Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Obama Tax Mandate Provision Delayed


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,000 posts

Posted 03 July 2013 - 12:51 PM

http://swampland.tim.../#ixzz2XwpLkqkM

 

 

The Obama Administration announced on Tuesday that it is delaying implementing a key component of the Affordable Care Act for a year following complaints from the private sector about reporting requirements.

The so-called employer mandate, which penalizes employers with more than 50 employees if they fail to provide a minimum standard of affordable health insurance, was set to kick in in 2014, but now will take effect in 2015, the Treasury Department announced in a blog post first reported by Bloomberg News. The delay not only allows the Administration time to alleviate concerns among business owners, but also takes a controversial component of the law off the table before the midterm elections.

The vast majority of employers that already provide coverage to their employees raised concerns about burdensome reporting requirements under the law, a complaint the Administration is particularly sensitive to. Companies that don’t meet the law’s requirements now have an extra year to alter their policies.


“We have been in a dialogue with businesses and we think we can simplify the new reporting — we want to give businesses who want to provide health insurance the time to get this right,” a senior Administration official said, explaining the delay. “Just like our effort to turn the 21-page application for health insurance into a three-page application, we are working hard to adapt and to be flexible in employer and insurer reporting as we implement the law.”

The delay deprives the federal government of a year of penalties that would have been paid by companies that do not meet the law’s requirements, with as yet unknown budgetary effects. Republicans had warned of a downturn in hiring as a result of the mandate.

 

The so-called individual mandate is unaffected by the rule change. That provision requires the vast majority of Americans to purchase insurance or pay a penalty, with tax credits provided to those who can’t afford coverage.

Republican former Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Holtz-Eakin called the move “deviously brilliant,” by removing a potential electoral impediment from in front of congressional Democrats before the midterms.

“Democrats no longer face the immediate specter of running against the fallout from a heavy regulatory imposition on employers across the land,” Holtz-Eakin wrote. “Explaining away the mandate was going to be a big political lift; having the White House airbrush it from the landscape is way better.”

The Administration will publish formal guidance on the rule change within the next week.


 

 

So, they delayed the inevitable in order to stay out of the crosshairs come the midterm elections. It's totally decided. Democrats are as rotten and power hungry as republicans. This administration actually managed to make the Bush administration look good. I say that after spending 8 years blasting Bush admin. for almost every move it made. Thinking it couldnt get worse with Obama, I was proven wrong.

 

Hope for Change and all that. :rolleyes:
 

 



#2 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,000 posts

Posted 03 July 2013 - 03:08 PM

http://yubanet.com/c...hp#.UdQ7hvmbOAY

 

Second major health insurer pulls out of California market
SACRAMENTO, July 2, 2013 - Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones today expressed concern about the negative impact on consumers as a second health insurer - United Healthcare -- announced its exit from California's individual market.

"United Healthcare's decision to exit the California individual health insurance market is bad news for consumers," said Commissioner Jones. "While both United Healthcare and Aetna have a very small share of California's individual health insurance market, their departure means less choice, less competition, and more market consolidation by the remaining big three health insurers - Anthem Blue Cross, Blue Shield of California, and Kaiser - which means an increased likelihood of even higher prices from those health insurers downstream."

"One of the factors I believe contributed to this decision, even if the two companies are disinclined to acknowledge it, is the special tax break that California law gives to Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, which has allowed and continues to allow those two companies to avoid paying $100 million in state taxes a year," added Commissioner Jones. "Aetna and United Healthcare don't get the special tax break provided to Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and so they faced a major competitive disadvantage in California."
 



#3 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,797 posts

Posted 03 July 2013 - 03:09 PM


So, they inevitably delayed it in order to stay out of the crosshairs come the midterm elections. 

 

FTFY  :wink:



#4 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,000 posts

Posted 03 July 2013 - 03:12 PM



#5 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,000 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 12:54 PM

http://reason.com/bl...s-coming-undone

 

 

Obamacare Is Coming Undone

Peter Suderman|

 

Jul. 8, 2013 12:39 pm

sebelius-pen428.jpg?h=229&w=305WhiteHouse.gov Obamacare is coming undone. You can see it happening day by day, provision by provision, as the administration postpones or scales back key parts of the law, and other signs continue to suggest that the law as written simply won’t work.

Last Tuesday, in what was apparently intended to be a pre-July 4 holiday news dump, the administration made the embarrassing announcement that it would delay by a year the health law’s requirement that employers with 50 or more workers offer health coverage or pay a penalty. The administration also said it would delay the law’s reporting requirements for employers who offer health coverage.

That raised a major operational question about the law’s health insurance exchanges. How would those exchanges be able to determine whether someone applying for subsidies to buy individual coverage on an exchange already had access to employer coverage? The law says that people whose employers provide coverage aren’t allowed to get subsidies.

Late on Friday, we get another news dump—and an answer. The 16 exchanges run by states won’t have to verify an individual’s health insurance status at all. Nor will the state-run exchanges have to verify an individual’s income level.

Instead, they’ll rely on “self-reported” information. And then subsidies will be available to anyone who simply attests that they do not get qualifying, affordable health insurance from work, and that their household income is low enough to be eligible for subsidies.

As Ben Domenech writes in this morning’s Transom, what this means is that “the most significant entitlement increase since the Great Society will be operating on the honor system.” And as Yuval Levin says, it may turn out to be “an open invitation to fraud.” Even if outright fraud does not become a major issue, the combination of the delays may increase the cost of the law relative to what it would have been: No employer penalty, and no health status or income verification, means that more people will end up on the exchanges, receiving subsidies. And more subsidies means a more expensive law. The deficit reduction it was supposed to have achieved, already significantly reduced, is almost certainly reduced further—and perhaps gone entirely.

The delays also constitute an admission that the administration simply could not make the law’s verification technology—the infrastructure that is arguably the core functionality for the exchanges—work properly before the October 2013 launch of the exchanges. Doing so, according to the rule issued by the Department of Health and Human Services last Friday, “would involve a large amount of systems development on both the state and federal side, which cannot occur in time for October 1, 2013.”

The postponements were unexpected—even, apparently, to the officials running the exchanges at the state level. But trouble with the verification technology should not have come as a surprise. Obamacare's critics have warned about the potential difficulties practically since the law was passed. In my October 2010 feature on implementating the law, for example, I noted that “fast, accurate income verification presents a particularly serious difficulty,” and spoke to several health policy experts who warned of difficulties ahead. Nor were critics the only ones seeing trouble. It’s been clear from the reporting for over a year now that officials in charge of implementing the law were having serious problems making the exchange technology work. By the time that the official in charge of the exchange technology told insurers that he was “pretty nervous” and had resorted to working to “make sure it’s not a third-world experience,” it was pretty clear that the project was a mess.

The delays aren’t only recent sign that Obamacare is struggling.

 

Just a few days before the employer mandate was postponed, Bloomberg News reported that a third of the hospitals involved in a high-level test of the law’s most vaunted health care savings programs—its Accountable Care Organization (ACO) program—are threatening to cease participation. The 16 hospitals were part of the ACO “pioneer” program, which was intended to show off how some of the law’s most ambitious health care payment reforms would work. Right now, however, it looks suspiciously like they aren’t.

The same goes for a lot of Obamacare. Earlier this year, officials in charge of the law delayed the essential functionality of the law’s small business exchanges. The law’s early retirement program ran out of money and shut down early. The law’s high-risk pool program signed up far fewer people than anyone predicted—and yet, thanks to unexpectedly high per-beneficiary costs—still had to cut payments to providers and cease enrollment in order to stay afloat. The availability of national health plans that were supposed to be part of the exchanges is in doubt, probably because of insurer reticence. Large swaths of rural, low-income Mississipi may end up with no insurers at all to choose from in the exchange. Officials in states that are building their own exchanges continue to say they are struggling to meet deadlines. The list goes on. 

None of this means that Obamacare will collapse under its own weight. The most likely scenario at this point (though not the only one) is that the exchanges will still open on time, enrolling all who claim eligibility in subsidies. But the law’s rocky implementation continues to reveal the significant flaws in both the law’s legislative design and management. There’s still much that’s unclear about the inner workings of the exchange-creation process, but the fact that the administration is jettisoning key provisions this late in the implementation calendar suggests that it is not going well, and it is reasonable to suspect that the bad news for the law will continue. The big question, then, is which piece of the law will come undone next? 



#6 jnjn

jnjn
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,103 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 01:54 PM

And as Yuval Levin says, it may turn out to be “an open invitation to fraud.”

 

 

may???  may??? yea, i'd bet to say definitely



#7 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,000 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 02:00 PM

You mean central planning creates a moral hazard that is ripe for fraud? What i dont understand, is how the executive gets to just decide which provisions of its signature law get implemented and when.

 

Has Congress given Treasury the authority to waive the reporting requirement? Again, the answer is no.

The PPACA added two sections to the Internal Revenue Code (sections 6055 & 6056) that require employers to report certain information on their health benefits and the workers who enroll in that coverage, in order to help the IRS determine whether those workers are eligible for tax credits and whether the employer is subject to penalties. Again, the statute is clear: those reporting requirements take effect in “calendar years beginning after 2013” and “periods beginning after December 31, 2013.” The statute contains no language authorizing Treasury to waive those requirements.

Bagley argues the statute does contain language that might enable Treasury to delay the imposition of these reporting requirements. Sections 6055 & 6056 state that employers must furnish this information “at such time as the Secretary may prescribe.” He writes, “Delaying the reporting requirements until 2015 is arguably just a specification of the ‘time’ at which the reports must be submitted.”

This theory reflects a misunderstanding of what an effective date is. When Congress imposes an obligation on some party, that obligation becomes effective on the effective date. The secretary’s discretion to prescribe the time at which the affected party must discharge that obligation neither affects the existence of the obligation, nor empowers the secretary to repeal it.

One might argue that Treasury has the authority to say employers need not report the required information regarding their 2014 health benefits offerings until, say, the next year, when they report the same information for their 2015 offerings. Yet that is not what Treasury is doing. Treasury claims it can altogether eliminate the obligation to report the 2014 information: “The Administration…will provide an additional year before the ACA mandatory employer and insurer reporting requirements begin.”

Moreover, if the language Bagley cites were interpreted to permit Treasury to waive the mandate and reporting requirements for 2014, is there any reason why that interpretation would not empower Treasury waive those provisions indefinitely? Could the secretary determine employers need discharge these obligations every 1,000 years? If not, why not?


Yes, Delaying Obamacare?s Employer Mandate Is Illegal | Cato @ Liberty



as to the reporting requirements justifying the subsidy, this is to put it lightly, problematic-



HHS now says it will no longer attempt to verify individual eligibility for insurance subsidies and instead will rely on self-reporting, with minimal efforts to verify if the information consumers provide is accurate. …People are supposed to receive subsidies only if their employer does not provide federally approved health benefits. Since HHS now won’t require business to report those benefits or enforce the standards until 2015, it says it can’t ask ObamaCare’s “exchange” bureaucracies to certify who qualifies either. …In other words, anyone can receive subsidies tied to income without judging the income they declare against the income data the Internal Revenue Service collects.

 



#8 Obama Lover

Obama Lover
  • VibeTribe
  • 26 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 03:03 PM

Obama care will prevail, as Obama always does.



#9 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,000 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 03:08 PM

kneepads2.jpg

 

 

:lol:



#10 Obama Lover

Obama Lover
  • VibeTribe
  • 26 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 03:16 PM

Those are some gross legs made better by my president's likeness.



#11 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,372 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 09 July 2013 - 03:50 PM

kneepads2.jpg

 

 

:lol:

 

:lol:

 

Are above the knee and below the knee even the same person?



#12 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 24,331 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 03:44 PM

BY SALLY P. SCHREIBER, J.D.
JULY 10, 2013
 
 

On Tuesday, the IRS made official the postponement of the large-employer health care penalty and certain information reporting rules that had been informally announced July 2 on a Treasury Department blog. Notice 2013-45 postpones the information reporting rules under Secs. 6055 and 6056 and the Sec. 4980H shared responsibility penalty to 2015, to give employers, insurers, and other providers more time to adapt their health coverage and reporting systems. (The original effective date for all three Code sections was 2014.) 

 

As the notice explains, the postponement of the Sec. 6056 information reporting rules makes the 2014 relief from the shared responsibility payments necessary. The transition relief from information reporting under Sec. 6056 is expected to make it impractical to determine which employers owe shared responsibility payments for 2014 under the employer shared responsibility provisions. Accordingly, the IRS will not assess any shared employer shared responsibility payments for 2014.

 

The notice reiterated that the postponement will have no effect on the availability of the premium tax credit under Sec. 36B, which assists certain low- and moderate-income individuals who enroll in a qualified health plan through a health insurance exchange (and who are not eligible for employer coverage that is affordable and provides minimum value) in paying their premiums. It also does not affect the individual mandate under Sec. 5000A, which imposes a penalty on individuals who do not have minimum essential coverage and will apply, as scheduled, beginning in 2014.

 

Treasury expects to publish proposed regulations implementing the Sec. 6055 information-reporting requirements for insurers, self-insuring employers, and other parties that provide health coverage, and the Sec. 6056 information-reporting requirements for employers that provide health coverage to their full-time employees this summer. The proposed rules will reflect the transition relief for the information reporting rules for 2014.

 

Although the effective date for these provisions will be 2015, the government will encourage voluntary compliance in 2014 to prepare for full application of the rules in 2015 and allow “[r]eal world testing of reporting systems and plan designs.” In the meantime, the IRS wants to have additional time to discuss the reporting requirements with stakeholders to enable it to simplify the requirements while ensuring that the law is being implemented effectively.

 

Sally P. Schreiber (sschreiber@aicpa.org) is a JofA senior editor.

 

http://www.journalof...ws/20138306.htm



#13 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,000 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 03:47 PM

the government will encourage voluntary compliance

 

:lmao:



#14 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,000 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 03:19 PM

http://www.forbes.co...mare-scenarios/

 

Labor Unions: Obamacare Will 'Shatter' Our Health Benefits, Cause 'Nightmare Scenarios'

 

Labor unions are among the key institutions responsible for the passage of Obamacare. They spent tons of money electing Democrats to Congress in 2006 and 2008, and fought hard to push the health law through the legislature in 2009 and 2010. But now, unions are waking up to the fact that Obamacare is heavily disruptive to the health benefits of their members.

Last Thursday, representatives of three of the nation’s largest unions fired off a letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, warning that Obamacare would “shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.”

 

 

The letter was penned by James P. Hoffa, general president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters; Joseph Hansen, international president of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union; and Donald “D.” Taylor, president of UNITE-HERE, a union representing hotel, airport, food service, gaming, and textile workers.

“When you and the President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act,” they begin, “you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is under threat…We have been strong supporters of the notion that all Americans should have access to quality, affordable health care. We have also been strong supporters of you. In campaign after campaign we have put boots on the ground, gone door-to-door to get out the vote, run phone banks and raised money to secure this vision. Now this vision has come back to haunt us.”

‘Unintended consequences’ causing ‘nightmare scenarios’

The union leaders are concerned that Obamacare’s employer mandate incentivizes smaller companies to shift their workers to part-time status, because employers are not required to provide health coverage to part-time workers. “We have a problem,” they write, and “you need to fix it.”

“The unintended consequences of the ACA are severe,” they continue. “Perverse incentives are causing nightmare scenarios. First, the law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees’ work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers have begun to cut workers’ hours to avoid this obligation, and many of them are doing so openly. The impact is two-fold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits.”

What surprises me about this is that union leaders are pretty strategic when it comes to employee benefits. It was obvious in 2009 that Obamacare’s employer mandate would incentivize this shift. Why didn’t labor unions fight it back then?

Regulations will ‘destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members’

The labor bosses are also unhappy, because of the way Obamacare affects multi-employer health plans. Multi-employer plans, also called Taft-Hartley plans, are health insurance benefits typically arranged between a labor union in a particular industry, such as restaurants, and small employers in that industry. About 20 million workers are covered by these plans; 800,000 of Joseph Hansen’s 1.3 million UFCW members are covered this way.

Taft-Hartley plans, they write, “have been built over decades by working men and women,” but unlike plans offered on the ACA exchanges, unionized workers will not be eligible for subsidies, because workers with employer-sponsored coverage don’t qualify.

Obamacare’s regulatory changes to the small-group insurance market will drive up the cost of these plans. For example, the rules requiring plans to cover adult children up to the age of 26, the elimination of limits on annual or lifetime coverage, and the mandates that plans cover a wide range of benefits will drive premiums upward.

But the key problem is that the Taft-Hartley plans already provide generous and costly coverage; small employers now have a more financially attractive alternative, which is to drop coverage and put people on the exchanges, once the existing collective bargaining agreements are up. That gives workers less reason to join a union; a big part of why working people pay union dues is because unions play a big role in negotiating health benefits.

So the labor leaders are demanding that their workers with employer-sponsored coverage also gain eligibility for ACA subsidies. Otherwise, their workers will be “relegated to second-class status” despite being “taxed to pay for those subsidies,” a result that will “make non-profit plans like ours unsustainable” and “destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans.”

‘The law as it stands will hurt millions of Americans’

The leaders conclude by stating that, “on behalf of the millions of working men and women we represent and the families they support, we can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans.”

President Obama, of course, pledged that “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan.” But the labor leaders say that, “unless changes are made…that promise is hollow. We continue to stand behind real health care reform, but the law as it stands will hurt millions of Americans including the members of our respective unions. We are looking to you to make sure these changes are made.”

 

 

 

 

2463812-2304795-good_good_let_the_butthu



#15 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,372 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 31 July 2013 - 06:32 PM

I know, finally sucked back in.

 

Obamacare scores breakthrough on exchanges

 

http://finance.yahoo...A3BtaA--;_ylv=3



#16 grateful_1

grateful_1
  • VibeTribe
  • 158 posts
  • LocationCT

Posted 31 July 2013 - 08:02 PM

"And, he said, it will also broaden the pool of people in the plans, providing premium payments from younger, healthier people to balance the older and sick people who tend to generate benefit costs."

 

Yup...pools.

 

LOL