Categories
Archives
HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN
target="_top">

Archive for the ‘Obamacare Tax’ Category

Woman Who Ran Obamacare Defects, Reveals Obama’s Sick Next Step

The woman who ran Obamacare during her tenure as the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which played a pivotal role in implementing the failed program, claimed last week that health care customers could be in for a huge sticker shock come 2017.

“I’ve been asked, what are the premiums going to look like?” Marilyn Tavenner, who now works as a spokeswoman for insurers, said during an interview with the Morning Consult. “I don’t know, because it also varies by state, market, even within markets.”

She added, “But I think the overall trend is going to be higher than we saw previous years … that’s my big prediction.”
Since its launch in 2013, Obamacare has repeatedly caused premiums, co-payments and deductibles to skyrocket, despite rhetoric from President Barack Obama’s administration about how the law would reduce health care costs for Americans.

Instead, it spurred many Americans to drop out of the program altogether and opt for much more affordable but less comprehensive non-Obamacare alternatives.
In explaining why rates keep rising, Tavenner pointed to a number of factors, including Obamacare’s rules preventing insurers from denying coverage to anyone suffering from a pre-existing condition.

“The problem with the exchanges … is people are still kind of seeing this as, ‘I use insurance when I’m sick, but I may not need it when I’m no longer sick,’” she explained. “So they tend to churn. And that churn increases premiums. So you have to kind of price over that.”

Tavenner also highlighted the upcoming end of certain rules that protected insurers from experiencing financial losses. Without these rules in place, many insurers will need to dramatically raise their premiums just to break even, let alone earn a profit.
President Obama will keep claiming otherwise until his face turns blue, but Obamacare is an epic failure — and clearly, the woman who used to run it pretty much agrees.

Bombshell: Federal Judge Says Americans Can’t be Forced to Follow Obamacare Mandates!

Monday was a wonderful day in court for conservatives and pro-lifers across the nation. Federal judge Richard Leon handed down his ruling on Monday, permanently prohibiting the federal government from forcing its Obamacare abortion-pill mandate on any pro-life organization – regardless of its religious beliefs.

Up until this decision the Obama administration had argued that any organization that was not a church or religious organization could be forced to offer abortifacients and other contraceptives through their health care plans. However, Judge Richard Leon disagreed.

Judge Leon found that an organization’s moral objections (religious or otherwise) were enough to keep the government from forcing certain Obamacare provisions on them.

Read more at http://visiontoamerica.com/23679/bombshell-federal-judge-says-americans-cant-be-forced-to-follow-obamacare-mandates/#Y45TdgUrPDh8vKHR.99

Another ObamaCare Dream Goes Bust

Health-care cooperatives last year suffered an estimated $377 million in net underwriting losses.
By GRACE-MARIE TURNER And THOMAS P. MILLER

ObamaCare_Protest_Shutterstock_500x293,,

The Affordable Care Act created a new kind of “cooperative” heralded by supporters of health reform. These Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans, chartered and regulated by the states, would compete with for-profit health-insurance companies and were meant to appease disgruntled advocates of a single-payer and “public option” model for the nation’s health-care system.

All but one of the co-ops are operating in the red. One already has been shut down, and others are in precarious financial condition. Chalk up another ObamaCare failure.

Generous federal loans helped 23 cooperatives to get up and running. They have enrolled more than a million people, according to the National Alliance of State Health Co-ops. Their supporters believed that consumer cooperatives, which must meet the same regulatory requirements as private insurers, would provide better benefits and lower prices than commercial carriers.

In practice, most co-ops have significantly underpriced premiums and grossly underestimated medical claims. Many seek significant premium increases for 2016: 58% for individual plans in Utah, 38% in Oregon and 25% in Kentucky, for example.

Iowa’s CoOportunity Health, which operated in both Iowa and Nebraska, was the first to confront the hard reality of insurance economics as medical claims far outpaced premium income. After the co-op burned through $145 million in federal loans, an Iowa state court in February ordered the organization to be liquidated.

At least 120,000 members were forced to quickly find coverage elsewhere. The Iowa Insurance Division had this helpful advice: “Your coverage with CoOportunity Health will stop, and claims will not be paid after cancellation. If you do not purchase replacement insurance, you may be penalized by the federal government.”

Meanwhile, Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services reported early this year that 10 co-ops had worse loss ratios than Iowa’s in the third quarter of 2014 resulting from a “high medical claims trend and not enough scale to offset administrative costs.” Citing Iowa’s experience, the report warned: “The solvency problems experienced by CoOportunity Health introduce questions about co-ops’ finances in general.”

A separate analysis by the insurance-rating agency A.M. Best expressed concerns “about the financial viability of several of these plans” as losses escalated throughout 2014. Other estimates based on quarterly financial statements filed with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners show co-ops as a whole reported net underwriting losses of $377 million in 2014. Only Maine’s Community Health Options has been operating in the black.

Congress has cut funding for co-ops three times—cuts all signed into law by President Obama—reducing appropriations from $6 billion to $2.4 billion. All the upfront money from the feds has been allocated mostly in the form of “solvency” loans. Most co-ops survive on what little remains unspent from those loans.

New York’s Health Republic Insurance received $265 million in federal loans and had the largest enrollment, with 155,000 members in 2014. Its premiums are significantly lower than established carriers in virtually every region of the state. But the co-op has applied for premium increases in 2016 of more than 14%, with some regions of the state as high as 30%. Industry actuaries believe that those raises will not be enough to offset high claims costs and the exhaustion of federal loan dollars.

Until recently, the Kentucky Health Cooperative had been considered one of the more successful co-ops, with 75% of enrollees in the state’s health exchange. It attracted consumers primarily by offering significantly lower premiums and running the risk of future insolvency.

Yet there are disturbing similarities between this cooperative and the one that failed in Iowa. Kentucky Health Cooperative’s $147 million in taxpayer loans has been exhausted. To maintain a semblance of solvency, it is applying for a big premium increase of 25% for next year and banking on so-called risk-protection payments from other insurers.

The Affordable Care Act provided for risk-protection payments in which insurers with better pricing and higher profits are required to make payments to insurers with inaccurate pricing and bigger losses. Co-ops book these expected payments on their balance sheets as “assets.” But those risk payments are expected to be significantly lower, and they don’t solve the co-ops’ long-term problems.

Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans feed the agenda of progressives who disparage profit-driven commercial health-insurance carriers. But the co-ops are failing. Underpricing risks to gain market share and then counting on further bailouts from taxpayers is a losing business plan, and not much of a political strategy either.

Congress can exercise its oversight function by: 1) making sure that no additional federal dollars are wasted on this program; 2) investigating how $2.4 billion in taxpayer loans has been spent; and 3) determining who will be responsible for paying back the loans.

Ms. Turner is president of the Galen Institute. Mr. Miller is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Their report “ObamaCare Co-ops: Cause Célèbre or Costly Conundrum?” is released this week.

A lot of people have to pay back their 2014 ObamaCare Subsidies to the IRS

doc-obama-this-is-gonna-hurt

A lot of people who received subsidies from ObamaCare in 2014 are finding out that the Affordable Care Act is forcing them to pay that money back to the Internal Revenue Service because the administration did a poor job of spreading important information.

When individuals enrolled in the program at the beginning of last year they had to estimate their income for 2014. The amount of the subsidy that the individual would receive was based on this estimate. Some people thought they could get away with receiving higher monthly subsidies if they intentionally estimated a low income for 2014, while many others simply had no idea what their incomes would be.

What many of these people were not aware of was that they were responsible for informing the government if they had an unexpected rise in their incomes that would invalidate their original estimate. If somebody’s income rose past their original estimate and they did not report it, then they would have received a larger subsidy than the law allowed. ObamaCare officials did not make this information well-known, and now people are paying the price for it.

For example, Janice Riddle is a woman from California and couldn’t believe it when she found out she would owe the IRS money. “I was blindsided that the subsidy has to be paid back,” she said. “I’m in shock…but I have no choice. Do I want to argue with the IRS or the Obama administration?” She has to pay back her entire subsidy, which came out to $470 per month.

Her case is not an isolated incident. For example, early data from some taxpayers shows that 53 percent of Jackson Hewitt clients who received subsidies will have to repay part or all of their subsidies–not a trifling sum, since the average monthly subsidy in 2014 was $264. The largest amounts owed in repaid subsidies so far reach as high as $12,000 .

Some of the people whose subsidies have been reduced or lost can no longer afford the full cost of their monthly premiums, so they are choosing to go without health insurance this year. Sadly for these individuals, the individual mandate penalty for being uninsured (which could be as high as $975 per person next year) suddenly looks like a bargain compared to the true cost of ObamaCare’s unaffordable insurance.

Instead of making health insurance more affordable, ObamaCare is merely transferring costs onto taxpayers. When the subsidies are taken away from people, it’s clear that premiums are way more expensive than officials in the government are leading people to believe. It’s an incredibly complicated law and has been impossible to implement without causing headaches and damage for millions of people.

Some Unpleasant Welfare Arithmetic

By Casey B. Mulligan, University of Chicago
Obamacare1211

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) presents employers
and potential employees with a variety of
new rewards and penalties. These are, in part,
exactly what the law intended: by penalizing
potential employees for not purchasing health insurance,
and employers for not providing it, the law aims to increase
the fraction of the population with health insurance.
Yet these same rewards and penalties have additional
effects, including on the incentive to work; Mulligan
(2014), for example, suggests that the ACA may reduce
employment by 3 percent on average and have a range of
positive and negative effects on average hours worked.
In the work summarized here, I quantify the number
of people who will have essentially no short-term financial
reward from working more than 29 hours, since this
would either render them ineligible for the ACA’s assistance
or increase the penalties that may be owed by their
employer. This is the first paper to show that the ACA
will put millions of workers in the economically extreme
situation of having zero short-term financial reward (or
less) to working full-time rather than part-time.
In economics jargon, this means the ACA creates
marginal tax rates on labor income that exceed 100
percent. Even when helping people who are out of work
or who otherwise have low incomes is a primary policy
motivation, and even if labor supply does not respond
much to the after-tax wage, labor income tax rates that
equal or exceed 100 percent are bad policy because they
discourage work effort without raising any revenue.
From a strictly predictive perspective, economists expect
that full- time employment rates will be low, if not zero,
in groups of people who are aware that they receive no
financial reward from working full-time (defined here to
be working at least 30 hours per week).
Two separate ACA provisions can fully eliminate the
reward to full-time work. The first, which is scheduled to
be in full force in 2016, pertains to full-time employees
of firms that do not offer health insurance: by cutting
weekly work hours to 29, they save their employer the
annual salary equivalent of more than $3,000, or, they
save their employers the threat of even larger penalties.
Women workers, young workers, and persons already
working 30–35 hour schedules are especially likely to have
their short-term financial reward to full-time work erased
by the ACA. By my estimates, three to four million workers
overall will fall victim to this penalty provision.
2
The second provision pertains to full-time employees
at firms that do offer health insurance. Over 60 million
workers obtain health insurance from their employer, not
including workers who obtain health insurance from a family
member’s employer. About half of them (26 million) are
in families between 100 and 400 percent of the poverty line
and therefore satisfy the income criteria for exchange subsidies.
And 11 million of those are unmarried—so by definition
cannot be covered by a spouse’s plan—and another 8 million
of the married have a spouse that does not work or otherwise
cannot obtain coverage through a spouse.
In other words, almost 20 million workers are ineligible
for exchange subsidies solely because their employer offers
coverage to full-time employees: these are the workers
subject to the ACA’s implicit full-time employment tax
(FTET). A 29-hour work schedule, on the other hand,
would make them eligible for subsidies without creating
any penalty for the employer.
In about four million cases (of the 20 million facing an
implicit FTET of some magnitude), the dollar amount of
subsidy gain can exceed the after-tax income that is earned
for working beyond 29 hours per week. A distinguishing
feature of almost 90 percent of these workers is that
their family incomes are below 250 percent of the federal
poverty line. The four million disproportionately consist
of working unmarried household heads because, as noted,
unmarried heads are especially likely to be ineligible for
exchange subsidies solely because their employer is offering
coverage to full-time employees.
Older (but not elderly) workers are also disproportionately
represented among those facing an implicit FTET
rate of 100+ percent, since older workers are more likely
to have employer-sponsored insurance and are more
expensive to insure. The 100+ percent FTET from the
employer penalty has the opposite age pattern, which
means there may be little age pattern for the propensity
to face one of the 100+ percent FTETs.
The prevalence of 100+ percent FTETs is an important
indicator of its effects on incentives to work, but it is not
the only one. There are other ways to avoid the FTET, such
as working more hours per week for fewer weeks of the
year. If employers are unwilling or unable to adjust work
schedules, the FTET may affect the equilibrium relationship
between hours and earnings (i.e., compensating differences)
rather than changing the distribution of hours. At
the other extreme, employers may be able to substantially
adjust measured work hours without changing the actual
work that is done (e.g., require employees to “punch out”
during break periods, and then adjust their hourly wage so
that weekly earnings are the same), in which case the ACA
will reduce the measured hours for quite a large number of
workers.
In effect, millions of workers are becoming eligible
for fully federally funded paid days off, akin to the sick
leave policies in Western European countries. Because
the Western European data suggest that paid sick days
really do result in fewer days at work (Lusinyan 2007), we
should expect the act’s FTETs to reduce days worked as
well, at least for the segments of the workforce that do
not avoid the ACA’s taxes in other ways.
These effects of the ACA are only part of its impact;
people who believe government should provide health
insurance for everyone may regard these costs—the
disincentive effects discussed here and elsewhere—as
worth paying.
But everyone should recognize that the ACA’s costs
are likely to exceed the budgetary expenditure.

Beyond Obamacare

by John Grantobamacare121
There are 2,700 pages of the Affordable Care Act that can be condensed into one word: Obamacare. To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured uninsured, and then make them pay more to be insured again so the original uninsured can be insured with a policy most can’t afford and with deductibles beyond the financial reach of most.

Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass it to find out what was in it. They passed it. We read it. It stinks. A bill filled with pork, something both parties said they would not do and is an unworkable attempt at national health care.

The only reasonable solution is to repeal it, something that hopefully will be achieved after an election or two. The mislabeled Affordable Care Act, though perhaps well intended, is beyond repair.

So far, even with all its flaws, it has been a failure to attract coverage. The Oval Office brags about 8 million having signed up, but fails to note that far fewer have gone on to purchase coverage. That’s like reserving a seat in the stadium but not showing up for the ballgame.

Conservatives have warned that Obamacare would be expensive, lead to lost hours and pay for workers and generally fail to live up to its promises. Such concerns were dismissed by liberals.

Since 2010, the critics have largely been proven right. Obamacare threatens the middle class with higher premiums, loss of hours and a shift to part-time work and less comprehensive coverage.

One of President Obama’s greatest political challenges has been hiding the fact that Obamacare is largely financed by siphoning huge sums of money out of Medicare, mainly by cutting Medicare Advantage. Talk about smoke and mirrors.

The CBO projects that, over the next decade, about $1 trillion that would otherwise have been spent on Medicare will be rerouted to Obamacare. That represents more than 10 percent of Medicare’s entire projected funding, which helps explain why Medicare’s Office of the Actuary has projected that by 2020 Medicare will reimburse doctors and other health care providers at lower rates than Medicaid.

Imagine if Obama had pitched Obamacare by saying, “Folks, we’re going to pass health reform, and to pay for it we’re going to divert more than 10 percent of the money that’s projected to be spent on Medicare.”

That pitch would have made Jimmy Carter’s “malaise” speech look like a triumph of political rhetoric. But, as the CBO notes, that’s exactly what Obamacare will do.

All of this points to the need to repeal this monstrosity. And it points to the need to advance a well-conceived conservative alternative to pave the way to full repeal.

But if we are able to repeal it, we should not stop there, because the status quo is a status no.

Health care is much different than in the days when general practitioners made house calls. People today are living longer — 10 years longer than life expectancy in the 1950s — and this is largely a result of modern medicine.

Today’s medical care is a cross between highly educated specialists and sophisticated equipment that costs millions and has an obsolescence shorter than a mobile home. Today’s medical personnel are a cross between engineers and nuclear physicists. Hospitals treat with equipment costing in the millions.

Today’s medical treatment is effective, but far from cheap. Who is going to pay the bill? Stop and think about it. Very few of us would not be medically indigent if we did not have some third party pick up the bill.

I believe in the free enterprise system. If one studies longer, works harder, takes more risk, invests more money and the like, then he or she should live in a better house, drive a better car and live a better lifestyle. That is the American way.

However, I believe in the compassion of Americans for one another. And I believe that no American should be denied adequate health care based on their economic station in life.

When I served as Jeb Bush’s first Statewide Public Guardian, I saw firsthand what happens to people who don’t have access to care. It is inhumane. It is an embarrassment, and it is happening.

President Obama’s Affordable Care Act is anything but. It is neither affordable nor does it provide care. But to repeal it and do nothing would be equally reprehensible.

Twenty percent of all Floridians lack access to affordable health care. That is simply unacceptable. Once again, the Florida Legislature has adjourned and ignored the problem.

Socialized medicine is not the answer, but a free-enterprise, driven-managed competition plan is.

Republicans have proposed several plans to replace Obamacare for the past several years, but none can seem to get traction in Washington.

The latest has come not from Washington, but from a state governor, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana.

Jindal is calling his replacement plan “The Freedom and Empowerment Plan: the Prescription for Conservative Consumer-Focused Health Reform.”

It would lower the cost to consumers, something that Obamacare failed to do for most Americans.

If other Republicans pick up on Jindal’s Obamacare replacement plan or similar ones, it just might help some of them win this year’s mid-term elections and win the Senate from the Democrats. That’s my opinion, and I am sticking to it.

John Grant is a political columnist who served 21 years in the Florida Legislature and now practices estate planning law in Tampa. He can be reached at MyOpinion@johngrant.net.

Obamacare Real Enrollment: Just 1.7% of Uninsured Covered

empty-hospital-bed-220x120

Another Obamacare Tax That Insurers Are Forced To Pass Along To You

by Ben Bullardobamacare-tax-300x215
An Obamacare tax that will dump money into the general treasury was finalized last week with little fanfare, locking in a Federal revenue stream that, at least in theory, was set in place to cover the gap in “United States health risks” that Obamacare’s regressive, market-defying structure creates.
The Health Insurance Tax was published Nov. 27, mandating a tax on insurance companies that analysts expect will lead to an additional three percent increase in the cost of already-inflated premiums for Obamacare buyers. The goal for 2014 is to hit a Federal revenue target of $8 billion ($14.3 billion by 2018), even though there’s not a set rate at which insurers themselves can anticipate being taxed.
How does that work?
“It’s an odd sort of tax,” Heritage Foundation Fellow David R. Burton told the Washington Free Beacon. “It’s not at a specific rate, but it raises a specific amount of revenue from insurers who underwrite health insurance outside of the exchanges. You basically have a set amount of money and then it’s allocated among the insurers based on the amount of health insurance premiums they actually wrote.”
In other words, the government is gonna get its money without providing insurers a strategic roadmap that affords them any knowledge of how much each company will be forced to contribute. Worse, the government’s dollar goal is fixed, even though Obamacare’s terrible enrollment rate indicates insurers may not even profit from the few policies they’re able to sell.
Those Americans who do buy an Obamacare plan won’t see the tax itemized on their statements. But they’ll be paying it. The New York Business Council has estimated the Health Insurance Tax will cost participating residents an average of $270 in increased premiums for 2014 – the “cheapest” tax year.
The Health Insurance Tax is just one of many Obamacare taxes. Here’s a long list of others, compiled by The Heritage Foundation.

HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN