at that same 2016 briefing if she had taken her own advice and bought an exchange plan, I received a song-and-dance about her life as a "spoiled academic." Lest anyone think her unfeeling, however, she allowed that "I do try to think about" individuals without employer-sponsored coverage when designing insurance coverage standards.
Principles Versus Power
That's the point. If Obamacare advocates thought achieving the law's goals was so critical, they would have put their money where their mouths are and enrolled in exchange plans long ago. For all liberals' talk of solidarity and "We're all in this together," the unwillingness for individuals making hundreds of thousands per year to enroll in exchange coverage, even though they could easily afford to do so, astounds. Given their own failures to enroll, who are they to criticize President Trump for "sabotaging" the law?
Corlette's explanation to me revealed many liberals' motivation: The raw exercise of power to protect the great unwashed masses from themselves. The rulers may not even realize their own failure to abide by the same standards as the ruled. Others may think people like me too feeble-minded to discern their hypocrisy.
In their quiet moments, people like Kofman, Collins, and Corlette may wonder what strange confluence of events led the American people to elect Donald Trump, and empower him with the authority to dismantle their liberal paradise. But their failure to practice what they preach yields a ready answer: They need only look in the mirror.
Author chrisjacobsPosted on August 6, 2018 January 4, 2019 Categories Costs, Premiums, RegulationsTags Adverse selection, Cato Institute, Commonwealth Fund, Consumer protections, DC Health Link, District of Columbia, Donald Trump, Exchange subsidies, Exchanges, Georgetown University, Government spending, Guaranteed renewability, Hypocrisy, Individual mandate, Michael Cannon, Mila Kofman, Regulations, Sabrina Corlette, Sara Collins, Short-term plans, The Federalist
Republicans' Spending Dilemma, In One Tweet
Most of official Washington woke up apoplectic on Sunday, when a tweet from President Trump invoked "the Swamp's" most dreaded word: "Shutdown."
Put aside for a moment specific questions about the wall itself—whether it will deter illegal immigration, how much to spend on it, or even whether to build it. The Trump tweet illustrates a much larger problem facing congressional Republicans: They don't want to fight—about the wall, or about much of anything, particularly spending.
Voting for the Mandate after They Voted Against It?
Take for instance an issue I helped raise awareness of, and have helped spend the past several weeks tracking: The District of Columbia's move to re-establish a requirement on district residents to purchase health insurance.
As I wrote last week, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) offered an amendment in the Senate that would defund this mandate. The amendment resembles one that Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL) offered in the House, and which representatives voted to add to the bill. If a successful vote on the Cruz amendment inserted the provision in the Senate version of the bill, the defunding amendment would presumably have a smooth passage to enactment.
So what's holding it up? In a word, Republicans. According to Senate sources, Republican leaders—and Republican members of the Appropriations Committee—don't want to vote on Cruz's amendment. Several outside groups have stated they will key-vote in favor of the amendment, and the leadership types don't want to vote against something that many conservative groups support.
But why would Republican senators vote against Cruz' amendment? After all, every one of them voted for an effective repeal of the federal individual mandate in the tax bill last December. Given that Congress exercises ultimate sovereignty over the district, it would seem more than a little incongruous for senators to (to coin a phrase) vote for the individual mandate after voting against it last year.
Are Democrats Running Congress?
In short, because Democrats might object. Appropriations measures need 60 votes to break a Senate filibuster, and Democrats have said they will not vote for any bill that includes so-called "poison pill" appropriations riders. The definition of a "poison pill" of course lies in the eyes of the beholder.
Politico wrote about the spending process six weeks ago, noting that new Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard Shelby (R-AL) and Ranking Member Pat Leahy (D-VT) "have resolved to work out matters privately. Both parties have agreed to hold their noses to vote for a bill that they consider imperfect, but good enough."
That "kumbaya" dynamic has led Senate Republican leaders and appropriators to try and avoid the Cruz amendment entirely. They don't want to vote against the amendment, because conservatives like me support it and will (rightly) point out their hypocrisy if they do. But they don't want the amendment to pass either, because they fear that Democrats won't vote to pass the underlying bill if it does. So they hope the amendment will die a quiet death.
It's a kabuki show, an exercise in failure theater. On the downside, the amendment may not pass, because appropriators don't want it to. But on the upside, if provisions like the Cruz amendment remain out of the bill, at least Congress will get the opportunity to bust through budget caps and go on another spending binge!
Conservatives Get the Shaft—Again
At this point some leadership types might point out that it's easy for people like me to sit on the sidelines and criticize, but that Republicans in Congress must actually govern. That point has more than a grain of truth to it.
On the other hand, "governing" for Republicans usually means "governing like Democrats." Case in point: The sorry spectacle I described in March, wherein Republican committee chairmen—who, last I checked, won election two years ago on a platform of repealing Obamacare—begged Democrats to include a bailout of Obamacare's exchanges in that month's 2,200-page omnibus appropriations bill.
The chairmen in question, and many Republican leaders, feared the party will get blamed in the fall for premium increases. So they decided to "govern" by abandoning all pretense of repealing Obamacare and trying to bolster the law instead, even though their failure to repeal Obamacare is a key driver of the premium increases driving Americans crazy.
That dynamic, as much as anything else, prompted Sunday's presidential tweet. While Trump fixates on the wall, the larger issue—Republican leaders promising confrontation and action, and often delivering precious little of either—helped lay the foundation for his rise in the Republican presidential primaries. Always wary of betraying the base that elected them, he feels a visceral need to deliver, in spite of (or perhaps because of) the cost.
With an election on the horizon, bicameral negotiations surrounding the spending bill could get hairy in September, because two of the parties come to the table with fundamentally different perspectives. Republican congressional leaders worry about what might happen in November if they fail to govern because they stood up for conservative policies. Trump worries about what might happen if they don't.
UPDATE: On Wednesday afternoon, the Senate voted to table the Cruz amendment blocking DC's individual mandate. Five Republicans who voted to repeal the individual mandate in tax reform legislation last fall — Louisiana's Bill Cassidy, Maine's Susan Collins, Alaska's Lisa Murkowski, Alabama's Richard Shelby, and Utah's Orrin Hatch — voted to table, or kill, the amendment.
Because the vote came on a motion to table, senators may attempt to argue that the vote was procedural in nature, and did not represent a change in position on the mandate. Shelby, the chair of the Appropriations Committee, said he supported the underlying policy behind the Cruz amendment, but voted not to advance the amendment because Democrats objected to its inclusion.
Author chrisjacobsPosted on August 1, 2018 January 4, 2019 Categories Costs, Premiums, Regulations, TaxesTags Bailouts, Bill Cassidy, Defund Obamacare, District of Columbia, Donald Trump, FreedomWorks, Gary Palmer, Government spending, Heritage Action, Immigration, Individual mandate, Lisa Murkowski, Orrin Hatch, Pat Leahy, Premium increases, Richard Shelby, Senate Appropriations Committee, Stability bill, Susan Collins, Ted Cruz, The Federalist
How D.C. Leaders Ignore Their Own Constituents on Health Care
The July 24 editorial " 'Here we go again' " misapportioned blame. Instead of attacking the House, the editorial should have examined the disregard the D.C. government has shown residents by passing a controversial requirement to purchase health coverage.
The D.C. Council opaquely enacted a major policy change, burying the provision in a 300-page bill featuring clerical amendments to things such as the Eastern Market Enterprise Fund. The council's press release said not a word about the mandate's enactment.
Second, the head of the D.C. Health Benefit Exchange Authority, which requested the mandate, refuses to buy the plans she sells. When I asked her about this in 2016, Mila Kofman claimed that buying an exchange plan would cause her to forfeit her employer subsidy. I find it absurd that an individual making more than $217,000 per year requires insurance subsidies yet wants to tax people such as me — who make far less yet receive no subsidies — who do not purchase a "government-approved" plan.
Mayor Muriel E. Bowser's (D) staff seems uninterested in representing District residents who disagree with the mandate. I emailed Ms. Bowser's office about the mandate on June 28 and have yet to receive a response.
D.C. officials who complain about disregard from Congress should not deprecate or disregard their own residents. Unfortunately, passing laws surreptitiously, imposing requirements on others while not following them oneself, and ignoring constituent complaints all qualify.
This post was originally published at The Washington Post.
Author chrisjacobsPosted on July 30, 2018 May 5, 2019 Categories Coverage, Regulations, TaxesTags DC Health Link, District of Columbia, Mila Kofman, Muriel Bowser, Washington Post
Liberal Think-Tank Admits Obamacare's Failures
Once again, the movement to expand government-run health care continues apace. No sooner had one think tank published a paper calling for the return of an individual mandate at the federal level than the liberal Commonwealth Fund published a paper, released on Friday, calling for states to impose their own Obamacare-style mandates at the state level.
However, the paper proves most interesting for what it tacitly admits. Over time, Commonwealth believes that more and more people will purchase coverage solely due to a government order—because health costs and premiums will continue to rise. Because Obamacare failed to control health costs, more and more individuals will purchase health coverage only under the threat of government-imposed taxation. That's Commonwealth's version of health "reform."
Ironically, the report comes on a week when Congress took steps to undo one state-level mandate before it ever takes effect. I had noted earlier this week that Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL), in response to my reporting on the District of Columbia's health insurance mandate, proposed an amendment to the DC appropriations bill defunding the measure.
Late Wednesday evening, the House of Representatives adopted the amendment by a 226-189 vote. Next week, the Senate could take up its version of the District of Columbia appropriations bill. If a similar amendment passes on the Senate floor, then the final version of the appropriations measure likely will contain the defunding language—thus preventing individuals who do not buy "government-approved" health coverage from having their property seized by DC authorities.
Longer-Term Effects of the Mandate
As to the Commonwealth report itself: It concludes that enacting an individual mandate in all 50 states would increase insurance coverage by roughly 3.9 million in 2019. Nearly half of those individuals (1.7 million) would comprise individuals purchasing unsubsidized exchange coverage—the people for whom Bill Clinton said Obamacare was the "craziest thing in the world," because they don't receive subsidies (which might explain why they won't purchase insurance unless the government taxes them for not doing so). Individuals enrolling in Medicaid (600,000), subsidized exchange policies (1.1 million), and employer plans (450,000) comprise the rest of the coverage gains.
Particularly noteworthy however: In 2022—just four years from now—the mandate will lead 7.5 million people to obtain health coverage, or nearly twice the 2019 total. Commonwealth explains the reasoning:
As health care costs get more expensive relative to incomes over time, fewer people tend to purchase insurance and the number of uninsured rises. However, with an individual mandate in place, the effect of health care cost growth is lessened because more people hold on to their insurance to comply with the mandate. As a result, the effect of the individual mandate on reducing the number of people without insurance increases over time in percentage terms.
In other words, as health costs, and therefore premiums, continue to skyrocket, fewer people can afford coverage, and more and more people will buy coverage only if government forces them to do so. (I bet those people would take umbrage with Commonwealth's claim that forcing them to buy coverage they cannot afford "lessens…the effect of health care cost growth.") That's Commonwealth's vision for the future—government exerting more and more control on its citizens.
Wasn't Obamacare Supposed to Reduce Health Costs?
The obvious question: Why would health care costs continue to "get more expensive relative to income over time"? Wasn't Obamacare supposed to fix all that?
Recall that during his 2008 campaign, Barack Obama repeatedly promised that his health plan would cut families' premiums by $2,500 per year. Commonwealth provided some of the intellectual firepower behind the pledge, releasing in 2007 a report that it claimed could save $1.5 trillion in health expenditures over 10 years. Many of that report's proposals, although not all (limiting Medicare's coverage of expensive drugs and treatments being an obvious exception), made their way into the measure that became Obamacare.
In 2013, Commonwealth upped the ante, releasing another report whose recommendations promised $2 trillion in lower health spending over a decade. Yet Commonwealth's report released Friday admits that health costs in 2022 will continue to rise faster than income, resulting in more and more people feeling squeezed to afford coverage. At this rate, Commonwealth should stop putting out reports talking about all the health costs we could save. Our country can't afford them.
The Left's Arrogant Conceit
The same premise underpins both Commonwealth's paper on state insurance mandates and its proposals to "reduce" health costs: Just give us more power, and we'll solve all your problems for you. Yet those problems never actually seem to go away. In 2009, Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate and a huge margin in the House, so they could enact whatever health care policies they wished—and did just that. Yet for Commonwealth and the Left, it wasn't enough. It's never enough.
I'll give the last word to—of all people—Barack Obama. In 2010, he talked about how he didn't want to "give the keys back" to people who "didn't know how to drive." The Commonwealth report makes plain that despite all the intrusions on freedom Obamacare included, it didn't accomplish its supposed goal of making health care more affordable. (And no, using government to re-distribute money doesn't qualify as making the underlying cost of care more "affordable.")
Given that dynamic, who would want to give people like the researchers at Commonwealth even more control over the health care system? The question should answer itself.
Author chrisjacobsPosted on July 20, 2018 January 3, 2019 Categories Costs, Coverage, Premiums, RegulationsTags Affordability, Bill Clinton, Broken promise, Commonwealth Fund, Defund Obamacare, District of Columbia, Exchange subsidies, Gary Palmer, Health care costs, Implementation failure, Individual mandate, Premium increases, The Federalist
Preserving Health Care Freedom in the Nation's Capital
Two weeks ago, I described how provisions in a budget bill that the District of Columbia Council quietly passed would extend the reach of government-controlled health care in the nation's capital. The provisions buried in that budget bill would not only reimpose the health insurance mandate penalty within the District of Columbia that Congress set to zero beginning in January, but would go further, by allowing DC authorities to place liens on, seize, and sell the property of individuals who cannot afford to pay the mandate tax.
Thankfully, my post had its intended effect in raising awareness of the issue among federal policy-makers. The office of Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL) responded, introducing an amendment to appropriations legislation that the House of Representatives will consider this week.
If enacted into law, the Palmer amendment would prohibit any funds provided in the bill—which includes the District of Columbia's annual budget—from being used to implement the new health insurance mandate. By defunding the mandate, the Palmer amendment would effectively prohibit this tax increase, to say nothing of the threat of property seizures, from affecting residents of the nation's capital.
Prevents Affordable Options from Qualifying
The Palmer amendment would also allow individuals to purchase the type of health coverage they desire without getting hit with a "stealth" tax bill after-the-fact. If the District's law goes into effect in January, individuals buying the new, more affordable coverage options proposed by the Trump administration could face exactly that.
The mandate the DC Council approved (see pages 168-82 here) effectively re-imposes on the District Obamacare's individual mandate as it existed last December 15—the date the congressional conferees on the tax bill filed their conference report (i.e., before legislation setting the federal mandate penalty to zero was signed into law). By linking the District's mandate to the policies and regulations in place as of last December 15, the DC mandate also prevents the new options the Trump administration is introducing from qualifying as "minimum essential coverage" for purposes of complying with the mandate.
For instance, the DC law defines "minimum essential coverage" as "minimum essential coverage as defined by section 5000A of the [federal] Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and its implementing regulations, as that section and its implementing regulations were in effect on December 15, 2017." It further specifies that "minimum essential coverage" shall include:
Health coverage provided under a multiple employer welfare arrangement; provided that the multiple employer welfare arrangement provided coverage in the District on December 15, 2017, or complies with federal law and regulations applicable to multiple employer welfare arrangements that were in place as of December 15, 2017.
This language effectively prohibits coverage under the Trump administration's new association health plans, which the administration first proposed in the Federal Register edition of January 5, 2018, from qualifying under the District's health insurance mandate. Individuals who purchase such plans would face a tax penalty the following year, unless they also purchased other qualifying coverage (an unlikely scenario).
Locks Out Short-Term Coverage, Too
The District's statute also would exclude short-term health plans from qualifying as "minimum essential coverage" for purposes of its health insurance mandate. Obamacare itself defined "minimum essential coverage" to include "coverage under a health plan offered in the individual market within a state." But because another portion of federal law says "'individual health insurance coverage' means health insurance coverage offered to individuals in the individual market, but does not include short-term limited duration insurance," short-term plans would not qualify.
Obamacare did give the secretary of Health and Human Services, along with the secretary of the Treasury, discretion in determining other forms of "minimum essential coverage" for purposes of the federal mandate. However, because the District linked its mandate to those federal definitions in effect as of December 15, 2017—well before the Trump administration first proposed its changes to the regulation of short-term plans on February 20, 2018—short-term plans would not qualify as acceptable coverage under the District's mandate.
District residents who purchase short-term plans, like those who access the expanded association health plans, would not comply with the new coverage requirements. Particularly given the very quiet way the DC Council enacted the legislation, many individuals may not know that the District re-imposed a health insurance mandate or that certain types of coverage do not comply with it, and face an unpleasant tax "surprise" in the spring of 2020 (as they file their DC tax returns for 2019). Unless, of course, Congress enacts the Palmer amendment into law.
Congress's Constitutional Duty
As Congress debates the Palmer amendment this week, expect all manner of self-righteous indignation from DC officials over the federal legislature interfering in the District's affairs. Such complaints of course ignore the fact that the Constitution places sovereignty over the nation's capital squarely within the federal purview.
Moreover, it also belies the fact that DC officials made little attempt—one could argue purposefully made little attempt—to publicize the council's deliberations over this change. I e-mailed three people in Mayor Muriel Bowser's press office about the council's actions two weeks ago, and still have yet to receive so much as an acknowledgement.
Bowser can argue all she wants about "Taxation without Representation," but given that her office made zero attempt to represent me, she has little right to complain. The House should pass the Palmer amendment this week, and prevent the strong-arm tactics associated with government-controlled health care from taking root in the nation's capital.
Author chrisjacobsPosted on July 17, 2018 January 3, 2019 Categories Coverage, Regulations, TaxesTags Association Health Plans, DC Health Link, District of Columbia, Executive Order, Gary Palmer, Individual mandate, Minimum Essential Coverage, Muriel Bowser, Property seizure, Short-term plans, The Federalist
Christmas Eve Vote on Obamacare Showed Washington Still Has Shame
Elizabeth Warren's Health Care "Choice:" Dishonesty
Unanswered Questions on Single Payer