Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label problems with Obamacare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label problems with Obamacare. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 9, 2013

Happy Valentine's Day--No Insurance Get Fined! Deadline For Application Moved Forward 45 Days

Administration: Penalties for Obamacare Kick in on Valentine's Day

Wednesday, 09 Oct 2013 01:37 PM

Share:
More . . .
A    A   |
   Email Us   |
   Print   |
You'll have to get coverage by Valentine's Day or thereabouts to avoid penalties for being uninsured, the Obama administration confirmed Wednesday.
That's about six weeks earlier than a Mar. 31 deadline often cited previously.
The explanation: health insurance coverage typically starts on the first day of a given month, and it takes up to 15 days to process applications.
You still have to be covered by Mar. 31 to avoid the new penalties for remaining uninsured. But to successfully accomplish that you have to send in your application by the middle of February. Coverage would then start on Mar. 1.
The Jackson Hewitt tax preparation company first pointed out the wrinkle with the health care law's least popular requirement.
An administration official confirmed it. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.
It's the latest tweak involving complex requirements of President Barack Obama's health care law, known as the Affordable Care Act. Previous adjustments have ranged from the momentous to the mundane. The biggest one was a one-year delay of a requirement that larger employers offer coverage, announced this summer. More recently, the administration has postponed some Spanish-language capabilities of its enrollment website, as well as full functionality on the site small businesses use to sign up.
Brian Haile, senior vice president for health policy at Jackson Hewitt, said government agencies initially had different interpretations of the enrollment deadline. The Health and Human Services department, which is taking the lead in implementing the law, kept referring to a Mar. 31 deadline. But the Internal Revenue Service, which handles most of the financial aspects, suggested that the deadline had to be in February.
"There were inconsistencies," said Haile, adding it took several inquiries by Jackson Hewitt over the last few weeks to clear up the uncertainty.
The health care law was designed to cover the uninsured through a mix of government-subsidized private insurance and a major expansion of the Medicaid safety net program.
The rollout of online insurance markets this month has been snarled by technical glitches that frustrated many consumers. Meanwhile, House Republicans are still pressing their demand for a delay of "Obamacare" provisions, if not its total repeal, as a condition for lifting the partial government shutdown now in its second week.
Starting next year, the law requires virtually all Americans to have insurance or face a tax penalty, triggered after a coverage gap of three months. The penalty starts as low as $95 for 2014, but escalates in subsequent years. There are exemptions for financial hardship and other defined circumstances.
The purpose of the penalty is to nudge as many people as possible into the insurance pool. That would help keep premiums in check, since the law also forbids insurers from turning away people with health problems.
Haile said an earlier enrollment deadline around Valentine's Day may turn out to be a blessing in disguise for the administration, because it creates a natural opportunity to market to young, healthy people, whose premiums are needed to offset medical costs of older generations.
"When thinking about how to attract young people, a Valentine's Day message may be very salient," he said.
The administration says the deadline is actually Feb. 15, the day after Valentine's Day.
That's close enough that the government might be able to make the pitch work.
© Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


!

Friday, June 28, 2013

ObamaCrapCare -- The Upcoming Mess

Oh, yes, there are problems in River City and the problem beings with an "O" and it ends with ObamaCrapCare.  This mess of dishonest, misleading legislation is going to bankrupt the nation  and if it does not do that it will decimate the health care system. It was NOT intended to work. It's only use is a transition from individually controlled health care to nationalized health care.

Don't be confused, this was the original intent. Otherwise, it would not have been underfunded (ten years of taxes for 7 years of benefits, allowance for many companies to opt out of the system, overburdening doctors offices with, if you believe the hype, millions of new patients and no new doctors, hogtying insurance companies with unrealistic claims verses benefit payment percentages and so on and so on.  

Now we are starting to see the cracks develop and as the article says, this is going to be a planned "train wreck."  We only hope that you and yours do not fall into the cracks that surely will develop. Remember, this all was planned.

Conservative Tom


Even with perfect implementation, ObamaCare’s a train wreck

By Hadley Heath - 06/28/13 03:00 PM ET
Every week – nearly everyday – we hear about a new “glitch” in the implementation of the president’s health law.  Last week, we found out that states are behind schedule establishing “exchanges,” the regulatory bodies that will oversee the sale of insurance to people not covered by employer-sponsored plans.
But Americans should keep in mind that ObamaCare is not a good law that is being executed poorly. The real problem with implementation is that ObamaCare is a fundamentally flawed law.  Moreover, the law’s creators were aware of its design flaws, but passed it anyway, hoping to fix things as they went along.
Indeed the law already has had some massive make-overs of its most egregious flaws: A paperwork-tsunami provision that would have forced businesses to file 1099 forms for other businesses (not just individuals) has been repealed. ObamaCare’s long-term care insurance program was also scrapped when bureaucrats had to admit it was financially unsound.  And it took a Supreme Court case to remind Washington that states could not be forced to expand their Medicaid programs.

But many problems remain.  One important design flaw was the creation of a new federal subsidy that was authorized only in states that establish their own exchanges.  This puts in jeopardy the law’s functionality – from the subsidies to the taxes and mandates they trigger – in 34 states that have refused to create their own exchanges.

The restriction of subsidies to exchange-establishing states was intentional, not a “glitch.”  This was one way the federal government expected to coax all states into creating exchanges.  It just didn’t work, as many state lawmakers recognized that running an exchange was a raw deal: a costly endeavor without meaningful control.

While the IRS has attempted to correct this through a regulatory “interpretation,” it’s not clear that the agency has the authority to deliver these subsidies in 34 states.

When money for the law’s Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan ran out earlier this year, this was played off as another unanticipated implementation hiccup.  Enrollment was cut off, denying some40,000 applicants still waiting for coverage.   Yet lawmakers knew funding for this program was insufficient when passing the law.  Even the CBO warned that $5 billion in funding was far too low. 

Similarly, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius – who this summer has been approaching outside organizations asking for money to implement the law – admitted during a Capitol Hill hearing that she and others knew from the outset that the law was not passed with enough funding.

Could it be that lawmakers avoided properly funding the law in order to get a more favorable CBO score, so they could misrepresent the law as “deficit-neutral?” This was no glitch; this was a part of the smoke and mirrors.

Finally, anyone with an understanding of economics could see that the law’s employer and individual mandates would not work as advertised. 

Employers seeking to avoid the penalties associated with the employer mandate are slashing employees’ hours to keep them from full-time status (which requires coverage or triggers the penalty).  This was predictable.

ObamaCare advocates originally promised widespread decreases in premiums – $2500 on average – but now they are walking back on this promise and explaining that higher premiums are simply the price we all must pay to get more coverage (as mandated by the law).  This isn’t a “glitch” either.

For some Americans, the law may actually incentivize them to become uninsured. Yes, there is a penalty for that, but the penalty is so low ­– especially when compared to the price of insurance – that many people could be better off waiting until sickness or catastrophe strikes to buy insurance.  After all, the law’s “guaranteed issue” provision means we can buy insurance from a hospital bed, because insurers will no longer be able to take health status into account.

As healthy individuals exit insurance pools, premiums will go higher for those who remain.  That’s something creators of the “Affordable” Care Act should have known.

There are many more examples of programs and provisions in the law that will no doubt be called “glitches” when they turn out badly.  But each time we hear a headline about how “far fewer than expected” benefit from ObamaCare, or how the costs are “much higher than anticipated,” let’s remember that it’s not the law’s implementation that is the problem.  It was a messy, dishonest legislative process that produced a terrible, fundamentally flawed law.
Heath is senior policy analyst at the Independent Women’s Forum (www.iwf.org).


Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/308267-even-with-perfect-implementation-obamacares-a-train-wreck#ixzz2XXgJySQd 
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook