SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Brumar89 who wrote (39143)1/13/2015 1:30:24 PM
From: FJB2 Recommendations

Recommended By
Brumar89
greatplains_guy

  Respond to of 42652
 

British expats flee USA healthcare system...
Fly home for treatment...
High costs, bureaucracy 'pain in arse'...

CONFUSION: Eligible Americans TURN DOWN Tax Credits...



To: Brumar89 who wrote (39143)1/14/2015 6:50:33 PM
From: FJB1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Brumar89

  Respond to of 42652
 
Shunning ObamaCare

Of my company’s 5,453 eligible employees, only 420 actually enrolled. The other 5,033 opted to pay a penalty


By Andy Puzder
Jan. 13, 2015 6:44 p.m. ET

Among the Affordable Care Act’s many economic and political disruptions, the law has unintentionally encouraged employers to convert full-time jobs into part-time jobs. ObamaCare mandates that employers offer health insurance to employees who work more than 30 hours a week, or pay a penalty up to $3,000 an employee. But employers have no such obligation for employees who work less than 30 hours a week, making part-time employment less costly.


It’s a simple fact: Make something more expensive and people will use less of it; make something less expensive and they will use more of it. So naturally employee hours have been reduced, particularly in the retail segment, which has lowered wages and reduced consumer spending.

On Thursday the House addressed this issue by passing by 252-172 the Save American Workers Act, a bipartisan bill that would restore the definition of “full-time employee” to the 40-hour workweek threshold. Now it will head to the Senate, where Republicans will need six Democratic votes to send the legislation to the White House, which has already threatened to veto it. This isn’t Republicans’ first try; in April 2014, the House passed a near-identical measure that, like so many other bills, died in Democrat Harry Reid ’s Senate.

The White House is concerned that this legislation would substantially reduce the number of Americans with employer-based health insurance and encourage employers to reduce the hours of employees currently working 40 hours a week. As it turns out, such concerns are unfounded.

After two constitutionally dubious delays, ObamaCare’s employer mandate took effect on Jan. 1 for employers with 100 or more full-time employees. The last open-enrollment date for our company, CKE Restaurant Holdings, Inc., was Dec. 4, 2014. As of that date, our company had approximately 20,000 employees, 6,900 of whom worked 30 or more hours a week and were eligible for ObamaCare-compliant health insurance. We elected to offer them coverage rather than pay the employer penalty, which would have sent workers to ObamaCare’s health-insurance exchanges, where those who qualified could receive federal subsidies to help pay for insurance.

Of the 6,900 eligible employees, 1,447 already had ObamaCare-compliant insurance through our pre-existing company plans. That left 5,453 employees eligible to sign up. A grand total of 420 actually enrolled. That’s a mere 2% of total employees, or 6% of eligible employees.


ObamaCare will penalize the 5,033 eligible employees who elected not to enroll, unless they have compliant health insurance from another source. For 2015, the penalty is the higher of $325 or 2% of annual household income above about $10,000. The 5,033 employees who declined insurance make $24,663 a year on average. As a result, the employees without insurance generally will pay the $325 penalty, as it takes $26,250 before the 2% penalty is higher.

The employee portion of the annual premium for our least-expensive “bronze plan” is $1,104. If you don’t believe you need health insurance, $325 beats $1,104. But employees compelled to pay the penalty still won’t have compliant insurance. For those who want insurance, then, we offer all our employees—full and part time—access to inexpensive group health-care coverage that is not ObamaCare compliant.

Concerns that companies would shift 40-hour employees to 39-hours or less are also unfounded. First, the Bureau of Labor Statistics defines “full-time workers” as “[p]ersons who work 35 hours or more per week.” So contrary to White House claims, many full-time employees work less than 40 hours a week. In fact, in December Americans workers averaged 34.3 hours a week, according to BLS.

As noted above, 78% of our employees who enrolled in ObamaCare-compliant coverage already had such coverage through our company plans. We offered insurance to compete with other employers and because of the tax-exclusion for employer-sponsored insurance. The company didn’t need an hourly requirement or any other government compulsion. If the hourly requirement were changed to 40 hours, our company would continue offering these individuals employer-sponsored coverage.

Of the 420 employees who enrolled in ObamaCare-compliant coverage, 197—less than 1% of our workforce—work 40 hours or more a week. Reducing their hours would cause problems. If we did, some employees would work for our competitors instead. Other employees such as cooks and shift leaders work more than 40 hours a week because they offer expertise we need to run restaurants.

So what does ObamaCare’s 30-hour rule accomplish? Some would argue that it does a lot, pointing to the previously uninsured who now have employer-sponsored health insurance. In our company, that would be 2% of total employees and 6% of eligible employees.

For results like that, ObamaCare has caused millions of full-time jobs to become part-time, imposed a tax on lower-income workers who cannot afford it, forced millions of people out of insurance they liked, restricted access to doctors for millions of others, and created an enormous bureaucracy that discourages our doctors and nurses while suppressing health-care system innovation.

People don’t seem to think the trade-off is worth it, as our company’s pathetically low enrollment rate shows. That doesn’t mean Americans want to return to the pre-ObamaCare health-insurance market. The ultimate solution is market-based health-care legislation that is comprehensible, read and debated by the people voting on it, and, most important, actually provides affordable coverage to those who want it.

Meanwhile, returning the definition of full-time work to 40 hours a week would be a good place to start, addressing a serious problem for workers and businesses.

Mr. Puzder is the chief executive officer of CKE Restaurants.



To: Brumar89 who wrote (39143)1/14/2015 11:36:47 PM
From: FJB1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Brumar89

  Respond to of 42652
 
IRS OBAMACARE CHAOS: DON'T CALL US

WASHINGTON (AP) — Filing a federal tax return is about to get more complicated for millions of families because of President Barack Obama's health law. But they shouldn't expect much help from the Internal Revenue Service.


Got a question for the IRS? Good luck reaching someone by phone. The tax agency says only half of the 100 million people expected to call this year will be able to reach a person.

Callers who do get through may have to wait on hold for 30 minutes or more to talk to someone who will answer only the simplest questions.

"Taxpayers who need help are not getting it, and tax compliance is likely to suffer over the longer term if these problems are not quickly and decisively addressed," said a report Wednesday by agency watchdog Nina E. Olson.

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen says budget cuts are forcing the agency to reduce taxpayer services and other functions. The number of audits will decline, technology upgrades will be delayed and the agency might be forced to shut down and furlough workers for two days later this year, Koskinen said.

The IRS will no longer help low-income taxpayers fill out their returns, and tax refunds could be delayed for people who file paper returns.

"It couldn't be worse timing," Koskinen said of the budget cuts.

Congress cut the IRS by $346 million for the budget year that ends Sept. 30. Koskinen says the agency's $10.9 billion budget is its lowest since 2008. When adjusted for inflation, the budget hasn't been this low since 1998, he said.

Republicans in Congress adamantly oppose Obama's health law, so some have been working to starve the IRS of funds just as its role in implementing the law ramps up.

It won't work, Koskinen said in an interview. The agency, he said, is required by law to help implement the health program. "The only places we have discretion are in information technology, tax enforcement, customer service."

The spending cuts could actually cost the government money, Koskinen said. Having fewer enforcement agents will cost at least $2 billion in lost tax revenue this year, he estimated.

Service problems at the IRS will also make it harder for well-intentioned taxpayers to comply with the law, said Olson, who is the National Taxpayer Advocate, an independent office within the IRS.

"Without adequate support, many taxpayers will be frustrated, some will make potentially costly mistakes, others will incur higher compliance costs when forced to seek information and assistance from tax professionals," she said.

"Still others," Olson said, "will simply give up and not file."

Olson released her annual report to Congress Wednesday, less than a week before the start of tax filing season on Tuesday. In it she raises concerns about the IRS' ability to help implement the health law.
View gallery


FILE - In this July 23, 2014 file photo, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen testifies on Capitol Hill in …

She said the agency was unable to adequately test the accuracy of some information received from health insurance exchanges. Also, delays affected the training of IRS employees.

Olson noted that some of the issues involve other agencies. But, she added, "The IRS will certainly bear much of the public blame because many of the problems will arise in the context of return filing."

Koskinen said the IRS has increased efforts to educate tax preparers and the public about the tax implications of the health law, devoting a section of the agency's website to answering questions. Koskinen's advice to taxpayers with questions: Don't call the IRS unless you absolutely have to.

For the first time, tax filers will have to report information about their health insurance during the previous year. For most people who get health coverage through work or through government programs like Medicaid, it will mean simply checking a box.


Others who got insurance through state and federal marketplaces will have to file a new form, while people who received subsidies will have to provide more detailed information.

People who didn't have health insurance last year face fines unless they qualify for a waiver, which requires more paperwork.

The subsidies were based on projected incomes, so families will need to report if actual incomes were higher or lower. If higher, they might have to pay back some of the subsidy, either through a smaller tax refund or a payment.

If their incomes were lower, they might qualify for a larger tax refund.

Taxpayers who get subsidies are supposed to notify the health exchanges during the year if their incomes change or if they have some other life event that changes their eligibility, said Kathy Pickering, executive director of the Tax Institute at H&R Block.

"If somebody got married or divorced, had a baby, got a job, lost a job, anything that changes their income, those consumers needed to go back to the marketplace and update their information," Pickering said. "Most people didn't know to do that or didn't think to do it."

Koskinen said he is "reasonably confident — very confident" the IRS has successfully upgraded its computer systems to handle additional taxpayer information required by the health law, even though Congress refused to pay for it, rejecting the agency's $600 million request.

"In some ways the Congress appeared to be trying to do its best to keep us from being able to get operational this time," Koskinen said.



To: Brumar89 who wrote (39143)1/16/2015 11:16:58 AM
From: FJB1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Brumar89

  Respond to of 42652
 
Stephanie Cutter: Gruber was an Obamacare architect
Power Line by Paul Mirengoff

The question of whether Jonathan Gruber is an architect of Obamacare has, I think, been settled. But in case there’s any doubt, a memo by Stephanie Cutter, President Obama’s deputy campaign manager in 2012, should erase it.

According to Patrick Hawley of the Daily Caller, the Cutter memo was prepared in advance of Obama’s first debate with Mitt Romney. In relevant part, it states:

So, what’s the net impact of Romney’s plans? According to a report prepared by Jonathan Gruber, one of the architects of both Romney’s Massachusetts plan and Obamacare, it would nearly double premiums and out-of-pocket costs in the individual market – raising them by 92 percent, or an extra $5,496 – as compared to the President’s plan. At the same time, an additional 51 million Americans would be uninsured.

(Emphasis added).

The memo was written and distributed to “interested parties,” including the media. It belies Obama’s characterization of Gruber as ““some adviser who never worked on our staff.” If that’s all Gruber was, Cutter wouldn’t have called him an architect of Obamacare — in fact she wouldn’t have touted him to the media at all.

Gruber’s status as “architect” of Obamacare is relevant not just for the purpose of discrediting Obama’s characterization of him. It is relevant to a vital Supreme Court case (King v. Burwell) that presents the question of whether subsidies are available to people who obtain health insurance through the federal exchange.


The plain language of the statute says that subsidies are available only to those enrolled in state exchanges. But the Obama administration insists that such a provision would make no sense given the purposes of the statute, and thus can’t have been what Congress legislated.

Gruber, though, has explained that the language making subsidies available only on state exchanges serves a purpose — to induce states to create exchanges. Gruber thus refutes the administration’s argument that the provision in question, interpreted consistently with its plain language, makes no statutory sense.

Gruber’s status as an architect of Obamacare, not just some adviser who never worked on the staff, lends weight to Gruber’s reconciliation of the plain language with the purposes of the statute. And that reconciliation may signal the demise of Obamacare.