Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greatplains_guy who wrote (62300)	2/11/2013 10:32:55 PM
From: greatplains_guy	1 Recommendation Respond to of 71588

Wheels coming off ObamaCare Policies will cost more, cover far fewer than promised By BETSY MCCAUGHEY Last Updated: 11:48 PM, February 10, 2013 The central parts of ObamaCare don’t roll out until 2014, but the wheels are already falling off this clunker. The latest news from four federal agencies is that 1) insurance will be a lot less affordable than Americans were led to expect, 2) fewer people than promised will get insurance and 3) millions of people who have coverage through a job now will lose it, thanks to the president’s “reforms.” Oh, and children are the biggest victims. The Affordable Care Act is looking less and less affordable. Start with the IRS’s new estimate for what the cheapest family plan will cost by 2016: $20,000 a year to cover two adults and three kids. And that will only cover 60 percent of medical bills, so add hefty out-of-pocket costs, too. The next surprise is for parents who thought their kids would be covered by an employer. Sloppy wording in the law left that unclear until last week, when the IRS ruled that kids won’t be covered. Starting in 2014, the law will require employers with 50 or more full-time employees to offer coverage or pay a penalty. “Affordable” coverage, that is — meaning the employee can’t be told to contribute more than 9.5 percent of his salary. For example, a worker earning $40,000 a year cannot be required to pay more than $3.800. But the law doesn’t specifically mandate family coverage — and now the administration says that won’t be required. You can see why: If the lowest-cost family plan (again, two adults and three kids) is to run a whopping $20,000, and if the employee’s contribution is limited to $3,800, the employer’s tab would be $16,200 — adding about $7.40 an hour to the cost of that employee. Wisely, the IRS announced on Jan. 30 that employers won’t have to pay for dependents. But the Congressional Budget Office’s much-cited prediction that ObamaCare would leave only 30 million people uninsured by 2016 was based on the assumption that kids would be covered by employers. At the very least, employers insuring their workers for the first time to avoid the penalty are unlikely to do that. So how will the kids be covered? They won’t. The IRS shocked the law’s advocates by announcing that the insurance exchanges won’t provide subsidies for a child whose parent is covered at work. Nor will these parents be penalized for not insuring their children — the IRS will kindly consider the kids exempt from the mandate. Also exempt are millions of people who’ll stay uninsured because their state is wisely choosing not to loosen Medicaid eligibility. Some background: Despite President Obama’s promises to help solve the problem of the uninsured by making private health plans more affordable, the law expands coverage mainly by forcing states to loosen their Medicaid eligibility rules. But the Supreme Court ruled that the feds can’t command states in this way. At first, the CBO said that ruling would only prevent 4 million people from gaining coverage — but more states than it expected are refusing to go along; it could well be 8 million more without coverage. Oh, and the CBO last week also doubled its previous estimate on how many people will lose the health coverage they now get through work, upping the figure to 8 million by 2016 and 12 million by 2019. Several top consulting firms put the figures even higher. Yet the biggest setback is that most states are refusing to set up insurance exchanges. The exchanges are supposed to sell the government-mandated plans and hand out taxpayer-funded subsidies to most enrollees. Here’s the glitch. The law says that in states that refuse, the federal government can set up an exchange. But the law empowers only state exchanges, not federal ones, to hand out subsidies. The Obama administration says it will disregard the law and offer subsidies in all 50 states anyway, but the case will likely go to the Supreme Court. If the courts uphold the clear language of the law, then some 8 million people in the affected states won’t be eligible for subsidies to cover that $20,000 (or more) insurance bill. That’s another 8 million without coverage. All in all, at least 40 million people could be uninsured in 2016, only 9 million fewer than before the law was passed. Expect the momentum for repealing this law to grow as its flaws, perverse incentives and faulty predictions come to light. Betsy McCaughey is the author of “Beating ObamaCare.” nypost.com

To: greatplains_guy who wrote (62300)	2/13/2013 10:12:36 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	1 Recommendation Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 71588

State of the Union: More Talk, Little Action By RANDALL W. FORSYTH \| MORE ARTICLES BY AUTHOR Obama's proposals are likely DOA in GOP House. Meanwhile, sequestration looms. Anyone who expected the State of Union address would produce comprehensive and workable solutions to the nation's economic problems has to be sorely disappointed. Yet again, the number of portfolio managers, traders and individual investors who seriously clung to such hopes probably would be outnumbered by Mets fans who are certain of a World Series sweep next October. President Obama spent the first half of his speech Tuesday detailing a laundry list of government initiatives. But, as Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at the Potomac Research Group, perceptively points out, none of them have a chance to get through the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. That's even though the president claimed they wouldn't add even a dime to the federal deficit. And that he professed a desire not for bigger government, but "smarter" government. His proposals for infrastructure initiatives, tax reform and education spending nevertheless are likely DOA in the GOP House. Of more immediate concern are the "sequestration" spending reductions slated to take effect in less than three weeks, on March 1. That meat-ax cut of $85 billion would be a "bad idea," Obama said. And the alternative scheme to spare defense spending from the cuts and take it all out of non-defense outlays would be even worse, the president added. But the federal government is hurtling toward sequestration just weeks after it avoided the endlessly discussed "fiscal cliff" on Jan. 1, when steep tax hikes and spending cuts were staved off after they were slated to take effect. And while Obama asserted the American public is tired of "manufactured crises" in Washington, Valliere observed no talks are even scheduled between Democrats and Republicans to reach a fiscal solution that would avoid sequestration. No change there. Meanwhile, the guests who get to sit with the First Lady have become supporting players in the president's presentation. For financial markets, none in recent years has come close in significance to former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, whose was conspicuous sitting with Hillary Clinton for former President Clinton's first address to Congress after taking office in 1993. Many market participants took Greenspan's presence as a sign of the central bank's support for the new administration's fiscal policies. This time, Apple (ticker: AAPL) chief executive Tim Cook was featured for the company's plan to bring back some Mac computer production to the U.S. What was more on the market's mind was what could be done with Apple's $137 billion hoard of cash and liquid securities, much of which remains offshore because of U.S. tax laws. While tax reform was a big part of the president's agenda, it was focused more on getting rid of "special-interest tax breaks" that allows billionaires pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries, as Berkshire Hathaway ( BRKA, BRKB ) CEO Warren Buffett has complained endlessly. So Apple's cash, the focus of investors' attention exemplified by hedge-fund manager David Einhorn's legal battle with the company, will likely remain offshore -- even as Mac production moves onshore. Economic and foreign-policy matters dominated most of the speech. Only in the final seven or so minutes did the State of the Union rise above those dry topics, says Valliere, when Obama turned his attention to gun control. The heart-rending recitation of the instance of gun violence gave the address an emotional charge lacking until then. Not that it will make a difference in terms of policy. As for the Republican response delivered by Marco Rubio, Valliere thought it showed the Florida Senator "wasn't ready for prime time." Indeed, most of the commentary focused on his quick gulp of water during his delivery that took him out of the camera shot. More importantly, nobody got an inkling of what the GOP was going to do stave off the clear-and-present danger of the sequestration cuts. President Obama did take note the stock market had climbed back to near its record peaks. That the recovery in asset values has been largely the result of massive money printing by the Fed -- which has allowed the federal government to borrow 40 cents of every dollar it spends at record-low interest rates -- wasn't mentioned. Nothing new there.