ACA/Obamacare: Repeal via the Legislative Tool Known as “Reconciliation”

‘Now, following Trump’s defeat of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, Republicans are laying the groundwork for dismantling the Affordable Care Act next year.

“I don’t think it’s going to be a sentence-per-sentence destruction of the bill, but I do think that substantial chunks of it are in really grave danger,” Seth Chandler, a visiting scholar at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center and a professor at the University of Houston Law Center, told The Daily Signal.

Republicans need 60 votes in the Senate to pass a bill repealing the health care law and would fall short of that threshold in the new Congress, where the GOP will hold at least 52 seats.

But GOP lawmakers are likely to use a budget tool called reconciliation—a procedure used in the Senate that allows a bill to pass with 51 votes—to roll back key provisions of Obamacare and avoid a Democratic filibuster.

The GOP-led House and Senate passed a budget resolution last year that included instructions to use reconciliation to repeal Obamacare and were ultimately successful in getting it to Obama’s desk, where it was vetoed.

The bill called for the repeal of the individual and employer mandates, Medicaid expansion, tax credits, medical device tax, and Cadillac tax. It also stripped the government of its authority to run the exchanges set up under the law and lessened the fine for failing to comply with the mandates to $0, which was needed to abide by Senate rules.

GOP leaders in the House and Senate haven’t committed to using reconciliation again next year to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, but House Speaker Paul Ryan said Wednesday the law is “collapsing under its own weight.”

“This Congress, this House majority, this Senate majority has already demonstrated and proven we’re able to pass legislation and put it on the president’s desk,” Ryan, R-Wis., said during a press conference. “Problem is, President Obama vetoed it. Now, we have a President Trump who has promised to fix this.”’ - How Republicans Can Start to Dismantle Obamacare With a Trump Presidency, dailysignal.com, 11/09/2016

　

Link to the entire article appears below:

http://dailysignal.com/2016/11/09/how-republicans-can-start-to-dismantle-obamacare-with-a-trump-presidency/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWkRabFlXWXdOV1F5WXpGaiIsInQiOiJZeEkyQ1RhanVSOWMyWTlKTmRPTXEzbTg0RXRFM1daZU5LcFFoK3JPK090cG5UVmNYWjhIQ3FvZUJpc2NJK1ZRMStqT0xjM1FHSlhCU3lVRWQ4TGJHOWJiNTloajdPVlpwaytyOGhXYUZDQT0ifQ%3D%3D


　


　

ACA/Obamacare: A Brief History of the Rise and Fall of Employer Sponsored Health Insurance

‘After the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate takes effect, Buchmueller expects most large employers to continue offering health insurance because tax subsidies and economies of scale remain substantial and because risk-pooling remains effective. “The individual health insurance market is still plagued by adverse selection,” he notes. “But with employer-sponsored coverage, you have a group of people who have been brought together for reasons other than purchasing insurance. You have a range of ages, and generally it’s a relatively healthy pool.”

Thomasson agrees, but she hedges her prediction with an alternative scenario: What if one high-profile firm dropped its coverage, paid the penalty, and raised wages by more than enough to cover the average cost of obtaining health insurance in an exchange? “That firm might lure the people who are less attracted by benefits — the healthier, younger, smarter people,” she says. Then other firms might start competing on the basis of higher wages instead of better health insurance.

Just as government loopholes for employer-sponsored health insurance have distorted the labor market, government mandates for employer-sponsored health insurance are likely to distort the labor market, too. “My guess is we will see changes on the margin in the short run,” Thomasson says. “For example, firms that are close to that 50 limit may act differently, but I think it’s going to take a few years for people to see how it all will work.”

Large companies that employ many low-wage workers will face the biggest challenge, Buchmueller predicts. “Those firms are toying with ideas of shifting workers to part-time schedules or just sucking it up and offering them benefits or paying the penalty. But for the bulk of large firms that are currently offering insurance, the calculation has not changed that much.” ‘ - From Loophole to Mandate, Econ Focus, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, first quarter 2014, released 08/2014

Link to the entire article appears below:

http://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/econ_focus/2014/q1/pdf/economic_history.pdf?WT.si_n=Search&WT.si_x=3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ACA/Obamacare Employer Mandate: Hourly Work Week Trends In Low Wage Industries

“To understand both why the employer mandate needs fixing and what should be done, it helps to look at the data.”

“Among private industries where pay averages up to about $14.50 an hour, 30 million workers clocked the shortest average workweek on record in November — 27.45 hours — before a further drop in December and January that was at least partly weather-related.

On a net basis, the 644,000 non-management jobs added in these low-wage industries in 2013 through November averaged just 17.9 hours per week.

These grim data points suggest that too-few work hours, as well as low pay, should be part of the conversation on reducing inequality.

Yet these trends have been ignored, ironically, because of growing inequality in work hours. Because the rest of the private sector (managers and higher-paying industries) is clocking a longer average workweek than before the recession, making workforce-wide data look benign, economists haven't noticed that low-wage work hours are shorter, on average, than they were at the depth of the recession. (see two recoveries chart)

An honest discussion over ObamaCare's part-time effect must start with the recognition that something is seriously depressing the hours of low-wage workers.

Correlation — the drop in the low-wage workweek just as low-wage employers had a significant new incentive to cut work hours — does not prove causation. But there is other evidence also pointing to ObamaCare as a principal factor.

Anecdotes of employers cutting work hours to minimize ObamaCare fines have piled up in an array of industry groups where the workweek has been shrinking. Relative to the start of 2013, average weekly hours in November were down 1.2% at limited-service restaurants; 1.4% at supermarkets; 1.5% at clothing stores; 2.1% among providers of home care services to the elderly and disabled; 4.1% at sporting goods, book, music and hobby stores; 4.5% at home-center stores; and 4.9% at general merchandise stores.

The White House has said that a good way to test for an ObamaCare effect on work hours is the ratio of workers usually clocking 31- to 34-hour weeks vs. the number putting in 25- to 29-hour weeks. If that ratio were stable, it would be a sign that employers weren't adjusting work hours below the 30-hour mark. But in the fourth quarter of 2013, this White House-endorsed ratio fell to a 13-year low of 0.6, down 15% from a year earlier.

Predictably, that decline was concentrated in the low-wage segment. Among workers earning $7.25 to $10 an hour, this ratio of workers clocking just above ObamaCare's full-time threshold vs. those just below it sank 24% from the fourth quarter of 2012.

The claim that all job gains in 2013 were part-time was hogwash, but that does appear to have been the case among workers earning within a few dollars of the minimum wage.

An analysis of usual-hours-worked data suggests that all net new jobs in 2013 among hourly wage earners making $7.25 to $10 an hour had workweeks below 30 hours. (See article and accompanying note.)

While the more reliable workweek data from the establishment survey turned lower in the spring, the weakness in the household workweek data didn't become really obvious until the fourth quarter. But such a lag is largely to be expected, because the household survey instructions define "usual" as at least 50% of the time over the prior four or five months.

Because the establishment survey workweek data are telling a similar story, it's much less likely that the more volatile household survey hours-worked data are sending a false signal.

After another month or two of data that aren't infected by bad weather, it should be beyond dispute that ObamaCare's impact on low-wage workers is significant. The question, then, will be what to do about it.” - Fixing ObamaCare Employer Mandate For Low-Wage Workers, Investors Business Daily, 03/13/2014

Link to the entire article appears below:

http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/031314-693091-fixing-obamacare-employer-mandate-to-ease-hours-impact.htm


　

　

　

　


　

ACA: One Branch Government and a Chart of Its Unilateral Path

ACA: Another Day, Another Delay. Employer Mandate Delayed for Employers With 50 to 99 Full-time Workers.

“Most employers won't face a fine next year if they fail to offer workers health insurance, the Obama administration said Monday, in the latest big delay of the health-law rollout.

The Treasury Department, in regulations outlining the Affordable Care Act, said employers with 50 to 99 full-time workers won't have to comply with the law's requirement to provide insurance or pay a fee until 2016. Companies with more workers could avoid some penalties in 2015 if they showed they were offering coverage to at least 70% of full-time workers.

The move came after employers pressured the Obama administration to peel back the law's insurance requirements. Some firms had trimmed workers' hours to below 30 hours a week to avoid paying a penalty if they didn't offer insurance.

A senior administration official said the shift was a response to businesses' concerns, though the official said no one reason was behind the change.

Under the original 2010 health law, employers with the equivalent of at least 50 full-time workers had to offer coverage or pay a penalty starting at $2,000 a worker beginning in 2014. Last year, the administration delayed the requirement for the first time by moving it to 2015.

The new rules for companies with 50 to 99 workers would cover about 2% of all U.S. businesses, which include 7% of workers, or 7.9 million people, according to 2011 Census figures compiled by the Small Business Administration. The rules for companies with 100 or more workers affect another 2% of businesses, which employ more than 74 million people.”

“The new regulations are likely to help employers who currently don't provide health coverage to certain employee groups by allowing them to temporarily continue that practice for at least some workers, said Paul Hamburger, a health-care attorney at Proskauer Rose in Washington.

But employers remain subject to a $3,000 penalty each time one of those workers buys coverage on a state health-care exchange and qualifies for subsidized premiums, he said, after a preliminary review of the new regulations.” - Health-Law Mandate Put Off Again, WSJ, 02/11/2014

Link to the entire article appears below:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304558804579375213074082656?mod=ITP_pageone_0



Related:

Obama Rewrites ObamaCare. Another day, another lawless exemption, once again for business, WSJ, 02/11/2014


http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303650204579375310934336066?mod=trending_now_1

Obama validates the conservative case against the employer mandate, AEI, 02/11/2014



http://www.aei-ideas.org/2014/02/obama-validates-the-conservative-case-against-the-employer-mandate/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+aei-ideas%2Fposts+%28AEIdeas+Posts%29

Filomena and the ACA: New Expenses or Passing On Expenses?

“FILOMENA BUFFET NOTICE:

As of January, 1, 2014, Filomena has discontinued its Friday Lunch Buffet. We regret we had to make this decision but unfortunately we face new expenses as a result of the Healthcare reform and the Friday Buffet, though wonderful, was not profitable and required extra staff which we can no longer sustain. We regret any inconvenience and on a good note, we will continue our Saturday Buffet and invite you to try our much improved Sunday Brunch Buffet!”

“UPDATE: Filomena responds:

“In response to various inquires regarding our decision to discontinue the Friday Buffet we wish to clarify some information regarding the reasons behind it and offer some facts and hopefully clear up any misunderstandings many seem to have.”

“Filomena employed 85 employees before we stopped the Friday lunch buffet, January 3rd and as of today employee 86 employees and in fact are advertising for some new staff because our making some changes to operations to help pay for the Healthcare Reform by increasing business which has been successful so far.

Even though the Health Care Reform employer mandate of 50 or more employees had to be offered healthcare coverage was postponed one year, Filomena decided to offer that coverage, this year, 2014 and not wait until 2015 as most restaurants have done. We want to offer coverage to our employees but honestly have to find new ways to pay for it since we are so labor intense (close to 90 employees for 150 seat restaurant).

Because of the potentially large new expense of offering healthcare coverage to 90 employees, we had to look for areas of operations that were either marginal or losing money to trim expenses or losses and find new areas to increase business so that we could keep all our employees and continue to grow our business.” - Filomena Restaurant Cuts Lunch Buffet “as a result of the Healthcare reform” UPDATE: Filomena Responds, popville.com, 01/17/2014

　

Link to the entire article appears below:

http://www.popville.com/2014/01/filomena-restaurant-cuts-lunch-buffet-as-a-result-of-the-healthcare-reform/


　

　


　

Grand Valley State University Study: ACA Lead to 1000 Less Jobs and Slower Economic Growth in Western Michigan

Link to Grand Valley State University Final Summary Report, ACA Employer Survey study:

http://gvsu.edu/gvnow/files/ckfinder/userfiles/files/Priority%20Final%20Report%20B2.pdf
 

Upon Further Review of the ACA Delays: the Synthesis of No Employer Mandate, No Employer Verification Mechanism, No Income Verification and the Use of Exchanges.

“That extra cash will subsidize coverage for workers without requiring an employer contribution, at least temporarily. It will make it easier for enrollees to understate their income to get subsidies that are richer — much richer in some cases. And it will enable modest-income families and poor adults who were supposed to be cut off from subsidies to access federal help.


By suspending many of the least popular features for a year or more, ObamaCare's cost is likely to be significantly higher; public support may be temporarily supported as well.


Modest-income families are among those that get the rawest deal from ObamaCare. If a spouse is offered individual coverage by an employer that meets the law's affordability test of 9.5% of household income, then the other spouse and their children are ineligible for exchange subsidies.”


“Under ObamaCare's official rules, such families might be better off financially if they earned less. The law's "family penalty" now won't be a concern for 2014.


Friday's release from the Department of Health and Human Services said that state exchanges may take an applicant's word regarding the availability of affordable employer coverage.


This follows logically from Tuesday's announcement that employer reporting requirements about each worker's access to health insurance would be suspended for 2014. No reporting requirements, no fines.”


“Considering ObamaCare's complex rules that deem unaffordable employer coverage for families "affordable," it's only logical that many families will sign up for subsidies who weren't supposed to be eligible.


Friday's release also gave state exchanges temporary leeway to apply the honor system to enrollees when it comes to reporting their income.


This is key because exchange subsidies can differ greatly for households separated by a few thousand dollars in income. In fact, the lower-earning household might be better off under ObamaCare after factoring in lower taxes, bigger premium subsidies and far-lower deductibles.


For example, a couple earning $30,000 might face a $300 deductible, thanks to cost-sharing subsidies, while one earning $32,000 could face a $3,500 deductible, according to one estimate provided to Kaiser Family Foundation by Towers Watson.”


“The delay of the employer mandate also will at least temporarily smooth over two additional ObamaCare cliffs: the 49-worker firm and the 29-hour workweek.


For employers with 49 full-time-equivalent workers (based on hours worked, not just headcount), the 50th worker for firms that do not carry health coverage would carry a $40,000 penalty.


Firms that do offer coverage which is either too pricey for some workers or not deemed comprehensive enough would owe $3,000 for each full-time worker who gets ObamaCare subsidies. Because the fine is nondeductible, it would equate to $5,000 in deductible wages for a profit-making firm facing a 40% federal and state tax rate.


Because that annual fine would be imposed for a worker clocking 30 hours per week, but not for one who puts in 29 hours, it would equate to a wage hike of $96.15 per hour.


Thus, the 30-hour workweek is likely to last only as long as the employer mandate is delayed.


The Congressional Budget Office has projected that the employer mandate would raise $10 billion in fiscal 2015, starting October 2014. That doesn't include any extra subsidy costs due to the mandate's temporary absence.


House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., has asked the CBO to recalculate the health law's budget impact as a result of the administration's changes.” - Smoothing ObamaCare's Transition Will Cost Billions, Jed Graham, IBD, 07/08/2013



Upon further review, by not requiring the employer mandate until 01/01/2015 then the “individual coverage by an employer that meets the law's affordability test of 9.5% of household income” is not in play meaning a worker could easily go to the exchange with family in tow and receive a subsidy for himself/herself as well as the remainder of the family by indicating the employee‘s coverage does not meet the affordability test of 9.5%. No mechanism is in place to verify the claim. If the mandate was in effect and the employer did in fact meet the 9.5% mandate and the verification mechanism was in place, then the remainder of the employees family would not qualify for subsidies through the exchange.


If the employee were to fudge in order to maximize a reduction in price for the entire family’s health insurance cost and hence seek out the exchange and maximum subsidy, then increased subsidies occur. The subsidy and potential increase in subsidy is taxpayer funds therefore increasing the need for taxpayer revenue to fund the increased subsidies.


The entire article from Investor’s Business Daily appears in the link below:


http://news.investors.com/070813-662924-obamacare-mandate-income-delays-will-hit-taxpayers.htm?ref=HPLNews&p=2