Obamacare ... more of what's in it

[Gerry Clinchy]

Geez! It just keeps getting better ... The IRS has announced that it will be writing the regulations to implement the excise tax on health insurors, which will cost those entities about $8 billion in 2014, and about $11 billion in 2015. They are trying to write the regulation in such a way that the health insurors will be limited in recouping this additional tax from the insureds. Fat chance of that being the ultimate reality.

To write the reg that way is like saying: "We're going to take some of your profit, and you're not allowed to charge any more for your product; you just have to suck it up because the govt needs the money for Obamacare more than you need that profit. You have no right to have such a big profit. People have a right to health care."

I think there might be another lawsuit lurking there. The govt has a right to levy a tax, (as SCOTUS declared), but do they have a right to tell the insurors how much profit they can make?

No question that there are few people who have any love lost for the insurance companies, but if the govt can do this to one type of company, can't they carry the premise further. For example, require auto makers to improve mileage, but not allow them to pass along their extra costs to the consumer? Was the same restriction put on the medical device companies for their excise tax?

Of course, if the insurors go broke, or leave the health care insurance business, that brings single-payer closer to reality. Then single-provider (as in UK) ... and then wait 50 years for that system to develop the leaks it's developing now in the UK.

[charly_t]

" This is a one-sentence editorial that appeared in the February 21 Peoria (IL) Journal Star....speaks volumes:"


"A pen in the hand of this president is far more dangerous than a gun in the hands of 200 million law-abiding citizens."


"Release Date: 02/27/13"

Just an e-mail that I received this morning ( from a relative ) and found "very interesting". I have not snoped it.

[Raymond Little]

Geez! It just keeps getting better ... The IRS has announced that it will be writing the regulations to implement the excise tax on health insurors, which will cost those entities about $8 billion in 2014, and about $11 billion in 2015. They are trying to write the regulation in such a way that the health insurors will be limited in recouping this additional tax from the insureds. Fat chance of that being the ultimate reality.

To write the reg that way is like saying: "We're going to take some of your profit, and you're not allowed to charge any more for your product; you just have to suck it up because the govt needs the money for Obamacare more than you need that profit. You have no right to have such a big profit. People have a right to health care."

I think there might be another lawsuit lurking there. The govt has a right to levy a tax, (as SCOTUS declared), but do they have a right to tell the insurors how much profit they can make?

No question that there are few people who have any love lost for the insurance companies, but if the govt can do this to one type of company, can't they carry the premise further. For example, require auto makers to improve mileage, but not allow them to pass along their extra costs to the consumer? Was the same restriction put on the medical device companies for their excise tax?

Of course, if the insurors go broke, or leave the health care insurance business, that brings single-payer closer to reality. Then single-provider (as in UK) ... and then wait 50 years for that system to develop the leaks it's developing now in the UK.

With 300 + million people in America, it won't take 5 years before the whole system implodes. I can only hope when it does anarchy will follow and those on the top and bottom who brought our country down suffer greatly.

Bitter Clinger Regards,

[Gerry Clinchy]

I just found this from the NY Post. Talk about "war on women" ... Obamacare is a "war on children" ...

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.

So ... women will get free contraception, which is a good thing since children are not mandated to have health insurance coverage.

[huntinman]

" This is a one-sentence editorial that appeared in the February 21 Peoria (IL) Journal Star....speaks volumes:"


"A pen in the hand of this president is far more dangerous than a gun in the hands of 200 million law-abiding citizens."


"Release Date: 02/27/13"

Just an e-mail that I received this morning ( from a relative ) and found "very interesting". I have not snoped it.

Doesn't need to be Snoped... It's true.

[Gerry Clinchy]

Interesting ... a tax that cannot be collected?

If having provisions for enforcement is necessary for a "tax" to really be a tax, then the RobertsTax isn't a tax at all -- it's a suggestion. That's because ObamaCare expressly forbids the IRS from prosecution for nonpayment of the RobertsTax. However, the IRS can deny the taxpayer his [COLOR=#11B000 !important]income tax refund if he owes the RobertsTax. (This has been addressed at [/COLOR]The American, Forbes, Reason, NPR, Businessweek and elsewhere.) But if denial of one's income tax refund is the only mechanism available to the IRS to enforce the RobertsTax, then the RobertsTax can be easily avoided by simply not overpaying one's income tax throughout the tax year.For those Americans just emerging from the 47 percent who don't pay income taxes into the 53 percent who do, ObamaCare becomes an issue. If they have a federal income tax bill of even a single dollar, they become subject to the RobertsTax.
Line 40 of Form 1040 shows that the Standard Deduction for an unmarried person is $5,950 and Line 42 shows the exemption as $3,800. In the [COLOR=#11B000 !important]Tax Table on page 79 of the 1040 instructions booklet, we see that if one has a Taxable Income of $5 (the threshold of taxability) that one owes $1 in federal income tax. So unless I'm missing something, an income of $9,755 would have made one subject to the RobertsTax had it been in effect in 2012. One's last penny of income can come at a rather steep price if it triggers the RobertsTax, which starts at $695.[/COLOR]
It seems every time that tax rates go up, it's hailed as the largest tax hike in history. But when a $1 tax bill becomes a $696 tax bill, it's safe to say we have a new all-time winner. The RobertsTax may not only be the largest tax hike in history, it may also be the most regressive tax hike in history, as it's much more likely to hurt low-income earners. (That's what happens when the judiciary starts writing tax law.)


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/...#ixzz2MicbhlNo
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

[andrewm]

"At my job we actually have health screenings for employees and if you are within healthy parameters (BMI, cholesterol, BP, blood sugar) they pay you money to go toward your deductible. It actually has encouraged people to take better control of their lives."

That's how every employer should do it

[Gerry Clinchy]

Here's a gem about just how good the Fed govt will be at running exchanges:

The most recent revelation concerns health insurance exec Sara Horowitz, who recently won a tax-free $340 million federal loan to set up insurance co-ops in three states as part of the ObamaCare program. This, despite the fact that her company, Freelancers Insurance, has earned distinction as the “worst” insurer two years in a row in her home state of New York and that the firm has been pummeled with unusually high consumer complaints.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/...#ixzz2MvjrgrKB

Why would such a dismal performance find favor with the feds? Maybe because Ms. Horowitz and President Obama go way back – back to before the latter was a player on the national scene. Back to when she and Obama together launched liberal think tank Demos along with George Soros, jointly joined that outfit’s board, and before Obama’s caretakers managed to get the record of that alliance scrubbed from Demos’ website. Ms. Horowitz and Mr. Obama are long-time cronies.

[Pete]

And he is just getting started. Hey does any body know where I can buy a box of 22 shells. I have looked every where and they are all out. They are out of most pistol rounds too.
Pete

[huntinman]

And he is just getting started. Hey does any body know where I can buy a box of 22 shells. I have looked every where and they are all out. They are out of most pistol rounds too.
Pete

Call the US Dept of Ag, the Dep of Labor, the Dep Of Education, TSA, IRS, Park Service etc... Seems they have plenty