by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have published data which projects that 1,332 counties (over 40%) will have only one health insurer on Obamacare in 2018 and 49 will have none. According to CNSNews, “the data comes from the Health Insurance Exchanges Issuer County Map, which shows projected issuer participation on the Health Insurance Exchanges in 2018 based on the issuer public announcements made prior to late July of 2017.”
Successful healthcare systems do not continuously lose insurers, accumulate massive debt, and leave citizens with little to no choice. Obamacare has continued to wreak havoc on our citizens. It has to go. We can do better.
by | ARTICLES, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS
Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced yesterday that civil asset forfeiture would continue to be a viable practice among law enforcement. In fact, Sessions went so far as to roll-back asset forfeiture restrictions that were put in place during the Obama Administration after a series of high-profile cases and reports revealed egregious misuses of the law which resulted in billions in seizures over several years for state and federal agencies. Sessions announced, “We will continue to encourage civil asset forfeiture whenever appropriate in order to hit organized crime in the wallet.”
Civil asset forfeiture allows law enforcement to take money or property from a citizen who is merely suspected of criminal activity — not charged or convicted. Though original asset forfeiture laws were aimed at drug cartels to interrupt their business and money, it use has expanded rapidly in recent years. It’s not being used just for “organized crime” anymore; that’s a red herring that gives police a green light to continue to abuse citizens and take their property without due process.
“Under the equitable sharing program, federal authorities may “adopt” state and local forfeiture cases and prosecute them at the federal level. Those local police departments get to keep up to 80 percent of the forfeiture revenue, while the rest goes into the equitable sharing pool and is distributed among partner departments around the country.” I gave credit to Obama for addressing asset forfeiture and restrictions were rightly implemented as a stepping stone to reign in this abominable practice. Sessions is now loosening those once again.
According to Reason, “The Justice Department did include several requirements that it says will safeguard the due process rights of property owners. The directives require state and local police to provide additional information showing probable cause that a crime occurred before federal authorities will adopt the seizure. Seizures of under $10,000 will have to be accompanied by a warrant, a related arrest, or the seizure of contraband. Absent those provisions, a U.S. attorney would have to sign off on an adoption.
Clarence Thomas wrote a scathing dissent of asset forfeiture last month when SCOTUS chose not to hear a case on the matter. He wrote, “this system—where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use—has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses. He further pointed out, “because the law enforcement entity responsible for seizing the property often keeps it, these entities have strong incentives to pursue forfeiture.”
Thomas is right to condemn the practice. Asset forfeiture is a practice that denies citizens the right to due process; no one should lose property because of mere suspicion of criminal behavior. Sessions and the Department of Justice is wrong on this matter.
For interested parties, here’s a link to the entire policy directive:
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
I have to admit that I was a bit surprised to read an article by AEI (“This health care tax could spark a GOP civil war,” July 13, 2017) which treated the Net Investment Income Tax (NIIT) as a pesky tax that was wreaking havoc on health care reform, because <gasp>, some Republicans wanted to eliminate it.
But nobody has been talking about the series of tax changes that occurred when Obama and his Democrat cronies passed the Obamacare increases in the first place. These raised the Bush tax rates on only the wealthiest from 36% – 39.6 % and then again raised the tax rates on the wealthiest by adding the 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax (NIIT), which covered all investment income. Then there was the 0.9% Obamacare Medicare surtax on upper-income earners. Obamacare increases also raised capital gains on the wealthiest ones from 15% – 20%. When the 3.8% tax would get tacked on, capital gains rates effectively went from 15%- 23.8% — an increase of about 55%. Taxes like these punish investment!
How is that not ridiculous? Or rather, how is it considered ridiculous that some Republicans want to eliminate the NIIT? Democrats continuously refer to it as an “upper-class tax cut.” Don’t fall for the rhetoric!
by | ARTICLES, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS
The 19th co-op since the creation of Obamacare has announced it will cease offering services at the end of 2017. Known as the “Minuteman Health of Massachusetts and New Hampshire,” this co-op will look to reorganize as a new venture to be called the “Minuteman Insurance Company.”
According to the Washington Free Beacon,
“The company cited issues with Obamacare’s risk-adjustment program, which is the program that shifts money away from those with healthier customers to those with sicker enrollees. Minuteman Health said that the negative impact of this program had been “substantial.”
“Unfortunately, the program has not worked as intended,” the company said. “It has been difficult for insurers to predict their risk-adjustment obligations, which has led some to withdraw from the ACA market.”
“The program also unfairly penalizes issuers like MHI that are small, low cost, and experience high growth,” the company said. “The significant relative impact from risk adjustment has been the principal driver of a reduction in MHI’s surplus and capital over 2 [sic] time.”
The co-op was able to grow to 37,000 members since it began in 2014 but said that being subject to certain co-op rules made it hard to adjust its business model to mitigate issues with the risk-adjustment program. The co-op was awarded $156.4 million in taxpayer-funded loans in 2012 and 2013.
The new company, Minuteman Insurance Company, will not be subject to these rules.
The ill-effects of the atrocious Obamacare legislation continues to disrupt lives. You’ll never hear about these failed co-ops, long considered a “jewel” of the program. How can any one rationally defend a 17% success rate for health care reform?
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, TAXES
We’ve written about the collapse of many Obamacare markets as well as the removal of several insurers from the Obamacare system across multiple states and exchanges. Earlier this year Aetna Inc. and Wellmark Inc. announced that they would not participate in Iowa for 2018 due to unsustainable costs; only the insurer Medica would be available in the state.
In response, Bloomberg reports that “Iowa is asking the Trump administration to let it reallocate millions of dollars and create a stopgap program that would provide health insurance options for 72,000 Iowans covered by the Affordable Care Act.
Under the proposal made public on Monday, the state would use $352 million in federal money to provide backup funding for insurers and overhaul Obamacare’s subsidies for consumers next year. The state would also create a single standardized plan that insurers would offer.”
Iowa’s proposal has three main pieces:
- It would create a standard plan, pegged to Obamacare’s mid-level silver offering. Insurers and consumers who want the extra help would need to buy that plan.
- The state would use about $220 million of funding to provide the new subsidies.
- And the state would create a reinsurance program, funded with an estimated $80 million, to help insurers deal with high-cost claims.
The program needs to be approved by the Trump administration and would be known as a “Stopgap” measure while the future of Obamacare gets played out in Congress. Nonetheless, the current form of Obamacare is financially unstable; expect to see more of these types of proposals in the coming months.
by | BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS
The idea of “disparate impact” holds that a defendant can be held liable for racism and discrimination for a race-neutral policy that statistically disadvantages a specific minority group even if that negative “impact” was neither foreseen nor intended. This tactic was increasingly used in recent years during the Obama Administration, most often by Loretta Lynch, Obama’s Attorney General, and Thomas Perez, his Secretary of Labor.
It follows then that minimum wage laws are racist and discriminatory. There’s no question that the effect these policies have on minorities are unfavorable. The citizens who are going to lose their jobs or will be unable to get jobs as a result of raising the cost of wages are disproportionately larger populations of minorities. If you can impute and infer racial bias because of an adverse impact and then use it to determine the legality of a law, it is unequivocally clear that minimum wage laws should be deemed unconstitutional.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE
From the LATimes:
A proposal to adopt a single-payer healthcare system for California took an initial step forward Thursday when the state Senate approved a bare-bones bill that lacks a method for paying the $400-billion cost of the plan.
The proposal was made by legislators led by Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) at the same time President Trump and Republican members of Congress are working to repeal and replace the federal Affordable Care Act.
The bill, which now goes to the state Assembly for consideration, will have to be further developed, Lara conceded, adding he hopes to reach a consensus on a way to pay for it.
Republican senators opposed the bill as a threat to the state’s finances.
“We don’t have the money to pay for it,” Sen. Tom Berryhill (R-Modesto) said. “If we cut every single program and expense from the state budget and redirected that money to this bill, SB 562, we wouldn’t even cover half of the $400-billion price tag.” (emphasis added)
Lara’s bill would provide a Medicare-for-all-type system that he believed would guarantee health coverage for all Californians without the out-of-pocket costs. Under a single-payer plan, the government replaces private insurance companies, paying doctors and hospitals for healthcare.
The California Nurses Assn., which sponsored the bill, released a fiscal analysis this week that proposed raising the state sales and business receipts taxes by 2.3% to raise $106 billion of the annual cost, with the rest proposed to come from state and federal funding already going to Medicare and Medicaid services.
Even if the bill is approved, it has to go to Gov. Jerry Brown, who has been skeptical, and then voters would have to exempt it from spending limits and budget formulas in the state Constitution. In addition, the state would have to get federal approval to repurpose existing funds for Medicare and Medicaid.”
The state of California is already facing severe financial difficulties. To try to actually implement something like this, at so staggering a cost, would be reckless for the taxpayers of California. Hopefully, commonsense will prevail.
by | ARTICLES, FED, GOVERNMENT, HEALTHCARE, IRS, LAW, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, TAXES
In response to Donald Trump’s Executive Order last week, the IRS altered its rules about tax returns and Obamacare’s “shared responsibility” penalty. This is one of the methods of paying for Obamacare, and if collection of the penalty is not being strictly enforced, it will contribute further to the already unstable financial state Obamacare is in.
From Reason.com:
How much difference does a single line on a tax form make? For Obamacare’s individual mandate, the answer might be quite a lot.
Following President Donald Trump’s executive order instructing agencies to provide relief from the health law, the Internal Revenue Service appears to be taking a more lax approach to the coverage requirement.
The health law’s individual mandate requires everyone to either maintain qualifying health coverage or pay a tax penalty, known as a “shared responsibility payment.” The IRS was set to require filers to indicate whether they had maintained coverage in 2016 or paid the penalty by filling out line 61 on their form 1040s. Alternatively, they could claim exemption from the mandate by filing a form 8965.
For most filers, filling out line 61 would be mandatory. The IRS would not accept 1040s unless the coverage box was checked, or the shared responsibility payment noted, or the exemption form included. Otherwise they would be labeled “silent returns” and rejected.
Instead, however, filling out that line will be optional.
Earlier this month, the IRS quietly altered its rules to allow the submission of 1040s with nothing on line 61. The IRS says it still maintains the option to follow up with those who elect not to indicate their coverage status, although it’s not clear what circumstances might trigger a follow up.
But what would have been a mandatory disclosure will instead be voluntary. Silent returns will no longer be automatically rejected. The change is a direct result of the executive order President Donald Trump issued in January directing the government to provide relief from Obamacare to individuals and insurers, within the boundaries of the law.
“The recent executive order directed federal agencies to exercise authority and discretion available to them to reduce potential burden,” the IRS said in a statement to Reason. “Consistent with that, the IRS has decided to make changes that would continue to allow electronic and paper returns to be accepted for processing in instances where a taxpayer doesn’t indicate their coverage status.”
The tax agency says the change will reduce the health law’s strain on taxpayers. “Processing silent returns means that taxpayer returns are not systemically rejected, allowing them to be processed and minimizing burden on taxpayers, including those expecting a refund,” the IRS statement said.
The change may seem minor. But it makes it clear that following Trump’s executive order, the agency’s trajectory is towards a less strict enforcement process.
Although the new policy leaves Obamacare’s individual mandate on the books, it may make it easier for individuals to go without coverage while avoiding the penalty. Essentially, if not explicitly, it is a weakening of the mandate enforcement mechanism.
“It’s hard to enforce something without information,” says Ryan Ellis, a Senior Fellow at the Conservative Reform Network.
The move has already raised questions about its legality. Federal law gives the administration broad authority to provide exemptions from the mandate. But “it does not allow the administration not to enforce the mandate, which it appears they may be doing here,” says Michael Cannon, health policy director at the libertarian Cato Institute. “Unless the Trump administration maintains the mandate is unconstitutional, the Constitution requires them to enforce it.”
“The mandate can only be weakened by Congress,” says Ellis. “This is a change to how the IRS is choosing to enforce it. They will count on voluntary disclosure of non-coverage rather than asking themselves.”
The IRS notes that taxpayers are still required to pay the mandate penalty, if applicable. “Legislative provisions of the ACA law are still in force until changed by the Congress, and taxpayers remain required to follow the law and pay what they may owe,” the agency statement said.
Ellis says the new policy doesn’t fully rise to the level of declining to enforce the law. “If the IRS turns a blind eye to people’s status, that isn’t quite not enforcing it,” he says. “It’s more like the IRS wanting to maintain plausible deniability.”
Tax software companies are already making note of the change. Drake Software, which provides services to tax professionals, recently sent out a notice explaining the change in policy. As of February 3, the notice said, the IRS “will now accept an e-filed return that does not indicate either full-year coverage or an individual shared responsibility payment or does not include an exemption on Form 8965, as required by IRS instructions, Form 1040, line 61.”
The mandate is a key component of Obamacare’s coverage scheme, which is built on what experts sometimes describe as a “three-legged stool.” The law requires health insurers to sell to all comers regardless of health history, and offers subsidies to lower income individuals in order to offset the cost of coverage. In order to prevent people from signing up for coverage only after getting sick, it also requires most individuals to maintain qualifying coverage or face a tax penalty. While defending the health law in court, the Obama administration maintained that the mandate was essential to the structure of the law, designed to make sure that people did not take advantage of its protections.
In a 2012 case challenging the law’s insurance requirement, the Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate was constitutional as a tax penalty. The IRS is in charge of collecting payments.
Some health policy experts have argued that the mandate was already too weak to be effective, as a result of the many exemptions that are included. A 2012 report by the consulting firm Milliman found that the mandate penalty offered only a modest financial incentives for families making 300-400 percent of the federal poverty line. More recently, health insurers have said that individuals signing up for coverage and then quickly dropping it after major health expenses is a key driver of losses, and rising health insurance premiums.
It’s too early to say whether the change will ultimately make any difference. But given the centrality of the mandate to the law’s coverage scheme and the unsteadiness of the law’s health insurance exchanges, with premiums rising and insurers scaling back participation, it is possible that even a marginal weakening of the mandate could cause further dysfunction. Health insurers have said the mandate is a priority, and asked for it to be strengthened. Weaker enforcement of the mandate could cause insurance carriers to further reduce participation in the exchanges. One major insurer, Humana, said today that it would completely exit Obamacare’s exchanges after this year.
It is also possible that congressional Republicans will make it moot by repealing much of the law, including its individual mandate, which, as a tax, can be taken down with just 51 Senate votes.
Regardless of its direct impact, however, the change may signal that the Trump administration intends to water down enforcement of the health law’s most controversial requirement, even if those steps are seemingly small. The Trump administration may not be tearing Obamacare down entirely, but it appears to be taking steps to weaken the law, however subtly, one line at a time.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES, TRUMP
After telling the American electorate that he wants to repeal and replace Obamacare, Trump has now stated that he may not do this entirely. The way he worded his remarks indicates that he is willing to keep “ObamaCare’s preexisting condition and the 26 year old provision to stay on their parent’s plan” to remain.
These two provisions are not “Obamacare” provisions – they are provisions that could – and maybe should – be part of a new health care law. The new replacement for Obamacare could have provisions for people with preexisting conditions to get insurance and even keeping 26 year olds on the plan — but it should be funded in a new healthcare plan that is able to charge competitively using a Health Saving Account structure, with tort reform, interstate competition, no mandated coverage that people don’t want – and government subsidies for the needy – and not by mandates and intentional overcharges.
The fact that some provisions of ObamaCare are also in the new plan does NOT mean that part of ObamaCare remains. Socialism and Capitalism are not the same just because they both have a police force.
ObamaCare must go in its entirety.
