by | ARTICLES, CONSTITUTION, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Jay Cost is one of my favorite writers these days, blending history and analysis in a straightforward tone. Here’s his take on why Clinton lost:
“Political coalitions are tricky things to manage in the United States. Ours is a country of more than 320 million people but only two major political parties—so each side’s voting bloc tends to be unstable at the margins, where national elections are actually won and lost. It is hard to build a winning coalition, harder still to maintain it during the laborious process of governing, and hardest of all to hand it off to a designated successor. It takes a politician of the highest caliber—a Roosevelt, a Reagan—to accomplish all this.
As last week’s results clearly demonstrated, Barack Obama is not cut from such an Augustan cloth. The political coalition he built in 2008 burst apart in spectacular fashion. His successor will not be Hillary Clinton, his secretary of state, but Donald Trump, the man who accused him of being a foreigner.
No lame duck president has ever had to suffer such ignominy. If Obama were to quietly steal out of town on January 20, as John Adams and John Quincy Adams did upon their defeats, nobody could blame him. Even so, Obama’s coalition fell apart because he failed utterly to maintain it during his tenure.
For eight years, we have heard stories about Obama’s “coalition of the ascendant.” Single women, millennials, Latinos and Asians, gays and lesbians, and so on, drove Obama to a fantastic electoral victory in 2008 and would power the Democrats for a generation—or more—to come.
While these blocs were integral to Obama’s triumph in 2008, there were other, more humdrum factions as well—the typical ones that every Democratic politician, be he as cool as Obama or as boring as John Kerry, has to win over. The suburban women of Florida’s I-4 corridor. The blue-collar workers in Dubuque and Erie. The African Americans in Detroit and Milwaukee, who are always counted on to deliver an enormous haul for the party. These voters are not the stuff of highfalutin’ think pieces for liberal magazines, but they were nevertheless an essential part of Obama’s victory.
They abandoned his successor last week. Not altogether, of course—but enough to serve the Democrats a shocking defeat.
There had been warning signs from virtually the start of Obama’s tenure. He won a smashing victory in 2008 by sweeping the traditional swing states and adding new ones to the list—Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. But voters in all these states signaled at some point over the last seven years that their loyalty was not unconditional. Starting with Bob McDonnell’s whopping victory in the Virginia gubernatorial race in 2009, then Scott Brown’s surprise Senate triumph in Massachusetts, and finally to the Tea Party wave of 2010—it was evident by the halfway point of Obama’s first term that personal affection for him did not necessarily translate to support for his policies or other Democrats. Then came 2012, in which the president was reelected with 3.6 million fewer votes than he received four years prior. The admonition was repeated in 2014, when the Republican wave that hit the House of Representatives in 2010 wiped the Democrats out of their Senate majority.
Obama’s response to these electoral setbacks was to pretend they did not happen. Again and again, he stubbornly refused to change course. When he lost his filibuster-proof Senate majority in 2010, he passed an unfinished version of Obamacare through the budget reconciliation process. When he and House speaker John Boehner were on the cusp of striking a grand bargain on taxes and entitlements in the summer of 2011, he insisted on additional tax hikes at the last minute, skunking the deal. When he won a narrow victory in 2012, he called for extensive gun control legislation, framing the debate in Manichean terms that alienated those Midwestern voters who had the gall to support him and the NRA simultaneously. When the Democrats lost the Senate in 2014, he enacted immigration reform through executive fiat and brokered a highly unpopular deal with Iran.
Last but not least, he handed off leadership of his party to Hillary Clinton. Weighed down by personal and professional issues, she was his opposite in almost every way. During the Democratic primary battle of 2008, she had been a useful foil for Obama, illustrating his point that it was time for a new approach to governance. Now, she was the heir apparent—as if his voters would not care either way. Turns out they did.
Much of the blame for last week’s defeat obviously belongs to Clinton, who was a terrible candidate. But one cannot overlook Obama’s responsibility in this epic debacle. He blessed Clinton’s candidacy early in the cycle, despite the fact that she was under investigation by the FBI. And for years prior, he had acted as though he could do as he wished and retain the loyalty of his voters.
He was wrong. Clinton dramatically underperformed with the white working-class in the Midwest. She did not receive sufficient margins from African Americans in the Rust Belt or the South. And though she had the noxious Trump as her opponent, she failed to make up for these setbacks with swing voters in places like suburban Charlotte or Philadelphia. Nor did she make many inroads with traditional GOP constituencies in Milwaukee and Grand Rapids, who had been turned off by the bombastic Republican in the primaries. Even the Latino vote disappointed, leaving Florida out of reach and Colorado surprisingly close. Only the Harry Reid “machine” in Nevada functioned as expected.
When Obama leaves the White House in two months, the Republican party will hold more public offices than at any point since the Great Depression. The president’s greatest political ambition will therefore go unrealized: He is not the 21st century’s Ronald Reagan; he is its Woodrow Wilson.
The 28th president was quite a bit like Obama, a cerebral type with unceasing confidence in his superior intellect and moral purity. But Wilson’s ambition to recast society in his own image outstripped his political acumen. Elected in a landslide in 1912, he only narrowly squeaked by in 1916. Four years later, his would-be successor lost to Warren Harding, one of the most unspectacular specimens ever to occupy the Oval Office. Wilson tarnished the reputation of progressivism so badly that the GOP would enjoy complete control over the government for the ensuing decade. It was Franklin Delano Roosevelt—a pragmatic man who lacked Wilson’s scholarly disposition but had an intuitive grasp of what the people expected of him—who would become modern liberalism’s hero.
Maybe some Democrat down the line will re-create Obama’s coalition and reshape it in a durable way. After all, Obama was on to something back in 2008. There are common interests among working-class whites in the Midwest, college kids, minority voters, and suburban women. Democrats have thought for a decade that this coalition was waiting to emerge. Not so, but a gifted politician could unite that group and build a coalition for the long haul. Such a leader would have to be more like FDR or Reagan than like Wilson—or Obama.”
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, POLITICS, TAXES
The long-forgotten IRS scandal has continued to limp along largely unnoticed. Unfortunately, the IRS has not entirely curbed its behavior of discrimination, despite assurances. Some tea party groups still have not had their applications approved; the longest seems to be nearly seven years (Dec. 2009). And that’s not all.
Incredibly instead of finishing the process, more questions and information has been requested in some instances. Yet even more incredulously, the “IRS has taken the unprecedented step of publicly filing actual return information,” putting taxpayer return information in the public realm; it released on of the sets of questions it sent to a tea party group in Texas. Here’s more:
“The IRS has taken the unprecedented step of publicly filing actual return information,” said Edward Greim, who is handling the case on behalf of more than 400 groups targeted by the IRS.
Still, the move to release the information has inflamed an already tense class action legal battle between the IRS and tea party groups who feel the agency is still targeting them more than three years after it promised to cease.
Mr. Greim said releasing the letter is proof that the IRS can’t be trusted to fairly handle the cases.
“The IRS‘ conscious decision to attach this Section 6103-protected request to a public filing makes it even harder to believe that the IRS can treat TPTP and similar groups fairly and neutrally. This is, and will continue to be, a core focus of our litigation in the coming weeks,” he said.
Both the IRS and officials at the Justice Department, which is acting as the tax agency’s lawyer, declined to comment, citing the ongoing legal battle.
But the tax agency said in court papers that Mr. Greim has been misleading the court, and said the documents were designed to prove that the IRS has been dealing fairly with the TPTP. The IRS said the information it requested focuses on the tea party group’s activities and whether they would be illegal for a tax-exempt group to engage in.
“It is more of the same: spurious attacks on the IRS and mischaracterizations of the facts,” the Justice Department said in its briefs.
The IRS admitted in 2013 that it singled tea party groups out for intrusive scrutiny, including crossing lines by asking questions about the groups’ associations, meetings and even members’ reading habits. Some groups received multiple letters, each time further delaying their applications.
After being dinged by its inspector general, the agency promised it would stop asking inappropriate questions, and insisted it canceled the use of secret targeting lists to single out groups.
But a federal appeals court this summer ruled that as long as some groups are still stuck in the backlog, the IRS is still conducting illegal targeting.
The tax agency, which had been blocking processing, claiming it couldn’t do anything while the court cases were proceeding, quickly kicked into gear and announced they would process the three remaining cases.
In a letter last week to the TPTP, the IRS fired off a new set of questions — the fourth inquiry the group has received since it applied for nonprofit status in 2012. In the new questions, IRS agent Jerry Fierro said he looked over the group’s website and spotted potential trouble spots, including “rallies, parades, educational workshops, speaking events, voter registration drives, fund raisers and straw polls.”
The IRS says those activities could squelch a group’s application.
Mr. Greim, the lawyer for the TPTP, said in making its letter public, the IRS was showing how aggressive its tactics are toward tea party groups. He said the agency, which has held up the TPTP’s application for 41 months, only gave the organization 30 days to respond, and said if the questions aren’t all answered, it could derail the application again.
“The IRS‘ conscious decision to attach this Section 6103-protected request to a public filing makes it even harder to believe that the IRS can treat TPTP and similar groups fairly and neutrally,” Mr. Greim said.
Section 6013 of the tax code prohibits sharing of information from taxpayers’ returns.
Tax experts said the IRS letter is likely considered protected information, but they said the IRS is probably on safe legal ground because the law allows for information to be filed if the taxpayer is a party in a lawsuit and the filing directly relates to an issue in the case.
In addition to the TPTP, two other tea party groups that were targeted by the IRS are still awaiting approval. Unite in Action, a Michigan-based group, applied in 2010, and the Albuquerque Tea Party applied nearly seven years ago, in December 2009.
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice, which represents the other two groups, said they have not received a new set of questions similar to the list sent to the TPTP. But he said he’s been prodding the
IRS for a final decision.
“We again demanded that they review their applications and process them in a fair and expeditious manner,” he said in a statement.
by | ARTICLES, CONSTITUTION, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, TAXES
What happens when the government uses its power to give money from one group of people to another group of people? It’s happening. It’s not supposed to happen. See, in our Constitution, the government has the right do things — limited things — in order to safeguard the rights of the people. Our Constitution relates to individual rights; it’s not a document on democracy. Unfortunately, these lines are becoming more blurred all the time.
Maybe democracy as a system of government by itself cannot work; in other words, if a democracy allows two foxes and a chicken to vote on what to have for dinner, it reveals a fatal flaw — because it allows an unfortunate outcome. Of course the two foxes are going to vote on having the chicken for dinner!
At the same time, democracy is the only best form of government if the majority protects the rights of the minority, whether it’s racial, economic, or whatever — those rights must be protected. But this applies to all. In the same way, a democracy voting to allow the lower 51% to usurp the property of the upper 49% is just as intolerable as usurping rights based on gender, religion, or race.
You can elect a Chavez or a Castro in a duly elected election, but you can’t allow him to just use the fact that he got a majority of the people’s as an excuse to abuse a minority of the people. People just can’t vote to take all the money for themselves.
You could have a referendum on whether the richest people (making over $200,000/year) should give their money to those making under $200,000. You could vote that… but not really because people also have the right to their own property. What then? How do you resolve this kind of conflict?
There is no mandatory, compulsory requirement to vote. If our Founding Fathers want to put voting in the Constitution they could have, but they didn’t. On the other hand, our Constitution specifically does not allow our government to take money from somebody and give it to someone else. Our Constitution merely gives the Federal government enumerated powers, and it in no way allows us to take money from some people and give it to someone else that the government has deemed more worthy.
When Barack Obama stated for the first time that he would take money from one group and give it to another — when he announced he was going after millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share — it was the first time he verbally stated something unconstitutional.
In contrast, the states are allowed to make laws to do that — they don’t have Constitutions with enumerated powers as in the case of the federal Constitution.. States can legally, actually vote that more wealthy people must give money to less wealthy people. If and when that happens, people have the right to move within the United States to a different state with different laws — but yet still remain a US citizen. You can see the effect of this mentality even now, as high tax states have seen a population exodus to states that are less punitive.
So, what do when it is happening at the federal level? Vote for a new president? Perhaps that will change it. But how do we curb the effects of people receiving more and more wealth transfers and benefits? The unintended consequence of such policy is that the recipients will learn to always vote for the person that will create or continue policy that will benefit the voter in a tangible, direct, and economic way. As a result, the elections become less fair and based on being an informed citizen, and more on “How can I benefit? What’s in it for me?”
In this way, it logically follows that the argument could be made that you shouldn’t be able to vote if you have a conflict of interest. The suggestion of curtailing voting rights from those who are recipients of such egregious and unconstitutional policy is indeed drastic. But perhaps it should be a consideration for those who are too short-sided to see the long-term problems for this country — because the idea that our federal government can economically abuse a segment of the population for monetary gain is also radical.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, CONSTITUTION, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
Aetna’s decision to withdraw from 11 out of 15 state exchanges is a big deal; it follows the paths of UnitedHealth Group and Humana, both large insurance companies who have also chosen to cut ties with Obamacare. (Incidentally, the DoJ is trying to block a Aetna-Humana merger; are they worried about competition?)
A short analysis by Market Watch provides some insight into the decision and the current state of Obamacare:
**Aetna explained the decision as a way to “limit our financial exposure moving forward,” after pretax losses of $200 million in the second quarter and losses totaling $430 million on individual products since January 2014. The company did not specify what portion of the losses was attributable to individual public plan offerings.
**The company criticized the ACA’s “inadequate” risk-adjustment mechanism, which is meant to limit insurers’ losses as they start covering sicker individuals. It’s a common criticism from health insurers, which have long said that the risk-pool program isn’t working the way it’s supposed to, though others say big insurance companies should instead change their model to keep costs down.
**Of Aetna’s exchange membership this year, more than half is new, with those needing expensive care making up “an even larger share” in the second quarter, the company said.
**Coupled with the risk pool, this makes premiums costlier and “creates significant sustainability concerns,” the company said.
The affect of these withdrawls means fewer insurers and fewer choices for consumers than when the law first began several years ago. That’s not good. The law needs some reform. MarketWatch notes, “The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has indicated a willingness to make changes to the risk-pool mechanism, although it’s unclear whether legislation to that end would be passed.
Any fixes will also depend on strong enrollment figures. Premiums have increased for 2017, but the financial penalty for not having health insurance has also increased. Whether that penalty, an average of $969 per household, according to a Kaiser analysis, will prompt increased enrollment is a “big wild card,” according to a co-author of the Kaiser report. A rise in premium costs “suggests additional enrollment growth is not a given,” said Riggs, having potential negative implications for hospital and managed care, along with investors in those spaces.”
Will this have an impact on the 2016 election? It will be interesting to see — especially since the open enrollment period is slated to begin on November 1, just days before the 2016 election. The cost of premiums, especially if they are substantially higher, may affect people’s voting decisions. Of course, don’t put it past the Administration to delay open enrollment until Nov 15 and shift everything by two weeks, in order to avoid a “November surprise”. The only thing that’s not a surprise at this point is that the law continues to founder considerably, at the expense and disruption of everyday citizens.
by | ARTICLES, CONSTITUTION, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
The Competitive Enterprise Institute periodically reviews the Federal Register and the amount of regulations that the Obama Administration churns out. Here’s a snapshot of it; it’s the daily publication of proposed and final administrative regulations of federal agencies.
“The Federal Register once again topped 2,000 pages last week, and included a year-high 137 final regulations, ranging from eggs to groupers.
On to the data:
The amount of regulations have exploded in recent years and is a major reason why the economy hasn’t recovered.
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, CONSTITUTION, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, TAXES
A few weeks ago, the Feds trotted out a statistic aimed to bolster support for the fledgling Obamacare legislation amid steep premium hikes and costly non-compliance fines. While the Obama Administration celebrated the fact that the uninsured rate was finally below 10%, in reality, this same statistic actually represents the most colossal failure of any government program in the history of this country.
In 2010, we had nearly 307 million people living in the United States, with a 16.3% uninsured rate — or a record number of 49.9 million uninsured, according to the Census Bureau. On March 20, Nancy Pelosi presented a letter to the House of Representatives showing the yearly effects of Obamacare on insurance coverage — which included estimates on the number of uninsured each year. Obamacare passed three days later.
Looking at the data that was used to persuade passage of Obamacare, the number of estimated uninsured in 2016 was projected to be less -30 million and a 95% insured rate. That means the government predicted that by now, the uninsured rate would have dropped from 16.3 down to 5% — not 9.1% which is the current statistic. Going from 16.3% to 9.1% (instead of 5% by now) means that the government hit only 63% of the projected number of uninsured. (For the sake of also considering population increases, let’s say that the government only hit about ⅔ of its target).
This is a big deal. Congress and the public were told that the intended effects of getting the number of uninsured Americans down to a low number were worth it in the long run even if it meant that rest of the population — some 257 million people who currently HAD insurance at the time — would experience some sort of disruption with their health insurance. Most of these 257 million people were relatively happy with their plans and prices but the government decided that mucking with the system for all, for the reduction of some uninsured, was worth it.
And yet, only ⅔ of the projected uninsured has gotten insurance. 28.6 million people in the population remains uninsured, when it was projected that about 20 million (down from 50 million) would be uninsured by this time. How is this a success? It’s not, of course. Financially too, this program is derelict.
Celebrating an “under 10% uninsured number” is a hollow victory, a gimmick, a ruse to hide the truth about Obamacare. This statistic is an unmitigated disaster, an admission of utter failure of a program that has encroached into the lives of every American and arguably the biggest government program failure this country has had to contend with.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
Congressman Dave Brat wrote a stunning Op-ed in the Richmond Times Dispatch (“Immigration is killing Americans’ job prospects“) in which he blames immigrants — both legal and illegal — for the current anemic economy. Rightly citing “meager job growth” and “stagnant wages” as symptoms, he then makes a crass and erroneous conclusion that the problem is immigration.
Immigration is not killing Americans’ job prospects — government policy is. We all know that. Why does Congressman Brat ignore the elephant in the room? Brat talks about statistics and “jobs availability” as if the economy was a zero-sum endeavor and there is a finite amount of jobs available to go around, from which outsiders are taking more than their fair share. That’s absurd.
The reality is that job creation and growth by businesses — signs of a healthy economy — have slowed to a crawl because of 1) excessive and onerous regulations unleashed in the last several years; 2) increased taxes, and the high corporate tax rate; 3) overreaching agencies such as the NLRB and EPA; 4) Obamacare; and so forth.
These are all aggressive, anti-business policies that small and large businesses have had to increasingly contend with in our country. They are the reasons why more businesses are closing than opening and investment has declined. Businesses can’t afford to stay in business, comply with government diktats, and create new jobs.
To go after legal and illegal immigration while simultaneously ignoring the government’s culpability is disingenuous at best and pandering at worst. With a diatribe that strenuously complains about “the presence and availability of immigrants — whether legal or illegal, permanent or temporary — in the job market,” Congressman Brat sounds like he may be setting us up for a Trump endorsement down the road; such a line of ridiculous thinking is more compatible with Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan than any rational, logical economist — which is what Brat purports to be.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
The Washington Free Beacon is following up on a Wall Street Journal article in April, which revealed a coordinated effort to silence dissent on the subject of climate change.
“The attorney general of the U.S. Virgin Islands is targeting dozens of conservative and libertarian organizations in a racketeering lawsuit against climate change skeptics that has been widely described as an effort to silence political opponents.
In a subpoena issued in March, the office of USVI attorney general Claude Walker demanded from Exxon Mobil copies of communications between the oil company and 90 different political and policy organizations “and any other organizations engaged in research or advocacy concerning Climate Change or policies.”
The subpoena was part of a national, coordinated legal campaign by state attorneys general and left-wing advocacy groups to use the legal system against companies and organizations that disagree with and advocate against Democratic policies to address global climate change.”
The organizations suspected of “collusion” with Exxon are considered to be both libertarian and conservative in politics. Some of the big names are: the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, The Federalist Society, the Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institute, the Mercatus Institute, and the Reason Foundation.
The subpoena for communication is “part of a coordinated effort by Democratic attorneys general spearheaded by New York’s Eric Schneiderman and undertaken in consultation and cooperation with leading environmental advocacy groups.
The participants huddled at a Jan. 8 meeting at the headquarters of the Rockefeller Family Fund, a left-wing foundation.
At the meeting, RFF, Greenpeace, other environmental groups discussed ways to “delegitimize [ExxonMobil] as a political actor,” “force officials to disassociate themselves from Exxon,” and “drive divestment from Exxon,” according to a copy of the meeting agenda obtained by the Washington Free Beacon last month.
One strategy that activists discussed was to enlist like-minded state attorneys general to use their powers to go after the oil company.
Emails subsequently obtained by the Energy and Environment Legal Institute show that staffers at groups involved in the effort then briefed aides to those AGs. They discussed using “climate change litigation” to advance their political goals.”
This political stunt is absolutely ridiculous and legally uncertain. It’s worth keeping an eye on in the coming months as climate change is certain to be a factor in the November elections.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
Obamacare futures continue to worsen in recent weeks. A couple of weeks ago, UnitedHealth Group chose to exit the majority of Obamacare exchanges because it expects roughly 2/3 billion in losses. Next, Aetna announced that it might break even this year, but called for Congressional fixes to ensure sustainability in the marketplace.
The immediate fix, however, will be another round of premium rate hikes — with some expecting to be more than 10%. However, timing may play a key in the November elections; the rate hikes will hit when Obamacare open enrollment begins on November 1, just days before the presidential and Congressional elections. If high premium rate hikes happen as expected, voters may express their resentment at the ballot box.
Some notes on the current state of insurers and exchanges:
**”Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans, which dominate many state exchanges, saw profits plummet by 75 percent between 2013 and 2015, according to an analysis by A.M. Best Co. A chief reason for the financial woes: “the intensity of losses in the exchange segment.””
**Health Care Service Corp., which operates Blue plans in five states, dropped out of New Mexico’s exchange for this year after regulators refused to approve rate hikes as big as the company sought. In Texas, Illinois and two other states where HCSC does business, medical costs for individual customers exceeded premiums by more than $1.3 billion last year.
**Just over half of the 23 nonprofit startups seeded with Obamacare loan dollars have collapsed after hemorrhaging red ink. The 11 surviving plans continue to struggle, with more than $400 million in combined losses last year.
**New York-based Oscar, the much ballyhooed, tech-savvy startup bankrolled with billions in venture capital dollars, is sputtering. Medical costs for Oscar’s individual customers in New York, where it has the most customers, outstripped premiums by nearly 50 percent last year, according to financial filings.
**Just 28 percent of HealthCare.gov customers for 2016 were between the ages of 18 and 34, significantly below the 35 percent threshold typically considered necessary for a balanced marketplace.
Health and Human Services has yet to put out fresh numbers on the amount of enrollees who have actually paid premiums. The enrollment numbers were already widely off the mark from the predicted CBO numbers calculated when Obamacare was passed. Though many think Obamacare is an issue that has expired with the American electorate, it is certain to become more important in the days leading up to election day in November.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, TAX TIPS, TAXES
Find Out How ACA affects Employers with 50 or More Employees
Some of the provisions of the health care law apply only to large employers, which are generally those with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees. These employers are applicable large employers – also known as ALEs – and are subject to the employer shared responsibility provisions.
Information Reporting
Applicable large employers have annual reporting responsibilities concerning whether and what health insurance they offered to their full-time employees during the prior year. In 2016, the deadline to provide Forms 1095-C to full-time employees is March 31. The deadline by which ALEs must file information returns with the IRS is no later than May 31 or June 30 if filed electronically.
All employers, regardless of size, that provide self-insured health coverage must file an annual return reporting certain information for individuals they cover. In 2016, the deadline by which self-insured ALEs must provide Forms 1095-C to responsible individuals is March 31. The returns with 2015 information are due no later than May 31 or June 30 if filed electronically.
Employer Shared Responsibility Payment
ALEs are subject to the employer shared responsibility payment if at least one full-time employee receives the premium tax credit and any one these conditions apply. The ALE:
- failed to offer coverage to full-time employees and their dependents
- offered coverage that was not affordable
- offered coverage that did not provide a minimum level of coverage
SHOP Marketplace
Employers with more than 50 cannot purchase health insurance coverage for its employees through the Small Business Health Options Program – better known as the SHOP Marketplace. However, Employers that have exactly 50 employees can purchase coverage for their employees through the SHOP.
For more information, visit the Determining if an Employer is an Applicable Large Employer page on IRS.gov/aca.
