Listening to the Supreme Court hearings on Obamacare. . .

what drives me nuts is my own habit in technical writing to use "absent" as a set-up in the negative

"Absent a clear linkage between uracil nd guanine, RNA is..."

Good advice, but when I do it, it slips through the preview as well. The memory of thinking the word while writing is that strong. I only notice my mistakes the next day at the earliest, usually when somebody quotes them back to me.

Both of you need to eat more poutine . . .

absent any taste buds, I would consider the invitation.

Absence makes the hearth go fondue . . .

Vive l'absinthe!

I ain't never had none, but i hear that stuff makes ya all goofy . . .

some of my fears over this:
-It becomes cheaper for companies to pay the fine for not insuring employees then it is to pay for the coverage. Then, employees have to pay for their own insurance.
-Companies with more then 50 employees get hit hard for not covering employees and then go under, creating more unemployment.
-Employees look to the govt for insurance in the form of medicare or whatever they decide to call it in the future.
-Everyone's taxes go up a lot to cover the new insurance mandate and the deficit just continues climbing.
-Dr's decide they won't accept patients with govt insurance because they don't like the pay they get. Dr's that do become overloaded and are not capable of providing the care they should.
-Hospitals become "rich" and "poor" in what insurances they will accept. Poor people with the new govt insurance get to mob the hospitals that accept their insurance while those that can afford private insurance get a better quality of care.
-Insurance companies now begin raping their customers for more money as they have the customer by the short and curlies.
-Insurance companies begin merging into giant conglomerates creating fewer and fewer companies to buy from, also increasing rates.

Just some things I am concerned about.

Some of these items are worth being concerned about, others, not as much.

"-Companies with more then 50 employees get hit hard for not covering employees and then go under, creating more unemployment."

I'd like to see an example of this actually happening before I worry about it.

"-Everyone's taxes go up a lot to cover the new insurance mandate and the deficit just continues climbing."

This is worth worrying about, I guess, but there's no real evidence that it will happen. The 'mandate' doesn't cost individual taxpayers money, it costs money to the person who is buying the insurance policy. And for the vast majority of people, it will cost nothing, as they already have insurance.

"-Hospitals become "rich" and "poor" in what insurances they will accept. Poor people with the new govt insurance get to mob the hospitals that accept their insurance while those that can afford private insurance get a better quality of care."

This is essentially the exact situation we currently have.

"-Insurance companies now begin raping their customers for more money as they have the customer by the short and curlies."

I believe that part of the ACA regulates the amount they are allowed to raise their rates. And it also mandates that they pay a higher amount out in benefits than before, so if they raised rates, they'd have to show that they were paying out more - they couldn't do so simply to raise profits.

"-Insurance companies begin merging into giant conglomerates creating fewer and fewer companies to buy from, also increasing rates."

Could be worth worrying about. This is exactly, btw, what will happen if the GOP plan of allowing insurance to be sold across state lines were ever to go into effect.

Cycloptichorn

Both of these have been going on for some time now.

Every year, my company goes through shopping for insurance, and since we're a small company we tend to hear about some of the details.

One detail we hear every year, is that we have to pay extra because we're part of such a small company. The argument goes that small groups may not follow statistical norms.

The obvious problem to that argument is that the insurance company reaps the reward of treating a bunch of small populations as independent populations, while combining the small populations into one large population.




You might want to consider the part of the ACA that requires health insurance companies to spend a certain percentage of premiums on health care, rather than administrative overhead.

Tax Implications of the Supreme Court’s “Obamacare” Ruling

By Garrett A. Fenton, Miller & Chevalier

As most people are aware by now, the Supreme Court issued its ruling yesterday on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”), dubbed “Obamacare.” In short, the Court ruled that the controversial “individual mandate” provision – which requires most Americans to obtain health insurance for themselves and their dependents (e.g., through an employer, a government program like Medicare or Medicaid, or the individual health insurance market) or face a penalty, beginning in 2014 – is a tax, and therefore constitutional under Congress’ general taxing power. The court thus upheld the ACA – except for certain portions of the statute’s Medicaid expansion provisions – with a 5-4 decision.

Now that the constitutional status of the ACA has been determined, it is worth remembering how many other provisions in the ACA impact taxes. This article focuses on the key tax implications of several ACA provisions – other than the individual mandate – that have already taken effect, or will take effect in the near future, and that impact the taxes of employers or employees.

MLR Rebates

The ACA requires individual and group health insurers to spend a specified minimum percentage (called the medical loss ratio, or “MLR”) of the premiums they receive each year on health care claims and “quality improvement” activities. Insurers that fail to meet the MLR requirement for a given year must pay rebates to their policyholders or subscribers, either in the form of cash, premium credits, debit or credit card reimbursements, and in some cases, pre-paid debit or credit cards. In most instances involving employer-sponsored health insurance, the insurer will pay the rebate to the employer, who then may either pass through all or a portion of the rebate directly to its employees, or use the rebate for certain other permissible purposes. Health insurers must pay any MLR rebates owed for 2011 by August 1, 2012. According to a recent HHS press release, nearly 13 million Americans will receive a total of $1.1 billion in rebates this year.

Tax implications may arise when individuals receive MLR rebates, even in the form of credits against future premiums. For example, an individual will be taxed on any MLR rebate received if he or she (1) paid the premiums for the health insurance coverage and then claimed a federal income tax deduction for those premium payments, or (2) in the case of employer-sponsored health insurance, paid his or her premiums via pre-tax payroll contributions (which is how most employees pay for their employer-sponsored coverage). In the second instance, the rebate paid to the employee will also be subject to federal employment taxes and related employer tax withholding and Form W-2 reporting obligations.

Employer Pay-or-Play Penalty

Beginning in 2014, employers with 50 or more full-time employees may be subject to a “pay-or-play” tax penalty if they (1) fail to offer health coverage to their full-time employees, or (2) offer coverage, but the coverage is deemed either to be “unaffordable” for certain employees, or to have an insufficient “value.” The penalty will be imposed on a monthly basis, and will vary depending upon which of the two categories applies.

Employer Market Reform Excise Taxes

The ACA enacted numerous “market reforms” that impose mandates with respect to employer-sponsored health coverage (as well as coverage offered under an individual health insurance policy). Some of these reforms are already effective, and many more are scheduled to take effect in 2014. These provisions include, among several others, the requirements to allow children to remain on their parents’ coverage until age 26, to provide no-cost coverage for certain “preventive” services (including the controversial birth control mandate), and to meet specified limits on employee cost-sharing requirements (i.e., copayments, coinsurance, and deductibles), as well as the prohibitions against preexisting condition exclusions, retroactive terminations (“rescissions”) of coverage, and lifetime and annual limits. An employer whose coverage fails to meet any of these requirements may be subject to an excise tax penalty – which must be self-reported to the IRS – of up to $100 per day, per affected individual.

Other Taxes

Several other tax provisions are set to take effect in the near future under ACA, including (among many others):

A $1-per-covered-individual excise tax on employers and insurers, which will take effect this year, to fund “comparative effectiveness research.” The fee will increase to $2 next year, and will be increased further for inflation thereafter.
A 0.9% increase in the Medicare payroll taxes imposed on the wages of certain higher-income-earners (i.e., those earning more than $250,000 (if married) or $200,000 (if single) per year), effective beginning in 2013. In some (but not all) cases, an employer will need to withhold the additional tax from an employee’s wages. The employee will remain liable for the additional tax to the extent the employer does not withhold it.
A 3.8% Medicare contribution tax on an individual’s net investment income, if and to the extent that the individual’s total income exceeds $250,000 (if married) or $200,000 (if single), effective beginning in 2013.
An annual $2,500 limit on employees’ payroll contributions to employer-sponsored health flexible spending arrangements (or “health FSAs”) – which allow employees to pay for out-of-pocket medical expenses with pre-tax dollars – effective beginning in 2013.

"An annual $2,500 limit on employees’ payroll contributions to employer-sponsored health flexible spending arrangements (or “health FSAs”) – which allow employees to pay for out-of-pocket medical expenses with pre-tax dollars – effective beginning in 2013."

My company currently allows $3500 personal and $5000 for dependents. Imagine how that will play out.

What happens to money in those FSA's if you don't spend it all on medical stuff, every year?

Cycloptichorn

It gets ditched at the end of the fiscal year. I believe all FSA's may work that way.

Thanks. Do people normally spend all the money in those accounts, every year? I wonder how much does in fact get ditched.

Seeing as vastly more people should be carrying insurance - and that insurance itself is mandated to have lower copays and cover more things than before - there should be less of an overall need for such tax-free accounts.

Cycloptichorn

No idea. I use an HSA to cover the additional cost of my health insurance (high deductible shitty plan), we avoid the FSA due to the fact that it expires every year. HSA carries over. I know a lot of people use it to cover drug co-pays and non-durable medical goods. I have no data on how many people use it here or what they put into it but I know it's that high because someone wanted it that high.

HSA's are great for tax relief. ACA makes it so we no longer can use it for non-prescription stuff (aspirin, vitamins, etc.), plus it raised the penalty from 10% to 20%.

Still a great deal, though.

Late to the party, but my take on the impact of this decision on election politics:

It was the best possible result for Mitt Romney:

Right after we heard the news of the decision, my wife, who is even more conservative than I am and who has been barely lukewarm about Romney, contributed $500 to his campaign. Apparently she wasn't alone in such a reaction.

To the extent that ginning up The Base is important for a candidate, this decision did just that and cleared away any reticence Tea Partiers had about throwing their support, whole hog, for Romney.

Had the decision gone against ObamaCare, Romney would now be faced with endless questions about what new plan he supports. One would think that since he has vowed to start dismantling the law on his first day in the Oval Office that the news media would already be pressing him on what he intends to replace it with, but they haven't. Maybe they were waiting for the Court's decision, but I doubt it. They tend to be limited to only a few themes, and a replacement for ObamaCare hasn't been one of them...nor do I think it will become one.

It's a mixed bag for Barack Obama:

He can and, obviously, has claimed a victory, but it won't change the fact that more Americans disapprove of the law than support it. He still isn't going to be able to campaign for his re-election based on the strength of ObamaCare.

He avoided a political injury rather than gaining any political strength.

That the law was determined to be constitutional on the basis that the mandate is actually a tax, means he's won a victory that is potentially injurious.

Democrat "strategists" on TV are already dismissing this negative, and suggesting that just because Roberts called it a tax doesn't mean it is. This is at best a weak defense, particularly since the government argued that it was a tax. The appearance of a bait and switch sham is undeniable and the Republicans will hammer away on this theme.

BTW: The only reason Obama was so adamant that it wasn't a tax was that he knew he couldn't secure the required number of votes in the Senate to pass the thing if it was labeled a tax. It only made political difference to call it a mandate and not a tax.

Exacerbating any unease voter may have with this decision and the notion that they now face a new and very large tax, is the ball spiking of Obama and his campaign team.

The word has gone out that Obama tweeted something to the effect of "It still is a BFD!" He didn't personally tweet this sentiment, but that's what people are hearing, and the fact that you can buy a T-shirt with the slogan for $30 at his campaign website tells everyone he's OK with it (even if he's not).

Some Democrat Bigwig tweeted " It's constitutional bitches!" and the responses were along the line of "You're awesome!"

I read that he also tweeted something, relative to the decision, that included "motherf*ckers," but I haven't seen that tweet.

He semi-apologized, explaining that his joy over the decision got the better of him, but that was a hollow gesture.

I'm not going to suggest that it is reprehensible to use "BFD," "bitches," or "motherf*ckers" in a tweet, but it's undeniably crude and politically stupid.

Progressives who are obsessed with being defined as cool, may think it is the height of coolness to use such vulgarities, but there are a lot of American Moderates and Independents who don't agree, and are put off by the notion that the President may.

The folks who get jazzed by a President using "street language" are going to vote for Obama with or without BFD T-Shirts. Why would someone trying to grab a huge chunk of the middle of the electorate permit his staff to risk repulsing them...for so little gain?

To be fair, the Republicans proved they can shoot themselves in the foot as quickly as their opponents by trotting out an ad that captions the picture of Biden whispering in Obama's ear: "It's a big f*cking tax!"

The BFD tweet and T-Shirt will, no doubt, blow over fairly quickly, but for those, in the middle, who were exposed to them, it's going to be one more tainting of the Expected One's image.

Hopefully, all the teeth gnashing of conservative pundits and Republican "strategists" will come to an end with the start of a new news cycle on Monday.

Whatever they think of the decision, it put ObamaCare squarely in the hands of the electorate. They need to stop grousing about Roberts and make the case for electing Romney.

I'm not surprised that you got this one wrong, as folks often hear what they want to hear.

What the Court said is that the government has the power to impose a tax. Including the power to say "if you don't have a certain amount of health insurance, we will tax you in lieu of you having insurance."

Moronic



Completely and totally wrong.

None of this is really any worse than your usual, tho

Cycloptichorn