‘The implementation of major legislation such as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) often results in fiscal outcomes that differ significantly from prior projections. Whenever this happens it leads to many questions, much confusion, and several claims and counter-claims. Rarely is it immediately clear whether the law is working differently than envisioned, or whether the unexpected outcomes are due to inevitable projection errors having nothing to do with the law.
On rare occasion, however, a prior projection proves so far off that its significance must be noted. Two weeks ago my colleague Brian Blase uncovered such a development with respect to the ACA’s Medicaid expansion. Recall that the ACA considerably expanded Medicaid eligibility – an expansion made optional for the states in a later Supreme Court ruling. It turns out that the 2015 per-capita cost of this Medicaid expansion is a whopping 49% higher than projections made just one year before.
This disclosure can be found on page 27 of the 2015 Actuarial Report for Medicaid, released this July. Here is how the report described the issue:
“While the newly eligible adult per enrollee costs in 2014 were slightly lower than estimated in last year’s report ($5,488 compared to $5,517, or about 1 percent lower), the estimated per enrollee costs for 2015 in this year’s report are substantially greater ($6,366 compared to $4,281, or about 49 percent higher).”’ - The Soaring Costs of the ACA’s Medicaid Expansion, economics21.org, 08/01/2016
Link to the entire essay appears below:
http://www.economics21.org/html/soaring-costs-aca%E2%80%99s-medicaid-expansion-1989.html
'The federal government and the states have no idea what happened to billions of dollars given to create Obamacare's exchanges, according to a federal watchdog.
The Government Accountability Office charged the Obama administration and many state-run healthcare exchanges with not adequately tracking federal funding, according to a report in the libertarian Reason magazine on Monday.
The GAO report, which is still in draft form, comes as the administration is taking heat for not properly screening fake Obamacare applications.
The watchdog's latest finding focuses on grant funding for state-run healthcare exchanges with not adequately tracking federal funding, according to a report in the libertarian Reason magazine on Monday.
The GAO report, which is still in draft form, comes as the administration is taking heat for not properly screening fake Obamacare applications.
The watchdog's latest finding focuses on grant funding for state-run marketplaces from September 2010 to March 2015, Reason reported.
Neither the states examined by the GAO nor the administration detailed how grant funding for information-technology projects was spent.
Also, the states and the administration didn't track how much of $2.78 billion in Medicaid matching funds was used to fund exchange operations or development, according to Reason, which did not name the states implicated in the draft report.
The draft report appears to lay the blame on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which manages Obamacare.
"Rather than require states to report spending on specific products, CMS required states running their own exchanges to report spending on five general categories — IT contracts, IT consultants, IT personnel, IT equipment and IT supplies," Reason's report said. "The vast majority of the grant money went to contracts for services like 'systems integration, project management, and independent validation and verifications.'" ' - Where did billions in Obamacare grants go? washingtonexaminer.com, 07/20/2015
Link to the entire article appears below:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/where-did-billions-in-obamacare-grants-go/article/2568625
“WASHINGTON (AP) — Phony applicants that investigators signed up last year under President Barack Obama's health care law got automatically re-enrolled for 2015. Some were rewarded with even bigger taxpayer subsidies for their insurance premiums, a congressional probe has found.
The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office says 11 counterfeit characters that its investigators created last year were automatically re-enrolled by HealthCare.gov. In Obama's terms, they got to keep the coverage they had.
Six of those later were flagged and sent termination notices. But GAO said it was able to get five of them reinstated, using more bogus information. The five even got their monthly subsidies bumped up a bit. The case of the sixth fake enrollee was under review.
HealthCare.gov does not appear to be set up to detect fraud, GAO audits and investigations chief Seto Bagdoyan said in prepared testimony for a Senate Finance Committee hearing Thursday. A copy was provided to The Associated Press.” - Bogus ACA Enrollees Had Their Coverage Renewed, 07/15/2015, insurancenewsnet.com,
Link to the entire article appears below:
http://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/2015/07/15/apnewsbreak-bogus-enrollees-kept-getting-obamacare.html
“The Obama administration cannot account for nearly $3 billion in subsidies paid to insurance companies in 2014, according to a government watchdog.
Those dollars are untraceable because the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) did not have “effective” methods to do so, according to a report from the department’s inspector general.
That lack of internal control means "a significant amount of federal funds are at risk," the report, released Tuesday, warns, though government health officials said they have resolved, or are working to resolve, most of the issues.
For four months in ObamaCare’s first year of offering insurance subsidies, HHS officials could not confirm that payments were made “to confirmed enrollees and in the correct amounts,” according to the report. State-run marketplaces also had no way of submitting enrollee eligibility data.” - Government can't explain $3B in ObamaCare payments, the hill.com, 06/17/2015
Link to the entire article appears below:
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/245257-audit-government-cant-explain-3b-in-obamacare-payments
“The catastrophic ObamaCare rollout merely two years ago has disappeared into the distant political past, forgotten, with zero accountability for the taxpayer waste and disruption to individuals and business. Massachusetts may prove to be an exception.
Late last week the administration of Republican Governor Charlie Baker confirmed that the FBI and U.S. Attorney for Boston have subpoenaed records related to the commonwealth’s “connector” dating to 2010. This insurance clearinghouse was Mitt Romney’s 2006 beta version for ObamaCare’s exchanges, but updating the connector to comply with the far more complex federal law became a fiasco rivaling any of the other federal and state ObamaCare failures.
The target of the investigation hasn’t been disclosed. But the best autopsy of the connector mess is being published Monday by Boston’s Pioneer Institute think tank, where Josh Archambault reviews internal audits and whistleblower testimony he obtained. The evidence is damaging to both Massachusetts’s exchange contractor, CGI Corp., and the administration of former Democratic Governor Deval Patrick.
Mr. Archambault reveals years of third-rate technological work, disregarded deadlines, pervasive mismanagement, little outcome measurement and general bureaucratic incompetence. An outside auditor noted as early as 2012 that the “quantity and/or skills/experience level of project resources may be impacting the ability to complete project tasks within planned timeframes” and questioned if staff were “sufficiently knowledgable.”
A test before going public showed a 90% failure rate, and the new connector detonated on the launch pad. Some 320,000 residents attempting to gain coverage had to be dumped into a temporary “free” Medicaid program without any income eligibility determination. Pioneer pegs the total cost of the mess at around $1 billion.” - ObamaCare’s Big Dig, The Massachusetts exchange is under federal investigation, wsj.com, 05/10/2015
Link to the entire article appears below:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamacares-big-dig-1431299268?KEYWORDS=Obamacare%27s+Big+Dig
“Several million people hit with new federal fines for going without health insurance will get a second chance to sign up starting Sunday, and that could ease the sting of rising penalties.
But, as the enrollment window reopens, it’s unclear how many know about the time-limited opportunity, let alone will take advantage of it.
Fines payable to the IRS are the stick behind the offer of taxpayer-subsidized private insurance under President Barack Obama’s health care law. Virtually everyone in the country is now required to have coverage through an employer or a government program, or by buying individual policies.
This is the first year fines are being collected from uninsured people the government deems able to afford coverage. Tax preparation company H&R Block says the penalty averages about $170 among its affected customers. It usually is deducted from a person’s tax refund.
Those penalized are mainly the kind of people the law was intended to help: low- and middle-income workers who do not have coverage on the job or are self-employed. Roughly 4 million people are expected to pay fines, according to congressional estimates. Many more will qualify for exemptions.”
“Penalties for being uninsured are going up this year to a minimum of $325 for the full 12 months. That’s a significant increase from the $95 minimum in 2014.
The new sign-up opportunity runs through April 30. To qualify, individuals have to certify to the government that they meet certain conditions, including:
– They did not know or understand that they were legally required to have coverage until after open enrollment officially ended Feb. 15.
– They owed a penalty for being uninsured in 2014.
Those requirements are for the 37 states served by the federal HealthCare.gov website. States running their own insurance exchanges may have different rules and deadlines. Penalties for 2014 are not refundable.” - Cool reception for new ACA sign-up window, Albuquerque Journal, 03/15/2015
Link to the entire article appears below:
http://www.abqjournal.com/555733/news/cool-reception-for-new-aca-signup-window.html
“The Washington Health Benefit Exchange call center in Spokane is so busy that staffing has been quadrupled, with the center receiving up to 10,000 calls a day. The problem is not enough of those callers are actually signing up for insurance.
The state has enrolled 160,000 paying customers in ObamaCare exchange health plans but that's more than 50,000 short of goal, which has led to an extension of the enrollment deadline and a request that the Washington State Legislature fork over $125 million to fund the exchange.”
“Only 14 states, including Washington, are operating their own ObamaCare exchanges and many are struggling to make it without help from taxpayers.
New York’s governor wants a $69 million tax on non-exchange health insurance policies while Vermont has projected a $20 million shortfall by the end of 2015. There also is a bill in Rhode Island to scrap the state exchange and go with the federal exchange to avoid a $24 million hit to taxpayers. Massachusetts, which has been at this longer than anyone, does not have a general tax to fund its exchange, but does rely on a hefty cigarette tax and an employer’s tax.” - Washington state's ObamaCare exchange faces funding shortfall, Foxnews, 03/12/2015
Link to the entire story appears below:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/12/washington-state-obamacare-exchange-faces-funding-shortfall/
‘Last week, the White House took to Twitter for purposes of publicizing its latest Obamacare enrollment blarney. Far more informative than the tweet’s fictitious sign-up numbers was the schmaltzy video to which it was linked. Staged in the Oval Office, this one-act farce features a simpering HHS Secretary briefing our Thespian in Chief, who then delivers the following soliloquy: “The Affordable Care Act is working. It’s working better than we anticipated. It’s certainly working a lot better than many of the critics talked about early on.” In Obama’s 27-word script, “working” appears three times. The President doth protest too much, methinks.”
But don’t take my word for it. Ask the folks who learned last Friday that Obama’s bureaucrats sent them erroneous tax information relating to PPACA. The Associated Press reports, “Officials said the government sent the wrong tax information to about 800,000 HealthCare.gov customers, and they’re asking those affected to delay filing their 2014 returns.” And, as with most government blunders, the price will be paid by those who can least afford it. Robert Pear points out in the New York Times, “[T]housands of lower-income Americans who qualified for subsidized insurance had hoped for tax refunds and now must wait for weeks to file their taxes.”
Obama and his minions will, of course, rewrite PPACA’s tax and enrollment provisions in yet another attempt to contain the political damage wrought by the disastrous “reform” law. This is nothing new. It will merely be the latest of nearly 50 emergency revisions to which Obamacare has been subjected since it was signed into law. Prior to February’s pratfalls, according to a tally kept by the Galen Institute, “47 significant changes already have been made to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: at least 28 that President Obama has made unilaterally, 17 that Congress has passed and the president has signed, and 2 by the Supreme Court.”’ - No, Mr. President, Obamacare Isn’t Working, The American Spectator, 02/23/2015
Link to the article appears below:
http://spectator.org/articles/61855/no-mr-president-obamacare-isn%E2%80%99t-working
“WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is giving a reprieve to up to 6 million Americans who face fines for failing to sign up for health insurance this year, opening up enrollment again during the critical tax filing season.
At the same time, it’s admitting another colossal blunder: 800,000 ObamaCare enrollees were sent the wrong tax information and have been asked to delay filing their returns until they can get the corrected data.”
“Under the revised deadline, enrollment for 2015 opens again from March 15 through April 30 for those who face tax penalties, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.”
“The administration also announced Friday that it mistakenly sent out the wrong tax information to 800,000 customers on the HealthCare.gov website. It’s now asking those people to delay filing their returns until they can get the correct data.”
“California made a similar announcement affecting 100,000 people in the state-run exchange — bringing the total close to 1 million. Another 50,000 may have to resubmit returns already filed.” - Nearly 6M uninsured to get reprieve from ObamaCare fines, New York Post, 02/20/2015
Link to the entire article appears below:
http://nypost.com/2015/02/20/nearly-6-million-uninsured-get-reprieve-from-obamacare-fines/
“The health insurance market is changing. And the changes are not good. Even before there was Obamacare, most insurers most of the time had perverse incentives to attract the healthy and avoid the sick. But now that the Affordable Care Act has completely changed the nature of market, the perverse incentives are worse than ever.
Writing in the New York Times Elizabeth Rosenthal gives these examples:
When Karen Pineman of Manhattan sought treatment for a broken ankle, her insurer told her that the nearest in-network doctor was in Stamford, Connecticut – in another state.
Alison Chavez, a California breast cancer patient, was almost on the operating table when her surgery had to be cancelled because several of her doctors were leaving the insurer’s network.
When the son of Alexis Gersten, a dentist in East Quogue New York, needed an ear, nose and throat specialist, the insurer told her the nearest one was in Albany – five hours away.
When Andrea Greenberg, a New York lawyer, called an insurance company hotline with questions she found herself speaking to someone reading off a script in the Philippines.
Aviva Starkman Williams, a California computer engineer, tried to determine whether the pediatrician doing her son’s 2-year-old checkup was in-network, the practice’s office manager “said he didn’t know because doctors came in and out of network all the time, likening the situation to players’ switching teams in the National Basketball Association.”
But aren’t these insurers worried that if they mistreat their customers, their enrollees will move to some other plan? Here’s the rarely told secret about health insurance in the Obamacare exchanges: insurers don’t care if heavy users of medical care go to some other plan. Getting rid of high-cost enrollees is actually good for the bottom line.” - How Obamacare Is Destroying Health Insurance, John Goodman, townhall.com, 02/21/2015
Link to the entire article appears below:
http://townhall.com/columnists/johncgoodman/2015/02/21/how-obamacare-is-destroying-health-insurance-n1960029
“The second open enrollment period for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act is underway, and the law is more unpopular than ever. According to Gallup, a record-high 56 percent of Americans now disapprove of the 2010 law.”
“Republicans in Congress — less inclined than some deep thinkers to sneer at "the stupidity of the American people" — unanimously opposed the Affordable Care Act when it was enacted, and were rewarded in the 2010 midterms for their steadfastness. In the ensuing four years, Republicans repeatedly called for replacing Obamacare with alternatives expanding choice, competition, and market reforms — and the voters just rewarded them again.
Of course, even with their new majorities in Congress Republicans will have to contend with President Obama's veto pen. So a bill "repealing every last vestige of Obamacare," as Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky exuberantly proposed on Election Night, isn't in the cards anytime soon. But that doesn't mean there is nothing to be done, particularly since the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a new challenge to the law, one that could potentially cause Obamacare to topple under its own weight.”
“One way or another, changes in the law are coming. Not all of them have to be bitterly controversial, or provoke cries of Republican overreaching. Here's a suggestion: Allow individuals to buy health insurance from out of state.
In an age when consumers can purchase almost anything from vendors almost anywhere, government policies protecting insurance companies from interstate competition are indefensible. Lawmakers would be laughed out of office, rightly, if they insisted that the only CDs, cellphones, or ceramics their constituents could buy were those manufactured in the state where they lived. All sorts of financial products are routinely acquired without to state borders proving an impenetrable barrier: life insurance, service warranties, stocks and bonds, bank accounts, credit cards. Why should a medical plan be any different?
There is no good reason to deny freedom of choice to Americans when it comes to buying health insurance. Yet licensing rules in virtually every state effectively prevent individual residents from shopping for health plans in any other state. Consequently, there is no national market for health insurance. There are only autonomous state markets, many dominated by near-monopolies that can get away with offering lower quality insurance at ever-higher premiums.
As Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute points out, it isn't only insurance companies that are sheltered from the rigors of competition. Insurance regulators are insulated too. State governments, inveigled by special interests, can burden health insurance policies with more and more mandatory benefits, driving up premiums to cover services that many consumers would never willingly choose.
In Massachusetts, for instance, health insurance policies must cover at least 49 specifiedtreatments and types of providers, among them midwives, infertility treatments, hair prostheses, and chiropractors. But what if all you want is a plain-vanilla health plan akin to those sold by insurers in New Hampshire (only 38 state-required health-care mandates) or, better yet, in Michigan (24) or Idaho (13)? Tough luck. That's what it means when interstate commerce in health insurance is blocked.” - Buy Your Health Insurance Out of State, Jeff Jacoby, 11/19/2014, townhall.com
Link to the entire article appears below:
http://townhall.com/columnists/jeffjacoby/2014/11/19/buy-your-health-insurance-out-of-state-n1921111
‘WASHINGTON — Three years ago, as President Obama fought for re-election, his team was more than happy to have Jonathan Gruber, a well-known Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor, mouthing off.
Mr. Gruber, a health care expert who helped develop Mitt Romney’s health care plan in Massachusetts and later was a consultant for Mr. Obama’s Affordable Care Act, was no stranger to the pundit circuit, and repeatedly called attention to the similarities between the two plans — a politically helpful fact for the Obama 2012 campaign.
“They’re the same bill,” Mr. Gruber declared once, adding an expletive before the word “bill.”
But now, Mr. Gruber’s bluntness is clearly less appreciated by those in the West Wing, thanks to the emergence of a series of videos that show Mr. Gruber calling the American public “stupid” and suggesting that the president’s health care law passed by fooling Americans about how it works.
“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure C.B.O. did not score the mandate as taxes,” Mr. Gruber said in October 2013, referring to the Congressional Budget Office. “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the ‘stupidity of the American voter’ or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.”’
‘White House officials rejected the idea that Mr. Gruber was the “architect” of the Affordable Care Act. They noted he was never employed by the White House or any federal agency, though he was paid close to $400,000 as a consultant to the Department of Health and Human Services during 2009 and 2010.
But Mr. Gruber had become a high-profile booster of the president’s signature domestic achievement and participated in its development. During the contentious debate in Congress, top Democrats frequently cited his analysis of the law’s impacts. An invitation to a different October 2013 panel discussion listed him as: “a key architect of the A.C.A., Dr. Jonathan Gruber.”’ - Affordable Care Act Supporter Ignites Fury With a Word: ‘Stupid’, New York Times, 11/14/2014
Link to the entire article appears below:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/us/politics/affordable-care-act-supporter-jonathan-gruber-ignites-fury-with-a-word-stupid.html?action=click&contentCollection=Politics&module=RelatedCoverage®ion=Marginalia&pgtype=article
“Fasten your seat belts. Turbulence lies ahead for ObamaCare as funding streams for three programs are set to nose-dive.
Millions of children could lose coverage, and millions more insured via Medicaid or ObamaCare plans could have an even tougher time finding a doctor.
These funding cliffs weren't driven by policy but by politics: Provide short-term funding to get ObamaCare off the ground, then cut it off — at least on paper — to make the budget forecasts look better over 10 years
Now, with the money set to dry up next year, a push has begun to save funding for all three programs at an annual cost approaching $13 billion.
The first bumps could be felt at the start of 2015, when the Affordable Care Act's boost in funding for Medicaid primary care doctors is set to expire.
The law temporarily provided funds to lift Medicaid's reimbursement rates, putting them on par with Medicare's for 2013 and 2014 at a cost of $11 billion.”
“Access problems could intensify in September 2015. ObamaCare provided $11 billion over five years to boost the capacity of community health centers, a key source of care in low-income, medically underserved areas. Most of the money goes to clinics where reimbursements and co-pays often don't cover the cost of care.
The 2015 funding cliff would leave health centers unable to sustain current caseloads, sharply damaging primary-care access for the insured and uninsured alike and potentially leading to more costly increases in specialty, emergency and inpatient care," warned researchers at George Washington University's Milken Institute School of Public Health.”
“A third upcoming cliff would see funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, sink from $12.5 billion in fiscal 2015 to $9.1 billion the next year and $5.7 billion thereafter.” -
3 ObamaCare Funding Cliffs Imperil Coverage, Access - Investors Business Daily, 07/07/2014
Link to the entire article appears below:
http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/070714-707604-obamacare-funding-drop-for-medicaid-payments-clinics-chip.htm
‘A Romanian attacker hacked the Vermont health exchange’s development server last December, gaining access at least 15 times and going undetected for a month, according to records obtained by National Review Online.
CGI Group, the tech firm hired to build Vermont Health Connect, described the risk as “high” in a report about the attack. It also found possible evidence of sophisticated “counter-forensics activity performed by the attacker to cover his/her tracks.” ‘ - Another Security Breach for Obamacare, NRO, 07/01/2014
Link to entire article appears below:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/381640/another-security-breach-obamacare-jillian-kay-melchior
“The Obama administration is struggling to resolve data discrepancies that could jeopardize coverage for millions who sought health insurance on the federal exchange HealthCare.gov, according to a watchdog report on the still-rocky implementation of ObamaCare.
Though the system's troubles have faded from the headlines since the problem-plagued launch last October, a report from the health department inspector general provided the first independent look at widespread issues the government is having effectively fact-checking the information applicants are putting in the system.
According to the report, the administration was unable to resolve 2.6 million so-called "inconsistencies" out of a total of 2.9 million such problems from October through December 2013.
The government needs to determine applicants' eligibility in order to verify they can enroll and, in some cases, get government subsidies. Without that step, coverage could be jeopardized. Critics fear these issues also could cause chaos during the 2015 tax-filing season, as many would have to pay back subsidy money they were not entitled to.” - ObamaCare coverage for millions in jeopardy as watchdog finds widespread data flaws, fox news, 07/01/2014
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/01/report-obamacare-data-problems-affecting-millions/
Keeping the above news report in mind for a moment, consider the following:
“Many of the inequities present in Obamacare stem from Section 1401 of the law, which establishes eligibility for subsidized insurance in government-run exchanges.[5] Obamacare’s formulae for allocating federal premium and cost-sharing subsidies include several “cliffs.” At these cliffs, individuals and families will actually benefit more by working less because additional earnings could cause them to lose thousands of dollars in taxpayer-funded subsidies.
For example, Obamacare subsidizes insurance premiums for individuals with incomes of up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), which is just over $62,000 for a couple in 2013.[6] According to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s subsidy calculator, a married couple, each 50 years old, making a combined $60,000 per year would receive a taxpayer-funded insurance subsidy of up to $5,081.[7] The couple would qualify for this subsidy because their combined income would be just below 400 percent of the FPL. However, if the couple earned an additional $2,500—raising their income just above 400 percent of the FPL—they would receive no subsidy at all. Even though they receive $2,500 more in cash compensation, the couple would actually be worse off financially because they would lose more than $5,000 in federal insurance subsidies.
Similar cliffs occur elsewhere in Obamacare’s subsidy structure. As income approaches 400 percent of the FPL, the percentage of income that households are expected to devote to insurance premiums rises, and the premium subsidies under Section 1401 fall. Individuals with rising income also face the loss of federal cost-sharing subsidies established under Section 1402 of the law, which reduce out-of-pocket expenses including co-payments and deductibles. These effects are particularly acute at certain cliffs established in the statute—for instance, 150 percent, 200 percent, and 250 percent of the FPL—but they also pervade the entire subsidy structure. Overall, University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan has concluded that Obamacare will help raise effective marginal tax rates by more than 10 percentage points.[8]
The subsidy formulae in Obamacare and the disincentives to work compound an existing system of tax credits and welfare programs that places families of low and modest incomes in a “poverty trap.” Testifying before two subcommittees of the House Ways and Means Committee in June 2012, Urban Institute fellow Gene Steuerle explained how the phaseouts of various income-linked programs—such as food stamps, housing assistance, and cash welfare benefits under the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program—create very high effective marginal tax rates.” - How Obamacare Undermines American Values: Penalizing Work, Marriage, Citizenship, and the Disabled, Chris Jacobs, heritage.org, 11/21/2013
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/11/how-obamacare-undermines-american-values-penalizing-work-marriage-citizenship-and-the-disabled#_ftnref8
Upon Further Review
The reverse tax cliffs of Obamacare would likely work the same as marginal income tax cliffs in regards to tax avoidance. Tax avoidance techniques are well known. There are legal tax avoidance techniques and there are illegal tax avoidance techniques. The point being, individuals will rationally avoid tax.
For instance, James and Jane Goodfellow face/approach a marginal income tax cliff. The Goodfellow’s could merely take the months of November and December off and earn zero income during those months and avoid the tax cliff. The Goodfellow’s could continue earning income and deploy legal tax avoidance techniques. Finally the Goodfellow’s could continue earning income and deploy illegal tax avoidance techniques such as underreporting of income.
Meanwhile, John and Mary Public face/approach a reverse tax cliff regarding Obamacare. The Public’s could merely take the months of November and December off and earn zero income during those months and avoid the reverse tax cliff. The Public’s could continue earning income and deploy legal tax avoidance techniques. Finally the Public’s could continue earning income and deploy illegal tax avoidance techniques such as underreporting of income.
Returning to the 2.6 million unresolved “inconsistencies” in Obamacare applications and the 04/15/2015 tax day disaster of many subsidy payments needing returned by Obamacare subsidy recipients: Did Obamacare applicants put the cart before the horse regarding tax avoidance techniques? How so?
On the ACA/Obamacare web site it asks a very vague question regarding income: “What is your household's expected income for 2014?” If one answers the preceding question assuming tax avoidance techniques deployed one would give a different answer than if one answers the preceding question assuming no tax avoidance techniques deployed.
Consider for a moment that a clever person experiments regarding changing the answer to “income” upon the ACA/Obamacare web site (regardless of the anticipation of tax avoidance techniques deployed and consequential reportable income). By changing the income the person will see the subsidy rise or fall and hence the consequential price required to be paid for a particular insurance plan rise or fall. Is it possible the clever person tells other clever people of their experiment?
In the final analysis, are the “inconsistencies” really inconsistencies or merely a product of the ACA application design? Stated alternatively, if one turns loose Johnny Insurance Applicant on a malfunctioning web site with no verification of data input, would one expect “inconsistencies”?
“Despite hopes to freeze tuition at the University of South Carolina, it appears students will be forced to pay higher tuition, meal, and housing costs this year to compensate for the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and other state mandates.
A press release from the university states:
USC will start FY2015 applying nearly $18 million toward the additional costs of state-mandated employee pay raises, health and retirement benefits and implementation of the Affordable Care Act.
The ACA will require the university to extend coverage to all employees who work 30+ hours a week. This provision alone will cost $4.5 million and the university simply cannot afford to shoulder that expense.
Instead, students and their families will bear the burden by paying the 3.2 percent increment for the upcoming school year. This equates to a $342/year increase for in-state students and $912/year increase for out-of-state students. The extra revenue will help cover both the ACA implementation and the rising cost of state-mandated employee pay raises.” - UofSC Students: Say Thanks To Obamacare For Your Tuition Hike, townhall.com, 06/26/2014
Link to the entire story appears below:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/karajones/2014/06/26/uofsc-students-say-thanks-to-obamacare-for-your-tuition-hike-n1856190?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl
“The Health and Human Services report, released this week, claims that of the 5.4 million people who enrolled in ObamaCare through the federal HealthCare.gov site, 4.7 million got tax subsidies to offset the cost of their premiums.
It goes on to say that once you factor in the subsidy, the average premium was $82 a month. "Consumers have more choices, and they're paying less for their premiums," boasted new HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell.
That claim itself is dubious. Even with the subsidies, ObamaCare is hardly cheap.”
“After looking over the HHS report, Robert Laszewski, president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, concluded that while ObamaCare might be a bargain for low-income families who can get private insurance for very little money, it's "not attractive to working-class and middle-class families and individuals."
The other fact conveniently left out of the HHS report is that the cost of ObamaCare to taxpayers is far higher than expected.
Early last year, the Congressional Budget Office projected that ObamaCare's tax credits would cost $15 billion in its first year. One year later, it had cut that number down to $13 billion, and then lowered it again in April to $10 billion.
But using the administration's enrollment and subsidy numbers, it turns out that the subsidy costs just for those who signed up through the federal exchange will top $11 billion.
The Los Angeles Times reports that if these subsidy numbers hold true for the 14 state-run exchanges, ObamaCare's first-year subsidy costs will climb to $16.5 billion.
Some of the increase is due to the higher-than-expected sign-ups. But a big cause was the fact that a larger share of enrollees got subsidies than the CBO expected. And the average tax credit was bigger. The CBO had assumed the average credit would be about $222 a month. The actual number was $264 — about 19% higher.” - Surprise: ObamaCare Costs More Than Predicted, Investors Business Daily, 06/18/2014
Link to the entire article appear below:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-obama-care/061814-705269-surprise-obamacare-is-costing-more-than-predicted.htm
