500 Million Lines of Code

[Turdacious]

And it seems that the administration's perspective was that doing what the authors suggest (increasing deductibles to make health insurance more catastrophic risk insurance than it was prior to the PPACA) would control growth of health insurance spending.

That thought might have rattled around in the heads of administration officials, but it's certainly not what they did.

As for your post about what insurance does, you're being silly. Outside of estate planning, insurance deals with unlikely events.

They've done it in effect, by not enforcing lower deductible requirements on small businesses (a recent but expected exception).

And you're basing your beliefs on what insurance is on economic theory, not taking into account importance of the various types of insurance, why people buy it, and (perhaps most importantly) how it's sold. Annuities and life insurance are massive markets, and estate planning has been one of the most important selling points for life insurance for decades.

The US life insurance market had total gross written premiums of $506,228 million in 2010, representing a compound annual rate of change (CARC) of -1.3% between 2006 and 2010.

The pension/annuity segment was the market's most lucrative in 2010, with total gross written premiums of $357,236.6 million, equivalent to 70.6% of the market's overall value.

The performance of the market is forecast to accelerate, with an anticipated compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 6.5% for the five-year period 2010 - 2015, which is expected to drive the market to a value of $695,030.7 million by the end of 2015.

http://www.transworldnews.com/926406/c1 ... rch-report

Mr. Mandate agrees that health insurance is used for predictable events.

[Turdacious]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pq689Pt0gcg[/youtube]

CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor—given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive. Because the largest declines in labor supply will probably occur among lower-wage workers, the reduction in aggregate compensation (wages, salaries,and fringe benefits) and the impact on the overall economy will be proportionally smaller than the reduction in hours worked. Specifically, CBO estimates that the ACA will cause a reduction of roughly 1 percent in aggregate labor compensation over the 2017–2024 period, compared with what it would have been otherwise. Although such effects are likely to continue after 2024 (the end of the current 10-year budget window), CBO has not estimated their magnitude or duration over a longer period. The reduction in CBO’s projections of hours worked represents a decline in the number of full-time-equivalent workers of about 2.0 million in 2017, rising to about 2.5 million in 2024.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/ ... ok2014.pdf

[Turdacious]

Fortunately they're all better off...

Democrats are increasingly employing a new tack in the battle over a projected reduction of two million jobs due to Obamacare, saying the decline is actually the result of people not being required to work anymore when they don't want to -- a concept labeled "job lock."

"Yesterday, the CBO projected that by 2021 the Affordable Care Act will enable more than 2 million workers to escape 'job-lock' – the situation where workers remain tied to employers for access to health insurance benefits," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) office said in a news release.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pos ... -job-lock/

[Turdacious]

Hundreds of people with HIV/AIDS in Louisiana trying to obtain coverage under President Barack Obama's healthcare reform are in danger of being thrown out of the insurance plan they selected in a dispute over federal subsidies and the interpretation of federal rules about preventing Obamacare fraud.

Some healthcare advocates see discrimination in the move, but Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana says it is not trying to keep people with HIV/AIDS from enrolling in one of its policies under the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

The state's largest carrier is rejecting checks from a federal program designed to help these patients pay for AIDS drugs and insurance premiums, and has begun notifying customers that their enrollment in its Obamacare plans will be discontinued.

The carrier says it no longer will accept third-party payments, such as those under the 1990 Ryan White Act, which many people with HIV/AIDS use to pay their premiums.

"In no event will coverage be provided to any subscribers, as of March 1, 2014, unless the premiums are paid by the subscriber (or a relative) unless otherwise required by law," Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana spokesman John Maginnis told Reuters.

The dispute goes back to a series of statements from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the lead Obamacare agency.

In September, CMS informed insurers that Ryan White funds "may be used to cover the cost of private health insurance premiums, deductibles, and co-payments" for Obamacare plans.

In November, however, it warned "hospitals, other healthcare providers, and other commercial entities" that it has "significant concerns" about their supporting premium payments and helping Obamacare consumers pay deductibles and other costs, citing the risk of fraud.

The insurers told healthcare advocates that the November guidance requires them to reject payments from the Ryan White program in order to combat fraud, said Robert Greenwald, managing director of the Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School, a position Louisiana Blue still maintains.

http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-aids-pa ... MAzhHQtDMD

[Turdacious]

President Obama's health care reform law isn't going to kill 2.5 million jobs, Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee on Wednesday.

One day after multiple media outlets misinterpreted a CBO report on Obamacare, Elmendorf clarified the CBO's position during the hearing. The federal agency, Elmendorf said, had found Obamacare “spurs employment and would reduce unemployment over the next few years."

“When you boost demand for labor in this kind of economy, you actually reduce the unemployment rate, because those people who are looking for work can find more work," Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) asked Elmendorf.

“Yes, that’s right,” Elmendorf responded.

A number of new organizations wrongly interpreted the agency's report Wednesday as saying that Obamacare "killed" 2.5 million jobs. In reality, the agency found Obamacare could shrink the workforce by the equivalent of 2.5 million full-time workers over the next 10 years.

But that's not necessarily a bad thing. Obamacare could cause a reduction in employment because it makes health care more accessible, allowing Americans to quit jobs they only keep for the health care coverage. That's not killing jobs. It's giving workers the ability to quit jobs they don't want.

Representative Van Hollen called the media out for misreading the report.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/0 ... r=Business

Elmendorf and Van Hollen need to get outside the beltway more often.

[Batboy2/75]

Banana Republic Time!

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... TopStories

Where are all of the IGx libs on this? Going on 5 months and Troy & Cleaner haven't posted once in this thread.

[DrDonkeyLove]

Banana Republic Time!

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... TopStories

Where are all of the IGx libs on this? Going on 5 months and Troy & Cleaner haven't posted once in this thread.

[baffled]

Despite receiving $160 million in taxpayer money, Oregon's ObamaCare website has yet to properly sign up a single person for health care.

There could be consequences. An Oregon legislator has gone to the FBI. Top officials have resigned. The state is investigating. And on Thursday, Republicans in Congress called for a federal probe.

In a letter to the comptroller general of the United States, Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., asked the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to find out where the money went, and if the feds could get it back. Walden told Fox News if Oregon's health care website were a car, it'd be a lemon.

"It's like a car that has no tires, no engine, no steering wheel -- the doors are locked and you can't get in," he said.

It wasn't supposed to be like this. With a strong high-tech community in Portland and a progressive reputation, Oregon was an early, enthusiastic adopter of the Affordable Care Act. The state has been working toward a health care exchange since 2002 and was one of the first states to pass a law creating one.

More than $300 million in federal dollars have come to Oregon from taxpayers all over the country, in the form of grants with names like the "Early Innovator Grant." Oregon ranks third among all states in grants to implement the ACA, despite being near the middle in population.

Still, the website doesn't work.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02 ... e-website/

[Turdacious]

[Turdacious]

The Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) state-based health insurance exchanges, now in the fourth month of open enrollment, are relying on the participation of young adults—defined as 18 to 35 year olds—to create a balanced risk pool. Whether that participation materializes will be a key factor in the law’s ultimate success or failure.[1] Recently released data from the Department of Health and Human Services on the breakdown of enrollee age shows young adults make up only 24 percent of total enrollment through December 28, 2013—well below the administration's target level of 39 percent.[2] The ACA's perverse economic incentives are well documented. The law makes health insurance more expensive for many young adults, while at the same time making the decision to go without health coverage exponentially less risky than it previously was. It is impossible to predict how many young adults will ultimately enroll in coverage, but it is clear that many young adult enrollees will be worse off financially if they decide to purchase health insurance.
American Action Forum (AAF) experts previously reported in two October 2013 studies that a 30 year old male can expect premiums for his least costly insurance option to increase on average 260 percent in 2014,[3] while a 30 year old female will see an average increase of 193 percent.[4]

http://americanactionforum.org/research ... omic-incen

[TerryB]

"The Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) state-based health insurance exchanges, now in the fourth month of open enrollment, are relying on the participation of young adults—defined as 18 to 35 year olds—to create a balanced risk pool. Whether that participation materializes will be a key factor in the law’s ultimate success or failure."

I don't think this is true, that the law's survival depends on it, because of the "risk corridors" (i.e., insurance compnay bailouts) built into the law. Do the insurance companies care who signs up if the taxpayers are going to make up the difference?

[Turdacious]

"The Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) state-based health insurance exchanges, now in the fourth month of open enrollment, are relying on the participation of young adults—defined as 18 to 35 year olds—to create a balanced risk pool. Whether that participation materializes will be a key factor in the law’s ultimate success or failure."

I don't think this is true, that the law's survival depends on it, because of the "risk corridors" (i.e., insurance compnay bailouts) built into the law. Do the insurance companies care who signs up if the taxpayers are going to make up the difference?

Most of the bailout portions are temporary, and will require Congressional approval to continue-- including risk corridors.

During the 2014 to 2016 period, the federal temporary risk corridor program will redistribute funds from HIM-based qualified health plans with lower-than-expected costs to those with higher-than-expected costs. This program is intended to increase stability in the HIMs during implementation of the new reforms.

http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/re ... rwjf409664

[TerryB]

It would probably be good politics for the Republican house to pass a bill eliminating these provisions, and force the Democratic Senate to "support insurance company bailouts!"

Or maybe they've already done it.

[Turdacious]

It would probably be good politics for the Republican house to pass a bill eliminating these provisions, and force the Democratic Senate to "support insurance company bailouts!"

Or maybe they've already done it.

I'm not exactly clear how the risk corridor provision works honestly. For example, in a market where there's only one provider (i.e. many rural markets)-- would this provision even apply? Does the federal government have the expertise to determine which companies made profits and where? Do they have a framework set up? Will insurance companies that made profits be honest about where they made money?

Proposed insurance prices generally need to be put forward to state regulators 4-6 months prior to the time they go into effect-- if the threat of defunding/eliminating these provisions is seen as serious, expect a big increase in prices.

[Turdacious]

On Thursday, Moody’s rating agency downgraded its outlook for the health-insurance industry from stable to negative, blaming ObamaCare

http://nypost.com/2014/01/27/obamacares ... y-bailout/

[Turdacious]

“We are estimating that 65 percent of the small firms are expected to experience increases in their premium rates while the remaining 35 percent are anticipated to have rate reductions,” CMS’ Office of the Actuary wrote in a new report. Conversely, “the effect on large employers is expected to be negligible,” because most large companies run their health insurance programs in house.

Officials later point out that, when employers are forced to pay more for their plan, they generally pass on some of those costs to their employees. Similarly, those who see their company’s premiums drop tend to pass on some of the savings to their staff in the form of lower employee contribution payments.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... story.html

[Turdacious]

Historically, employers have had complete discretion in deciding whether to offer group health plan coverage to their employees. If they offered coverage, they had to comply with the requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”), and other applicable laws. However, if they did not offer coverage, they were not subject to penalties. It was simply a business decision whether to offer coverage. Starting in 2015, this will change-- employers employing at least a certain number of employees (generally 50 full- time employees or a combination of full-time and part-time employees that is equivalent to 50 full-time employees) will be subject to the employer shared responsibility provisions under Section 4980H of the Code, sometimes referred to as the “large employer play or pay penalties.”

In July 2013, IRS announced that the penalties would not take effect until 2015. The one-year delay was welcome news, but it unfortunately resulted in many employers pushing this issue to the back burner. With the IRS just having published final regulations on February 12, 2014, now is a great time to refocus on this issue.

http://info.swlaw.com/reaction/2014/201 ... 0900_8.pdf

Nice work IRS-- publish a rule based on performance in a year that's already 1/6 over. Conveniently at a time when accountants are focused on last year.

[Turdacious]

It's not a tax:

President Obama’s Internal Revenue Service today quietly released a series of Obamacare “Health Care Tax Tips” warning Americans that they must obtain “qualifying” health insurance – as defined by the federal government – or face a “shared responsibility payment” when filing their tax returns in 2015. The term “shared responsibility payment” refers to the Obamacare individual mandate tax, one of at least seven tax hikes in the healthcare law that directly hit families making less than $250,000 per year.

http://www.atr.org/irs-warns-obamacare- ... paid-a8164

[Batboy2/75]

5 months and not a peep from our progressive in house turd squad.

Who would have thought Troy was such a coward? Maybe baking cookies for your Obamacare counselor helps?

[Grandpa's Spells]

5 months and not a peep from our progressive in house turd squad.

Who would have thought Troy was such a coward? Maybe baking cookies for your Obamacare counselor helps?

The amount of code lead-off made the thread look more like a CPAC circle-jerk than a discussion, so I haven't followed it until you posted in the other thread.

The initial rollout was a mess. It appears to be getting corrected. The actual insurance received appears to be an overall improvement in terms of cost-benefit. Since the Koch brothers' disaster case study commercials have been shown to be misleading, things are likely going pretty well.

Obamacare is an improvement on the prior status quo as well as any plan the GOP has put forward. It also, unlike everything Bush did, isn't 100% funded by debt.

In terms of policy, it's hard to distinguish Obama from a moderate Republican circa 1998. You're all being duped.

[Batboy2/75]

Yes, after 5 months he appears!

You've had 5 months to come up with some master spin and that's all you've got? That all true Conservatives have yearned for a government take over of healthcare? That is some lame grasping at straws stuff Troy.

LOL, we expected more from an Inman mile initiate.

[Turdacious]

5 months and not a peep from our progressive in house turd squad.

Who would have thought Troy was such a coward? Maybe baking cookies for your Obamacare counselor helps?

The amount of code lead-off made the thread look more like a CPAC circle-jerk than a discussion, so I haven't followed it until you posted in the other thread.

The initial rollout was a mess. It appears to be getting corrected. The actual insurance received appears to be an overall improvement in terms of cost-benefit. Since the Koch brothers' disaster case study commercials have been shown to be misleading, things are likely going pretty well.

Obamacare is an improvement on the prior status quo as well as any plan the GOP has put forward. It also, unlike everything Bush did, isn't 100% funded by debt.

In terms of policy, it's hard to distinguish Obama from a moderate Republican circa 1998. You're all being duped.

That response was Baghdad Bobish-- you can do better.

[Turdacious]

As far as I know, before this month the only place that one could read about the Affordable Care Act’s new employment tax was in this paper by David Gamage, in posts I have written for this blog, in my 2012 book or in a 2013 paper. Even though the consequences of the law have been debated at least as far back as 2009, the law’s advocates have yet to acknowledge the new implicit employment tax, let alone estimate the number of people who will face it.

But in a recent paper, the Congressional Budget Office has joined me in explaining that it’s not just the implicit income tax that will contract the labor market. As the paper puts it, “The loss of subsidies upon returning to a job with health insurance is an implicit tax on working,” adding that the effect of the new tax is “similar to the effect of unemployment benefits” (see Page 120).

Once we consider that the new law has an employer penalty, too, the labor market will be receiving three blows from the new law: the implicit employment tax, the employer penalty and the implicit income tax. Regardless of how few economists acknowledge the new employment tax, it should be no surprise when the labor market cannot grow under such conditions.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/ ... ple-taxes/

Raising labor costs has an effect on jobs?

[Grandpa's Spells]

That all true Conservatives have yearned for a government take over of healthcare?

Reagan would not pass the "true Conservative" test these days.

[Pinky]

Obamacare is an improvement on the prior status quo

Obamacare certainly contains ideas that would be an improvement over the status quo, but it then does its damnedest to screw them up. The exchanges, which is an idea borrowed from conservatives, is a good example. The idea of facilitating competition in the market is a good one, but Obamacare (or its interpretation by DHS) then regulated the competition out of the exchanges.

The "Cadillac tax" is another example. Any good reform would have to eliminate or at least reduce the subsidies for employer-provided health care. The "Cadillac tax" was a half-assed attempt to do that by removing the tax subsidies for more lavish plans. It was put into the ACA because Obama's advisers didn't think that simply removing the tax subsidy was politically feasible. (McCain's health care plan consisted of little more than lifting this tax subsidy and it did not go over well with voters.) Unfortunately, the Cadillac tax was gutted because the unions didn't want it.

Even worse, the employer mandate works in the exact opposite direction, but it was required to get votes from more liberal Democrats. Outside of the fact that our executive branch is now embracing lawlessness, postponing the mandate (until it can be removed) is a good thing.

...as well as any plan the GOP has put forward.

That's fair. Conservative economists have put forward very good plans (most of which would simply tweak the ACA), but the GOP has been very slow to listen. I don't know if that's because they know that any good reform will piss people off, or if it's because they're too busy combing the Pentateuch for policy advice.