More and more, Obamacare crtics are being forced to eat crow

Search

New member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
12,449
Tokens
INSIDE WASHINGTON: Health law tax passed along to states by insurers, could cost $13B by 2023

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/inside-washington-health-law-tax-071419600.html

INSIDE WASHINGTON: Insurers pass tax along to the states
AP 2 days 8 hrs ago

There's more than a touch of absurdity in the way an industry fee in President Barack Obama's health care law is being passed along to state taxpayers.

As Alice in Wonderland might say, a curious tax just got curiouser. The burden to states could mount to $13 billion in less than a decade.

The Health Insurance Providers Fee was aimed at insurance companies. The thinking went: Because insurers would gain a windfall of customers, they ought to help pay for the expansion of coverage. Insurers say they have raised prices for individuals and small businesses to cover the new tax.

As it turns out, they are raising their prices to state Medicaid programs, too.

The federal government issued guidance in October requiring states to build the tax into what they pay for-profit Medicaid health plans that serve low-income people. The first year's tax was due to the IRS in September, and state governments are now settling up with insurance companies.

It works like this: State governments pay insurers for the tax. The insurers then pay the tax to the federal government. The federal government then reimburses part of the cost to the states.

It may sound absurd, but it's not amusing to state governments, which wind up losing 54 cents for every dollar of the insurance tax. State taxpayers end up the biggest losers, without any added benefit to their state's low-income Medicaid patients.

"It's like a merry-go-round with an extra loop in the middle," said Rebecca Owen of the Society of Actuaries.

The extra loop? The health law tax is not deductible for the insurance companies when they file their corporate income taxes, and state governments must kick in extra to cover that cost, too.

"If they're following the standard of practice, there's no wiggle room" for states to shift the burden back onto the companies, Owen said.

It's particularly troubling because more states are turning to private sector Medicaid managed care to keep health care costs down. An estimated 70 percent of Medicaid patients are covered by these types of plans.

Insurers such as Anthem, UnitedHealth and Centene manage the care of millions of low-income people in taxpayer-funded programs.

The fee on health insurance companies was one of several new taxes Congress used to pay for the health care law.

"They had a naive notion we were going to get something from insurers" who were gaining many new customers from the health law, said economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum, a center-right public policy institute. "It defied any notion of good tax policy."

Most nonprofit insurers are exempt, but there's no exemption for profit-making Medicaid managed care companies that collect payments from state governments with the promise of providing better care at lower costs.

The states with the most managed care will be hurt the most. Florida will pay up to $1.2 billion over 10 years, according to a 2014 report by the actuarial firm Milliman. The same for Pennsylvania. Texas will pay up to $1 billion and Tennessee as much as $884 million. For California, the decade's total will be up to $798 million and for Georgia, $647 million.

The Milliman report estimates Illinois will pay $394 million to cover the tax through 2023. Illinois is starting to make higher payments to cover the tax, even as Gov. Bruce Rauner has proposed making $1.5 billion in cuts to Medicaid providers such as hospitals for the upcoming budget year.

While the quirk in the law has been known to insurers and actuaries, the impact is just starting for states. A standard-setting board for actuaries just published a memo that clears up any remaining doubt that state governments must pay higher rates to cover the tax.

The health insurance industry wants the tax repealed, arguing that it increases prices to consumers. But largely unrecognized is the surprising effect of the tax on Medicaid and state governments.

"At the end of the day it remains a terrible policy no matter how it's implemented, and everyone would welcome its repeal. I mean, you're essentially having one level of government tax another to do this," said Matt Salo, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors.

___

AP Medical Writer Carla K. Johnson can be reached at https://twitter.com/CarlaKJohnson
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
11,432
Tokens
Two weeks give or take until....

King v. Burwell, the case that contends subsidies distributed through the exchanges created by the federal government after 37 states refused to participate are illegal.


On Deck.....








Waiting on time all Government workers will be required according to His Majesty to use Obamacare then more people will realize Obamacare and Affordable Care are one and the same w-thumbs!^

Not many G-workers besides those in Medicad office knows much about OC!

Trends I was told awhile ago what how I'm reading in above, how this would play out. Fill the coffers of Ins. Co. but at 1st read it appears Ins. Co.'s want it all and didn't expect to pay back as much?

I had to pay back (lose on my refund) because I estimated on my 2014 income being lower then what I actually earned. So what I received and what I was eligible for after filling out form 8962 my PTC was more then what I should've received!

Phuck This Chit is what most are saying...... Supreme court can as I said in another post make Yearly Returns a thing of the past for those in the 37 States who didn't set up their own programs for Health Insurance!

PTC = Premium Tax Credit
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,149
Tokens
with extensive 1st hand experience with this matter, I can only laugh at the thread's title

too funny

their knowledge and comprehension makes them who they are, we can't expect more
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
11,432
Tokens
with extensive 1st hand experience with this matter, I can only laugh at the thread's title

too funny

their knowledge and comprehension makes them who they are, we can't expect more

as I said many right now probably think they have 2 choices....... OC or ACA.....

With Trends article I'm replacing the tax word with subsidies issued which makes it all the more confusing on how this corrupt new program is operating?

ie: State governments pay insurers for the tax (subsidy). The insurers then pay the tax (subsidy) to the federal government. The federal government then reimburses part of the cost to the states. RU following my in lay-mans terms thinking? could be or could not be how it is?

Your input W99 might help me see this another way......... Your Insight on this article is appreciated.... TIA for any other explanation :think2:
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
11,432
Tokens
Dafinch
user-online.png


started this thread with nothing further to add? I change my if I could be another poster for one day to wanting to be Dafinch

user-online.png


this person IMO works for the Government and lives the good life thinking ACA or OC will be his choices of Insurance someday Slapping-silly90))


I would like to have that mind for a day.......
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,149
Tokens
as I said many right now probably think they have 2 choices....... OC or ACA.....

With Trends article I'm replacing the tax word with subsidies issued which makes it all the more confusing on how this corrupt new program is operating?

ie: State governments pay insurers for the tax (subsidy). The insurers then pay the tax (subsidy) to the federal government. The federal government then reimburses part of the cost to the states. RU following my in lay-mans terms thinking? could be or could not be how it is?

Your input W99 might help me see this another way......... Your Insight on this article is appreciated.... TIA for any other explanation :think2:

can you provide I link? I did a quick search through this thread and couldn't find it (if it was posted by somebody I choose to ignore, I'm not going to find it)

if you have specific questions for me, better yet
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,149
Tokens
I can cite my first hand experience, which molds 95% of my positions

there are winners and there are losers, with the losers far exceeding the winners

The winners tend to be lower income people, self employed people who may not report all their income and people with pre-existing conditions. They tend to have the best insurance they ever had.

The losers are the rest of society, the vast majority. They're paying more for less. Increased premiums, increased co-pays and cut backs in coverage. They tend to have the worst insurance they ever had.

Employers have been inconvenienced by canceled group policies forcing them to waste time and money searching for new policies, often times settling for having their employees have to sign up for a policy on their own using exchanges. They've lost control of the process in those cases.

Employers have been burdened by the increasing costs of insurance and compliance.

Medical professionals burdened by the increasing costs of compliance, bureaucratic red tape and cut backs in payments for services

Taxpayers losing their coverage they liked by tens of millions

People losing their right to see medical professionals they're dependent on, causing tremendous emotional distress in some cases.

Working productive business owners having to cut their way through the red tape to enable their covered employees to see medical professionals they otherwise can't see

Increasing taxes at local levels to cover increasing costs

Increasing taxes at the federal level implemented by Obamacare, including tax increases on people earning far far far below $ 200,000

and the nightmare of tax compliance. and all the costs pertaining thereto.



No theory, no citation, no hyperbole, just real world experience. (with the one exception being tens of millions of my clients did not lose coverage, but far too many did)
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,149
Tokens
at the end of the day, we did not need libtards to fuck with our healthcare system, they can't run their own household yet they think they're qualified to micromanage the world

we could have tweaked our existing system and filled the holes that needed filling


there were two things that needed to happen and we would of had an ample supply of money to fix everything AND reduce overall costs.

1) End of life care. The medical profession (not politicians) needs to establish standards for when far reaching and expensive medical procedures will not be performed in certain cases. We some times have to let people die with dignity and we can't spend (waste) hundreds of dollars to keep somebody alive for 2 days or 2 weeks or 2 months when they have no chance to recover and no chance at a quality life. It may sound harsh in this country, but that's how the whole world operates and our system will not be there for anyone when it collapses under it's own weight.

2) Litigation reform. The medical profession (not politicians) needs to establish what procedures should be applied in certain circumstances, the threats of lawsuits and the adverse consequences from such have to be mitigated. The practice of defensive medicine may be more expensive than end of life care.

Now I'll step down from my soapbox.
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
11,432
Tokens
Wiilie 99 This article

How you reading this


INSIDE WASHINGTON: Health law tax passed along to states by insurers, could cost $13B by 2023

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/inside-washington-health-law-tax-071419600.html

INSIDE WASHINGTON: Insurers pass tax along to the states
AP 2 days 8 hrs ago

There's more than a touch of absurdity in the way an industry fee in President Barack Obama's health care law is being passed along to state taxpayers.

As Alice in Wonderland might say, a curious tax just got curiouser. The burden to states could mount to $13 billion in less than a decade.

The Health Insurance Providers Fee was aimed at insurance companies. The thinking went: Because insurers would gain a windfall of customers, they ought to help pay for the expansion of coverage. Insurers say they have raised prices for individuals and small businesses to cover the new tax.

As it turns out, they are raising their prices to state Medicaid programs, too.

The federal government issued guidance in October requiring states to build the tax into what they pay for-profit Medicaid health plans that serve low-income people. The first year's tax was due to the IRS in September, and state governments are now settling up with insurance companies.

It works like this: State governments pay insurers for the tax. The insurers then pay the tax to the federal government. The federal government then reimburses part of the cost to the states.

It may sound absurd, but it's not amusing to state governments, which wind up losing 54 cents for every dollar of the insurance tax. State taxpayers end up the biggest losers, without any added benefit to their state's low-income Medicaid patients.

"It's like a merry-go-round with an extra loop in the middle," said Rebecca Owen of the Society of Actuaries.

The extra loop? The health law tax is not deductible for the insurance companies when they file their corporate income taxes, and state governments must kick in extra to cover that cost, too.

"If they're following the standard of practice, there's no wiggle room" for states to shift the burden back onto the companies, Owen said.

It's particularly troubling because more states are turning to private sector Medicaid managed care to keep health care costs down. An estimated 70 percent of Medicaid patients are covered by these types of plans.

Insurers such as Anthem, UnitedHealth and Centene manage the care of millions of low-income people in taxpayer-funded programs.

The fee on health insurance companies was one of several new taxes Congress used to pay for the health care law.

"They had a naive notion we were going to get something from insurers" who were gaining many new customers from the health law, said economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum, a center-right public policy institute. "It defied any notion of good tax policy."

Most nonprofit insurers are exempt, but there's no exemption for profit-making Medicaid managed care companies that collect payments from state governments with the promise of providing better care at lower costs.

The states with the most managed care will be hurt the most. Florida will pay up to $1.2 billion over 10 years, according to a 2014 report by the actuarial firm Milliman. The same for Pennsylvania. Texas will pay up to $1 billion and Tennessee as much as $884 million. For California, the decade's total will be up to $798 million and for Georgia, $647 million.

The Milliman report estimates Illinois will pay $394 million to cover the tax through 2023. Illinois is starting to make higher payments to cover the tax, even as Gov. Bruce Rauner has proposed making $1.5 billion in cuts to Medicaid providers such as hospitals for the upcoming budget year.

While the quirk in the law has been known to insurers and actuaries, the impact is just starting for states. A standard-setting board for actuaries just published a memo that clears up any remaining doubt that state governments must pay higher rates to cover the tax.

The health insurance industry wants the tax repealed, arguing that it increases prices to consumers. But largely unrecognized is the surprising effect of the tax on Medicaid and state governments.

"At the end of the day it remains a terrible policy no matter how it's implemented, and everyone would welcome its repeal. I mean, you're essentially having one level of government tax another to do this," said Matt Salo, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors.

___

AP Medical Writer Carla K. Johnson can be reached at https://twitter.com/CarlaKJohnson
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,149
Tokens
skoda, I think I touched on all of that indirectly

taxes increasing, costs increasing, compliance increasing and everything always is passed on to the consumer

federal taxes increase as mandated by Obamacare

state and local tax increases resulting from additional costs resulting from the implementation of Obamacare

the article gives more specifics as to how and why, but I totally concur with respect to the "bottom line"


Costs are surging, there are far far far more losers than winners
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
11,432
Tokens
Thanks Willie 99 Looks like you read just as I was seeing this, we have a few other choices......

1) Get work with a Public Union AKA a G-Job

2) Pick 5 white balls with a black ball AKA win Powerball

3) Enroll in Medicade, Public Housing and Food Stamps AKA Welfare

4) Hope and Pray for AKA as a miracle

Might want to try #3 before #2 tip of my hat 2u 99
 

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
23,899
Tokens
Oh shock, one of the dumber posters on the Internet clowned again:

WASHINGTON — Health insurance companies around the country are seeking rate increases of 20 percent to 40 percent or more, saying their new customers under the Affordable Care Act turned out to be sicker than expected. Federal officials say they are determined to see that the requests are scaled back.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans — market leaders in many states — are seeking rate increases that average 23 percent in Illinois, 25 percent in North Carolina, 31 percent in Oklahoma, 36 percent in Tennessee and 54 percent in Minnesota, according to documents posted online by the federal government and state insurance commissioners and interviews with insurance executives.

The Oregon insurance commissioner, Laura N. Cali, has just approved 2016 rate increases for companies that cover more than 220,000 people. Moda Health Plan, which has the largest enrollment in the state, received a 25 percent increase, and the second-largest plan, LifeWise, received a 33 percent increase.

Jesse Ellis O’Brien, a health advocate at the Oregon State Public Interest Research Group, said: “Rate increases will be bigger in 2016 than they have been for years and years and will have a profound effect on consumers here. Some may start wondering if insurance is affordable or if it’s worth the money.”


====
Enjoy your 4th of July cheering on Obama, you rubes.
 

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
24,884
Tokens
I'm getting e-mails and letters from both Blue Cross and Healthcare.gov ENCOURAGING me to go for free preemptive screenings that are recommended for people in my age group. Who is paying for all these communications, and the tests I may decide to get?
 

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
23,899
Tokens
WASHINGTON (AP) -- State-run health insurance markets that offer coverage under President Barack Obama's health law are struggling with high costs and disappointing enrollment. These challenges could lead more of them to turn over operations to the federal government or join forces with other states.


Hawaii's marketplace, the latest cautionary tale, was awarded $205 million in federal startup grants. It has spent about $139 million and enrolled 8,200 customers for individual coverage in 2015. Unable to sustain itself, the state marketplace is turning over sign-ups to the federal HealthCare.gov for 2016.

:):)
 

Life's a bitch, then you die!
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
28,910
Tokens
WASHINGTON (AP) -- State-run health insurance markets that offer coverage under President Barack Obama's health law are struggling with high costs and disappointing enrollment. These challenges could lead more of them to turn over operations to the federal government or join forces with other states.


Hawaii's marketplace, the latest cautionary tale, was awarded $205 million in federal startup grants. It has spent about $139 million and enrolled 8,200 customers for individual coverage in 2015. Unable to sustain itself, the state marketplace is turning over sign-ups to the federal HealthCare.gov for 2016.

:):)

Single payer was what it was all about from the begging.

Obama knew it wouldn’t fly so he had to deceived the people to get it started knowing full well once it began it would be difficult to stop.

Add our candy ass representatives to the mix and presto chango we are where we are today.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
40,880
Tokens
Single payer was what it was all about from the begging.

Obama knew it wouldn’t fly so he had to deceived the people to get it started knowing full well once it began it would be difficult to stop.

Add our candy ass representatives to the mix and presto chango we are where we are today.

Thousands and thousands of lives saved so far.....it will only continue to save lives. In 2045....right wing nitwits will be giving credit to Romney for the ACA. You guys are idiots for generations.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
40,880
Tokens
Obamacare hasn't saved any lives, let alone 'thousands and thousands' you laughable dumb fuck.

Bwaaaaaaaahhhhh.....the other week an article was posted that 50k lives saved. Remember you guys said fact check was lying. Too funny.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,883
Messages
13,574,666
Members
100,881
Latest member
afinaahly
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com