by | ARTICLES, BLOG, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
Today, the IRS issued a series of questions and answers about health care forms that individuals will receive in the next few months. These forms are the 1095-A, 1095-B, and 1095-C. The information is “intended to educate individual taxpayers and describe the forms, who will provides them, and the purposes they serve. The Q&As also provide information as to when taxpayers can expect the forms and what taxpayers need to do with the forms once they are received.”
The bulletin answers the following questions:
1. Will I receive any new health care tax forms in 2016 to help me complete my tax return?
2. When will I receive these health care tax forms?
3. Must I wait to file until I receive these forms?
4. What are the health care tax forms that I might receive and how do I use them?
5. How will I receive these forms?
6. My employer or health coverage provider has suggested that I opt to receive these forms electronically rather than on paper. Are they allowed to ask me that?
7. Will I get at least one form?
8. Will I get more than one form?
9. Will I get a Form 1095-C from each of my employers?
10. How are the forms similar?
11. How are the forms different?
12. What do I need to do with these forms?
13. What should I do if:
I have a question about the form I received,
I think I should have gotten a form but did not get it,
I need a replacement form, or
I believe the form I received has an error?
14. Can I file my tax return if I have not received any or all of these forms?
15. Am I required to file a tax return if I receive one of these forms?
16. Should I attach Form 1095-A, 1095-B or 1095-C to my tax return?
If you have these or similar questions, you should read the IRS bulletin. You can see the full questions and answers here.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
With the insurance enrollment period ending in mid-December, Healthcare.gov announced that 8.2 million Americans selected plans for 2016 in 38 states. The Administration is touting the 8.2 figure as a “success” by comparing it to the 6 million plan selections by the same time last year. There was no mention, however, of how the 8.2 million number falls exceedingly short of the 21 million projected to be Obamacare users.
One amusing point is how the Administration parsed its words. “Plan selection” is an important phrase in Obamacare-speak. It means that many people chose these plans, filled out the forms, and submitted them — but did not necessarily pay for them. This is why they didn’t use the term “enroll” when describing the Obamacare figures. In order to be considered to be actually enrolled, one must pay the first month’s premium. Not everyone will actually go ahead and pay their premium, and the federal Obamacare numbers will inevitably be even smaller because of it.
The current figure excludes the state insurance exchanges. When these are added to the federal numbers, the Obama Administration is hoping that will get them over the 10 million mark for this year — half of what was touted when Obamacare was passed. If they do hit that number, it still means that only about a million people were added to Obamacare this year, as last year’s enrollment ended up being about 9.1 million users.
In the debates leading up to Obamacare, it was argued that Obamacare should be voted for because it would get eventually get 28 million of the uninsured 45 million Americans (15% of the 315 million population). At that projected target, the 28 million would only be covering 70% of the then-uninsured, which is decent but not excellent. It is clear now that NOBODY would have voted for Obamacare if they only expected to cover 10 million (or barely more than 20%) of the then-uninsured, which is where we currently are. That is the key, salient point that is now being lost in the discussions.
The ACA continues to be a disaster for all taxpayers.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
As part of the “Working Paper Series” published by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the CBO just released their latest work entitled, “How CBO Estimates the Effects of the Affordable Care Act on the Labor Market.” Essentially, the CBO projects that the labor force will be about 2 million full-time-equivalent workers smaller ten years from now, in 2025, than it would have been without the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
“The Affordable Care Act (ACA) will make the labor supply, measured as the total compensation paid to workers, 0.86 percent smaller in 2025 than it would have been in the absence of that law, the Congressional Budget Office estimates. Three-quarters of that decline will occur because of health insurance expansions, which raise effective tax rates on earnings from labor — for instance, by phasing out health insurance subsidies as people’s income rises—and thus reduce the amount of labor that workers choose to supply. The labor force is projected to be about 2 million full-time-equivalent workers smaller in 2025 under the ACA than it would have been otherwise. Those estimates were based mainly on CBO’s calculations of the effects of the law’s major components on marginal and average tax rates and on the agency’s analysis of research about the change in the labor supply resulting from a change in tax rates. For components of the law that were difficult to express in terms of changes in tax rates, CBO based its estimates on a review of the available literature about similar policy changes.”
“All told, CBO estimates that in 2025, the ACA’s reduction in the labor supply, measured as total compensation, would range from 0.4 percent to 1.3 percent. The agency’s central estimate is 0.86 percent. In other words, the effect could be about 50 percent smaller or 50 percent larger than the agency’s central estimate because of potential variations in labor supply responses to the ACA’s provisions. Accounting for potential variations in other aspects of the estimates would widen that range.”
You can read the entire paper, about 20 pages long, here.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, CONSTITUTION, ECONOMY, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAX TIPS, TAXES
The Wall Street Journal put together an excellent editorial yesterday on the intersection of Obamacare and immigration.
First, starting in 2016, employers with 50 or more full time employees are required to offer health insurance for each of their workers, or else pay a penalty of $3,000 per each person who fails to receive proper Obamacare coverage.
So what happens with the undocumented immigrants allowed to stay under President Obama’s Executive Action? The numbers are estimated to be upwards of 5 million people.
“The government’s petition says that the executive action intended to provide ‘work authorizations’ so that undocumented immigrants could find jobs in the U.S. without working illegally for less than market wages, which might harm American workers. But wait: Employers aren’t required to offer ObamaCare coverage or subsidies to these immigrants. The statutory language in the Affordable Care Act says that only ‘lawful residents’ are eligible, and the government’s petition specifically notes that the immigration action does not ‘confer any form of legal status in this country.'”
Therefore, the immigrants (with deferred deportation), are exempt from Obamacare. While that may be good for the taxpayer, it is not necessarily good news for the worker. From a purely financial perspective, companies could easily save the $3000 penalty cost per worker if they hire and employ an Obamacare-exempt immigrant instead of a citizen/resident subject to the Obamacare rules.
The Wall Street Journal sums up the scenario nicely:
“Suppose businesses subject to ObamaCare employ only 40%, or two million, of the up to five million immigrants covered by the president’s executive action. At $3,000 an employee, businesses would save about $6 billion a year. Companies already dealing with the added expense of operating in the Obama economy — burdened by regulations, high taxes and other barnacles — would find those savings hard to pass up.”
Exempting employers who hire these immigrants from the law’s penalties gives the immigrants a distinct market advantage over U.S. citizens. That flies in the face of the president’s statement that his executive action would not “stick it to the middle class” by allowing these individuals to “take our jobs.” It is also contrary to the government’s statement that the executive action would make it less likely that these undocumented immigrants hurt American workers by “illegally” working “for below market rates.” They could still work at below-market rates, only it would be legal.
All of this was inevitable. The root problem with ObamaCare is that one party rammed it through Congress without a single Republican vote, while the law’s supporters didn’t even read it, let alone vet it through congressional committees. As a result, ObamaCare as written was unworkable, and the administration has had to repeatedly amend it by constitutionally dubious executive fiat.
Now this flawed law is clashing with yet another constitutionally dubious executive action that the administration couldn’t be bothered to pass through the legislature.”
The Obama Administration may yet decide to grant Obamacare to these immigrants currently exempted. But for the time being, since their status presents a situation may wreak havoc in the business world, leaving the current court injunction against the immigration order in place is the only suitable solution until the Obamacare-immigration situation is sorted out. Otherwise, expect the economy to continue to weaken from this latest threat.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAX TIPS, TAXES
A few days ago, UnitedHealthcare announced that the possibility of withdrawing from the Obamacare health insurance exchanges. This is a significant announcement, as UnitedHealthcare is one of the biggest insurers in the country. The impact of withdrawl would affect hundreds of thousands of people with regard to their healthplans; the timing — right before 2016 elections — would be critical.
HHS is predicting 10 million enrollees in 2016, which is half of what was originally projected when Obamacare was passed. It’s unlikely that enrollment will suddenly surge this year, which means that the financial instability of the entire model will continue.
If UnitedHealthcare decides to discontinue next year, those with their coverage will have to — yet again — choose another plan, but this time from a smaller list of coverage providers. Since Open Enrollment begins in the fall, right around Election time, such a move could wreak havoc on the final stretch.
One economist suggests that prices will increase even more.
“The year 2017 is significant for insurers, because that’s the year when several programs designed to mitigate risk for insurers through federal backstops go away. The hope was that those programs would act as training wheels for Obamacare in its first few years of implementation, but after that, the insurers were supposed to be able to thrive on their own. UnitedHealth’s statement suggests otherwise.
If UnitedHealth and other insurers decide to exit, remaining insurers will be forced to take on even more high-risk enrollees, prompting them to either raise rates further or exit themselves. That in turn would deprive individuals of choices and remove competition, a key purpose of the exchanges.”
So don’t expect United to suddenly see a reason to get back into the 2017 market, not without hefty risk-corridor subsidies — which under any other circumstances would be called “corporate welfare.” Given that Congress isn’t likely to reverse course and underwrite ObamaCare losses, the path to the exit remains the likely course for United, and perhaps some of its competitors, too.
United says it will remain committed to its Medicaid and Medicare businesses, and of course it will stick with its employer-based group coverage, where the issues of ObamaCare regulation have less impact.”
“But UnitedHealth and other insurers need more Americans to come into the public exchanges because the patients that are signing up for coverage are sicker, making a “higher overall risk pool,” insurance executives say. It’s a key reason many Americans are seeing rate increases of 10 percent or more across the country on public exchanges.
United has discovered that the trade-offs in mandates and forced coverage don’t pay off. It’s a bait-and-switch for insurers by the Obama administration, but it’s even worse of a bait-and-switch for consumers.
Subsidies do not mitigate the fact that consumers have to pay both the premium and then thousands of dollars for care out of their own pocket before insurance takes effect, except in rare and catastrophic circumstances.
Consumers used to have an option for that kind of health insurance – catastrophic coverage, used to indemnify against unforeseen major health events. Those policies featured low premiums and left routine care for consumers to negotiate directly with providers on a cash basis. Combined with health-savings accounts (HSAs), those plans offered a rational approach to balancing health and economic requirements, especially for younger consumers who rarely need more than one or two clinic visits a year, which would cost far less than either comprehensive-coverage premiums or deductibles even in the pre-ACA era.
Instead of “affordable care” promised by President Obama and Democrats, consumers have instead discovered they have effectively been forced to pay for catastrophic health insurance at comprehensive-plan prices. They have become victims of a bait-and-switch scheme that the government would vigorously prosecute – if it wasn’t masterminding the scheme itself.”
