| Healthcare Bill Part III; Obamacare | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 3 2014, 02:20 PM (48,604 Views) | |
| LTC8K6 | Jan 18 2015, 10:26 PM Post #1516 |
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2015/01/18/large-penalties-await-employers-who-reimbursed-certain-employee-health-insurance-premiums-in-2014/print/ Large Penalties Await Employers Who Reimbursed Certain Employee Health Insurance Premiums In 2014 |
 |
 
|
| MikeZPU | Jan 18 2015, 10:39 PM Post #1517 |
|
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2015/01/16/harvard-study-of-cbo-reports-says-nothing-new-or-interesting-about-king-v-burwell/ Vox‘s Sarah Kliff reports that Harvard University’s Theda Skocpol has produced a study purporting to show Congress intended for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to authorize health-insurance subsdies through Exchanges established by the federal government — even though the statute expressly and repeatedly says those subsidies are available only “through an Exchange established by the State.” Whether the PPACA authorizes those subsidies in the 36 states with federal Exchanges is the question presented in King v. Burwell. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in King on March 4, with a ruling expected by June. Unfortunately for the administration and its supporters, Skocpol offers nothing either new or that supports the notion that Congress intended something other than what it expressly said in the statute. What evidence does Skocpol claim to have found in support of her counter-textual interpretation of congressional intent? She combs through 68 analyses issued by the Congressional Budget Office during 2009 and 2010. She finds that in none of these reports did the CBO entertain the idea that the PPACA’s Exchange subsidies might be available in some states but not others. She interprets this as both “excellent evidence” and “the best objective evidence we have that no one in Congress considered premium subsidies restricted to certain states to be either possible or desirable.” Yeah, about that. An alert Vox reader already informed Kliff that the claim that CBO never condsidered the possibility of Exchange subsidies in some states but not others isn’t exactly true. The comprehensive health care bill approved by Democrats on the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee in 2009 (S. 1679) would have given states four years to establish Exchanges themselves, after which point the federal government would establish an Exchange. As my partner-in-crime-fighting Jonathan Adler and I write in an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court in King: S. 1679 asked each state to adopt certain health insurance regulations, and either establish an Exchange itself or ask the federal government to establish one “in” the state…S. 1679 withheld Exchange subsidies, as well as many of its insurance regulations, for up to four years until the state complied. The CBO scored S. 1679 assuming that some states would establish Exchanges early and some would not. Thus the agency’s cost projections assumed that Exchange subsidies would be available in some states but not in other states. So we’ve already got a problem with Skocpol’s analysis. What Skocpol, Kliff, and her otherwise alert reader missed — which they would not have missed if they read our brief — is that the HELP bill permanently withheld Exchange subsidies if a state failed to implement that bill’s employer mandate. Again, from our brief: After four years, the federal government would establish an Exchange “in” the state and implement guaranteed-issue and community-rating rules even stricter than those found in the PPACA. If a state thereafter failed to implement the bill’s employer mandate, S. 1679 withheld Exchange subsidies permanently — even in a federal Exchange. Emphasis in original. In fact, the HELP bill would have withheld Exchange subsidies in both federal Exchanges and state-established Exchanges if the state did not cooperate by implementing the bill’s employer mandate. Even the government’s amici concede the HELP bill, which was merged with the Finance committee’s health care bill to form the PPACA, conditioned Exchange subsidies on states implementing the law. So much for Skocpol’s claim that “no one in Congress considered premium subsidies restricted to certain states to be either possible or desirable.” (Senate Democrats discarded this part of the HELP bill when crafting the PPACA, but retained and strengthened the Finance bill’s language conditioning Exchange subsidies on states establishing Exchanges.) READ MORE AT THE LINK ABOVE |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jan 19 2015, 08:01 AM Post #1518 |
|
Barry at work making it easier for small businesses ...the market which employees the most citizens in the U.S. of A. |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jan 19 2015, 08:40 AM Post #1519 |
|
Before I even read up on the many columns out there addressing this "study," I should point out that the data provided to any source estimating costs does actually reveal hints at what the intent was. All that Congress gave Gruber for him to provide a cost estimate would be of great interest. All that Congress gave the CBO for them to provide a cost estimate would be of great interest. How did either of them determine that all states would participate? Somebody directed them both to ASSUME that ALL states would fully cooperate, which is a pipe dream. Before "intent of Congress" carries any weight, they must show provisions of the law that are ambiguous and would not make it absurd to UNwrite the plain text in question. That said, if intent was for the federal exchange to provide subsidies, where is the language in the law that says such? The reality of what went on at the CBO is that their numbers were based on the assumption that all states would cooperate, so there was no need for the CBO to concern itself with the lack of funding available to establish federal exchanges where states did not cooperate. I'm not aware of any numbers that CBO produced showing funds set aside for subsidies and taxes (mandate) in states operating specifically with a federal exchange. . Edited by kbp, Jan 19 2015, 08:42 AM.
|
|
|
|
| kbp | Jan 19 2015, 09:21 AM Post #1520 |
|
http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/content/why-congressional-budget-office-reports-are-best-evidence-congressional-intent-about-health- Why Congressional Budget Office Reports are the Best Evidence of Congressional Intent about Health Subsidies Theda Skocpol, Harvard University Days after the November 2014 elections, the Supreme Court granted expedited review of a legal challenge to subsidies that are now helping millions of Americans afford private health insurance. Funded by the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute, King v. Burwell alleges that the 2010 Affordable Care Act precludes premium subsidies for the citizens of states that have not established their own marketplace “exchanges” to sell regulated insurance plans. Pointing to a single discordant phrase in 900 pages, plaintiffs claim that Congress threatened to withhold subsidies to force all fifty states to build and run exchanges on their own. From the Harvard sociologist which has a problem with the definition of "single." This statutory interpretation case will be heard at the Supreme Court on March 4, 2015. Previous jurisprudence has established that laws are to be interpreted in terms of overall purposes, and the goals of the Affordable Care Act certainly require the nationwide availability of premium subsidies. [Be thankful she is not in charge of the budget using that approach. The re-writes would be overwhelming!]Nonetheless, arguments rage about Congressional intentions. Health policy reporters have combed through old notes; former Congressional leaders have penned OpEds; and one enterprising reporter dug up an old staff email. All confirm that those who debated health reform bills never imagined that subsidies could be withheld from residents of any states. In response, King plaintiffs point to a 2012 videotaped speech by an economist who advised reform designers. But all of this is after-the-fact. To properly assess Congressional intent, the Supreme Court needs contemporaneous, objective evidence. [Start with the plain text and find its source!] The Value of the Full Record of Congressional Budget Office Reports Political scientists know that such objective evidence can be found in the entire record of analyses prepared by the Congressional Budget Office for the 111th Congress. Called “CBO” for short, this agency has a legal mandate to generate nonpartisan revenue and cost estimates for bills and amendments. In addition, the office responds to requests from members of Congress to provide data on issues that come up in debates. Every Senator or Representative, not just members of the majority party or Congressional leaders, can ask for CBO analyses – or raise questions about previously issued CBO analyses. This institutional fact is crucial. Because the Congressional Budget Office is responsive to requests and questions, the steady stream of major and minor analyses it prepares during debates over complex legislation like the Affordable Care Act amounts to excellent evidence of the full range of possibilities considered in real time by any party, faction, or highly engaged member of Congress. Legislators pay close attention and regularly ask for additional analyses, because CBO cost estimates profoundly influence votes. [Yes, the question was raised and answered!] What the 2009-10 CBO Record Shows Her time span greatly limits the possibility to "raise questions about previously issued CBO analyses."] In December 2010 – months after the Affordable Care Act was signed into law and well before the lawsuits challenging subsidies were conceived – the CBO published a topically organized compilation of 35 important reports it issued during the health reform debates. To complete the record, I dug into the most detailed lists for 2009 and 2010 on the agency’s website and included 33 additional reports, estimates, responses, and presentations (everything except blog posts). I then arrayed all 68 analyses chronologically, noted who asked for each, and looked at how premium subsidies and state-level variations were assessed. Here is what I found:
Throughout hard-fought debates about health reform, lawmakers in both parties looked for ways to save taxpayer money. Partial subsidies would have greatly reduced costs, so the total absence of this kind of analysis among the 68 prepared by CBO for the 111th Congress (and its continuing absence in reports done for the next Congress) is the best objective evidence we have that no one in Congress considered premium subsidies restricted to certain states to be either possible or desirable. If Congress intended to threaten states with withheld subsidies, nobody said so. Nobody said so except the law! So the absence of evidence is evidence of proof ..if we ignore some evidence? . Edited by kbp, Jan 19 2015, 09:22 AM.
|
|
|
|
| LTC8K6 | Jan 19 2015, 09:21 AM Post #1521 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
That seems to be exactly what my company has been doing. Apparently they are not allowed to. |
|
|
|
| Rusty Dog | Jan 19 2015, 09:32 AM Post #1522 |
|
LTC, I thought about you when I read about those penalties. |
|
|
| kbp | Jan 20 2015, 09:33 AM Post #1523 |
|
A point brought up by Jonathan Adler tweet, the attorney who worked with Michael Cannon early on exposing the problem with subsidies at federal exchanges:
Recall 36B directs the subsidies for exchanges set up under Section 1311: I'd need to refresh myself on the a few things here, but I'm fairly certain there is some reason a federal exchange does not qualify in that situation. . |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jan 20 2015, 09:44 AM Post #1524 |
|
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/01/12/americans-protest-obamacare-by-refusing-health-insurance-subsidies Eligible Americans Turn Down Obamacare Tax Credits [...] |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jan 20 2015, 09:58 AM Post #1525 |
|
|
|
|
|
| LTC8K6 | Jan 20 2015, 10:25 AM Post #1526 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
I have forwarded the info to the people making the decisions. I think they finally realize they might need to change. 
|
|
|
|
| kbp | Jan 21 2015, 07:22 AM Post #1527 |
|
That's what the "people making the decisions" get for trying to interpret what the law and regulations actually say! |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jan 22 2015, 09:17 AM Post #1528 |
|
I asked Michael Cannon and he pointed out that HHS would not qualify as an "ELIGIBLE ENTITY," which comes from 1311(f)(3)(B) I assume. |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jan 22 2015, 09:36 AM Post #1529 |
|
Somewhat OT......Federal law requires Medicaid...to provide the same access to care as that given to people with private insurance. If that means anything, it seems the lawsuit should be directed at Medicaid for not structuring the system to dictate that the States provide such. ADD: Food for thought... Our medical bills include itemized charges for everything down to bandages. That is private property, so compensation for such property at below market value prices is a takings case ....if the health care provider is forced by law to provide services to Medicaid patients. Edited by kbp, Jan 22 2015, 09:43 AM.
|
|
|
|
| kbp | Jan 22 2015, 09:59 AM Post #1530 |
|
Now that the budget is fully approved thru Sept 2015. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
 |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic » |
11:54 AM Jul 13