And I don't disagree with you at all that the best solution would be to remove incentives by working with the employers. Yet, I think I just read somewhere that because of the new "Dreamer" policy, the govt will not expand the e-Verify system that many employers already use.
While the total %-age of the population may be small, certain areas like AZ, TX, NM, FL carry most of the burden.
On another note that is sort of on track but has nothing to do with JD's post here. If you lose your current doctor and you are on medicare try finding one who will take you ! It' like finding hens' teeth. Guess how busy the hospital emergency room is going to be with all us old people having to get medical care that way.
And the COST !!!!
Another unintended consequence: Cook Medical a medical device manufacturer in Indiana, as a result of the 2.3% tax on medical devices, says it will cancel plans for 5 new plants here in the U.S.
Everyone, including myself, figured the tax would simply be passed onto consumers as increased cost of the devices then increased cost from the doctors or hospitals using the devices (increase in cost of the procedures using the devices).
OTOH, as with Medicare, the govt determines what will be paid for certain procedures. Would have to imagine that Obamacare will have the same payment regulations ... so the doctors/hospitals might not be able to raise their prices to offset an increase in costs. That means that device mfr won't be able to recover the cost of the new tax without losing business to some company (outside of the US) that could make the device for 2.3% less.
Duh? I hadn't thought of that.
The net result in this case turns out to be that the mfr does not build new plants; does not create those new jobs. The $ they would have spent on expansion is used to pay the device tax instead.
If the Indiana company sells its devices outside the U.S., then those sales will not be subject to the tax. However, if there is a larger market for their devices in the U.S., then that won't really be offset by foreign sales. They may already be making sales to foreign countries anyhow. Maybe they'll simply try to sell more of the devices they make outside of the US, if that can be done?
If there is a shortage of Indiana devices in the US, will be have to import cheaper devices from somewhere else?
Our local paper prints the arrests almost every day. For a while a large percentage were hispanic sounding names. Many of those hispanics had no car insurance and no driver's license. Some did not stop for stop signs. We had a lot of rapes reported where the perp had a hispanic sounding name. This changed some after that law got passed here in OK. We were getting the bad apples from other countries.
These unintended consequences just keep piling up ...
Since the SCOTUS ruled that the Fed govt couldn't pull Medicaid funds from the states if the state decided not to expand its Medicaid program, that sort of messed things up for the low-income folks who would have gotten their health insurance that way.
So the end result is that the low- and middle-income earners are worse off than they were before?Quote:
The Action Forum estimates that there are potentially 1.2 million people who would be subject to the tax if only six states decide to opt out of the Medicaid expansion. This is in addition to the 3.9 million the CBO estimated in 2010.
“The CBO estimates that by 2016 about half of the roughly 55 million currently uninsured will gain insurance either through Medicaid or private insurance exchanges,” writes McBride. “As such, ACA represents, in the main, a massive transfer of wealth from the uninsured, who are largely low- and middle-income earners, to insurance companies and the larger healthcare industry.”
We know that legislators don't actually write these bills. They have "staff" that do that kind of thing. Obviously, the 2000 pages were too convoluted for even these people to figure out what they were creating.
As more and more of the "unintended consequences" pop up, the Federal Government will look like the guy on the Ed Sullivan show that spun plates on sticks. A cluster waiting to happen.
Except the government won't make the recovery.
Oops ... another oversight ...
No Exchange; NO Penalties
The administration and Democrats in Congress call it a "drafting error" but Cato Institute calls it a deliberate choice. The ACA only authorizes tax credits and subsidies to be issued by government exchanges built by states. They are not authorized in the Federal Exchange.
Thus, state legislatures that do not establish a state exchange will protect their employers from $3,000 per-employee penalties that face employers if even one employee buys insurance on the exchange and gets a subsidy or tax credit.
Cato's Michael Cannon and Jonathan Adler have written a well-researched paper opposing the IRS regulation that the administration is using to attempt to authorize tax credits and subsidies through a Federal Exchange (FE) even though Congress did not allow it. Likewise, Ken Cuccinelli, Virginia's attorney general, is urging states to do nothing to establish state exchanges.
ACO - The End of Insurance
The author of "Seeking Alpha" calls Obamacare's Accountable Care Organizations (ACO) an "insurmountable" risk to health insurance companies. The ACO is an organization created when hospitals and doctors join together to receive a lump sum ("bundled") payment from insurers for the care of patients.
The author notes that today insurers collect a payment based on your risk and pay doctors, hospitals and other clinicians for services provided. But Obamacare ended the need for risk-based premium adjustments (no pre-existing exclusions) and eliminated payment for services based on individual claims for care received.
The author notes, "The consensus in the hospital industry is that payment will be for period of one year to three years. The hospital or doctor will get a fixed sum of money for each patient per year from the insurance company out of which to meet all the medical needs of the patient. There'll be no need to submit a claim to an insurance company...The insurance company becomes merely a shell transferring the collected premium from insured to the ACO."
As the author writes, "The insurance company will no longer need actuaries, risk analysts, claims processing, sales people, even executives and management...And since they would just be collecting and handing over the premiums to the ACO without doing anything further of value, there would be no need for health insurance companies to exist at all, and I predict that health insurance companies will cease to exist by 2017-2018 as the ACO model becomes widespread.
The ACO model means local hospital will become the insurance company and care provider in one." In other words, a major conflict of interest. On July 9, HHS announced 89 new ACOs, bringing the total to 154 ACOs, with 400 more organizations planning to apply for ACO status in August.
It just keeps getting more complicated ...
CNSNews.com) - The Justice Department last week presented the Newland family of Colorado--who own Hercules Industries, a heating, ventilation and air-conditioning business--with what amounted to an ultimatum: Give up your religion or your business.
“Hercules Industries has ‘made no showing of a religious belief which requires that [it] engage in the [HVAC] business,” the Justice Department said in a formal filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
In response to the Justice Department’s argument that the Newlands can either give up practicing their religion or give up owning their business, the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the family, said in a reply brief: "[T]o the extent the government is arguing that its mandate does not really burden the Newlands because they are free to abandon their jobs, their livelihoods, and their property so that others can take over Hercules and comply, this expulsion from business would be an extreme form of government burden.”
The Newlands' attorney(s) reply:Quote:
The Justice Department further argued that people owning for-profit secular businesses do not have a First Amendment right to the free exercise religion in the way they conduct their businesses—particularly if their business is incorporated.
“Here, plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that the preventive services coverage regulations substantially burden their religious exercise,” the Justice Department told the court. “Hercules Industries, Inc., is not a religious employer; it is ‘an HVAC manufacturer.'
“The government argues that the Newlands forfeited their right to religious liberty as soon as they endeavored to earn their living by running a corporation,” said the Newlands’ brief.
“Nothing in the Constitution, the Supreme Court’s decisions, or federal law requires—or even suggests—that families forfeit their religious liberty protection when they try to earn a living, such as by operating a corporate business,” they argued.
If the Obama administration’s understanding of the First Amendment were accepted, argued the Alliance Defending Freedom’s brief, the media would have no rights either.
“The government’s exclusionary attitude would push religion out of every sphere of life except the four wall of a church,” they said in their brief. “If for-profit corporations have no First Amendment ‘purpose,’ newspapers and other media would have no rights.”
"Look at this fine mess you've gotten us into, Ollie."Quote:
With 265 employees, a business like the Newlands' would need to pay the government $26,500 per day if they decided not to comply with Sebelius’s regulation and insured their employees anyway. Over 365 days that would amount to $9,672,500.