Major part of Obamacare delayed at least a year...

[The Captain]

"The Obama Administration has announced that it is postponing for a full year, until 2015, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s (PPACA) (P.L. 111-148) mandatory employer and insurer reporting requirements. As a result of not obtaining this reporting information in 2014, the administration also announced that it will waive the imposition of any employer-shared responsibility penalty payments under Code Sec. 4980H for 2014. This effectively means that employers with more than 50 employees will not be required to provide health insurance to their employees or face a penalty until 2015.

Coming late in the day on July 2 and less than six months before these requirements go into effect, the Treasury Department announcement admitted that, for many employers and insurers otherwise subject to these "employer and insurer mandates," the rules for compliance are just too complex for implementation by 2014. The announcement explained that, "we have heard concerns about the complexity of the requirements and the need for more time to implement them effectively." The administration reported that even those businesses that already provide health insurance to employees are finding the reporting rules too complex to properly comply in time"

I'd provide the link but it's from one of my subsciption news feeds and won't work without a password.

I said when this was shoved through congress it wasn't well though out and we just see one boondoggle after another proving that.

I don't have a solution but know we are capable of better than this.  What a mess.

[genericname]

I figured it was a mistake when Obama signed it. I don't have a solution either.

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

Jul 3, 2013 10:39:54 GMT -5 @wrongsideof30 said:

So, Obama can just willy-nilly make changes like that?  Seems weird.

And is it true that the INDIVIUAL mandate is still in effect? This only helps corporations?

I don't think the small business requirement delay affects another parts, including the individual mandate and the exchanges.  However, there will be more specifics released next week, I think. 


politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/02/key-obamacare-provision-delayed/?iid=HP_LN

Mazur said the extra year before the requirement goes into effect will allow the government time to assess ways to simplify the reporting process for businesses. Penalties for firms not providing health coverage to employees will now begin in 2015 – after next year’s congressional elections.

The new delay will not affect other aspects of the health law, including the establishment of exchanges in states for low-income Americans to obtain health insurance.

Supporters of the employer mandate note that most firms already provide health insurance to full time workers, and downplay the effect the requirement would have on small businesses, citing figures showing the vast majority of small businesses employ fewer than 50 workers.

[Angel!]

I heard about this a while ago.  I didn't realize it hadn't been officially decided at that point. 

I would rather they wait a year & do it right instead of causing chaos.  Seems like people would be happy about this.

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

Jul 3, 2013 11:02:38 GMT -5 Angel! said:

I heard about this a while ago.  I didn't realize it hadn't been officially decided at that point. 

I would rather they wait a year & do it right instead of causing chaos.  Seems like people would be happy about this.

  The health insurance exchanges will still get up and running in many of the states, so it sounds like it's just delaying the penalty phase for a year. 

[kent]

Nancy Pelosi said, "But we have to pass the [health care ] bill so that you can find out what is in it."

Yeah, that's worked out really well..........

[MN-Investor]

I'm sure that there are things that will need fixing in such a major piece of legislation. The problem with that, though, is that you need buy-in on both sides to enact changes, and the Republicans won't do a single thing re Obamacare other than vote for its repeal. I've lost track of how many times they've beat that dead horse. So, with this do-nothing Congress, the Obamacare we have now is the Obamacare we're going to have to live with.

[kent]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't various polls say approximately 70% of those asked were AGAINST obamacare?  If true, then trying to blame the problem on republicans is just plain nonsense (but expected I guess)

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

Jul 3, 2013 12:16:48 GMT -5 MN-Investor said:

I'm sure that there are things that will need fixing in such a major piece of legislation. The problem with that, though, is that you need buy-in on both sides to enact changes, and the Republicans won't do a single thing re Obamacare other than vote for its repeal. I've lost track of how many times they've beat that dead horse. So, with this do-nothing Congress, the Obamacare we have now is the Obamacare we're going to have to live with.

 

My favorite part of this whole thing was an article yesterday about states rejecting the expansion of Medicaid.  The feds are going to pay for the expansion of coverage (100% for now, down to a mere 90% later), the states can choose to opt out every 3 months going forward, and it would potentially cover hundreds of thousands of their most vulnerable citizens who have no coverage now.  And yet something like 14 states have rejected the expansion on mostly ideological grounds.  Not even interested in seeing how it might help their citizens at all.  This just seems ridiculous to me. 



ETA:  I forgot to include a link to an article about the subject:

finance.yahoo.com/news/states-forgo-billions-federal-cash-093200258.html

[Gardening Grandma]

Jul 3, 2013 12:25:27 GMT -5 kent said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't various polls say approximately 70% of those asked were AGAINST obamacare?  If true, then trying to blame the problem on republicans is just plain nonsense (but expected I guess)

There's more to it than that. A large number were unhappy because it did not go far enough.  They (myself included) wanted to see a single payer system.  So 70% are NOT against universal healthcare which is what the opponents are trying to make you believe.

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

Jul 3, 2013 12:35:09 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Jul 3, 2013 12:25:27 GMT -5 kent said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't various polls say approximately 70% of those asked were AGAINST obamacare?  If true, then trying to blame the problem on republicans is just plain nonsense (but expected I guess)

There's more to it than that. A large number were unhappy because it did not go far enough.  They (myself included) wanted to see a single payer system.  So 70% are NOT against universal healthcare which is what the opponents are trying to make you believe.

I'm also thinking that probably 70% of people don't even know much or anything about the specifics of the reform.  Everyone I've been in conversation with seems to have no idea what it's about, or how it affects them.  Even people who are the target demographic, like low-income uninsured and self-employed people.  I think there's been a horrendous lack of information and smart roll-out.

[The Captain]

Rocky - do you have any idea how many programs were promised to be Federally funded which were then later stripped of funding but still required as a Federal mandate?

www.ncsl.org/documents/standcomm/scbudg/CatalogJune2009.pdf

It's alread happened several times with expansion of Medicaid to cover pregnant women, mental health mandates, at first children up to age 5, the later children up to age 18.

Promises made by the Feds to the states are promises broken.

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

Jul 3, 2013 12:42:52 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Rocky - do you have any idea how many programs were promised to be Federally funded which were then later stripped of funding but still required as a Federal mandate?

www.ncsl.org/documents/standcomm/scbudg/CatalogJune2009.pdf

It's alread happened several times with expansion of Medicaid to cover pregnant women, mental health mandates, at first children up to age 5, the later children up to age 18.

Promises made by the Feds to the states are promises broken.

States can opt out of the expansion of Medicaid quarterly moving forward.  So should there ever be a change to the terms written in the law, they can always opt out.  I could understand hesitation if this were a one-time choice.  But it's not. 

[Gardening Grandma]

Medicaid is administed by the states. They set the parameters and the rules.

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

Jul 3, 2013 12:42:52 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Rocky - do you have any idea how many programs were promised to be Federally funded which were then later stripped of funding but still required as a Federal mandate?

www.ncsl.org/documents/standcomm/scbudg/CatalogJune2009.pdf

It's alread happened several times with expansion of Medicaid to cover pregnant women, mental health mandates, at first children up to age 5, the later children up to age 18.

Promises made by the Feds to the states are promises broken.

And promises made by states to care for their citizens are obviously not very high on their list either. 

[Angel!]

Jul 3, 2013 12:38:09 GMT -5 Rocky Mtn Saver said:

Jul 3, 2013 12:35:09 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

There's more to it than that. A large number were unhappy because it did not go far enough.  They (myself included) wanted to see a single payer system.  So 70% are NOT against universal healthcare which is what the opponents are trying to make you believe.

I'm also thinking that probably 70% of people don't even know much or anything about the specifics of the reform.  Everyone I've been in conversation with seems to have no idea what it's about, or how it affects them.  Even people who are the target demographic, like low-income uninsured and self-employed people.  I think there's been a horrendous lack of information and smart roll-out.

  I think it has to do with being uniformed, but hearing Obamacare is bad.  Usually when you start getting into details of the bill people like the actual changes.  Heck, even the republicans could never come up with much different.  Half of the repeal & replace plan that I heard from Romney was to include what is already in the legislation.

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

Jul 3, 2013 12:51:08 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Jul 3, 2013 12:38:09 GMT -5 Rocky Mtn Saver said:

I'm also thinking that probably 70% of people don't even know much or anything about the specifics of the reform.  Everyone I've been in conversation with seems to have no idea what it's about, or how it affects them.  Even people who are the target demographic, like low-income uninsured and self-employed people.  I think there's been a horrendous lack of information and smart roll-out.

  I think it has to do with being uniformed, but hearing Obamacare is bad.  Usually when you start getting into details of the bill people like the actual changes.  Heck, even the republicans could never come up with much different.  Half of the repeal & replace plan that I heard from Romney was to include what is already in the legislation.

Item #1 in my experience seems to be that all people know is that they will be penalized if they don't buy insurance starting in January. Not one person who's mentioned that knows that the first year penalty will only start out at $95.  If the administration has a PR problem with this thing, I think it's largely because they haven't sold it to the public well at all.



 

[The Captain]

Jul 3, 2013 12:46:08 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Medicaid is administed by the states. They set the parameters and the rules.

Actually that's only partially true:

"Because Medicaid is a partnership, states and the federal government each have a role in designing and paying for each state's program."

www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/medicaidfmap.html

The first link I posted contained several instances where the federal government mandated expansion of coverage under medicaid then either did not fund it or later revoked funding but still mandated the state provide the coverage.

I'm not saying what's right or wrong, just trying to point out that the governors have historically valid reasons for not trusting the Feds on this one.

[ilovedolphins]

Our workplace sent out a notice that says the penalty the first year is $95 or 1% of the family income, whichever is greater.  My son's penalty then would be $270 the first year.

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

I'd like to see them explain to the 500,000 to 1 million people in their individual state that they will be left without any health coverage instead of being able to go get proper care, because the governor is leery that the feds might change their minds sometime.  Not that they want to give it a chance and see how it goes, but they don't want to take any chances that something may possibly maybe kinda change in the future.  I'm sure that will make the uninsured citizens feel much more cared for.

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

Jul 3, 2013 13:01:20 GMT -5 ilovedolphins said:

Our workplace sent out a notice that says the penalty the first year is $95 or 1% of the family income, whichever is greater.  My son's penalty then would be $270 the first year.

Good for your employer!  I wish more people were sharing the facts.  I saw more of an informational campaign put out when our city got its first round-about installed than I've seen with this major overhaul of national health coverage! 

[The Captain]

Jul 3, 2013 12:46:32 GMT -5 Rocky Mtn Saver said:

Jul 3, 2013 12:42:52 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Rocky - do you have any idea how many programs were promised to be Federally funded which were then later stripped of funding but still required as a Federal mandate?

www.ncsl.org/documents/standcomm/scbudg/CatalogJune2009.pdf

It's alread happened several times with expansion of Medicaid to cover pregnant women, mental health mandates, at first children up to age 5, the later children up to age 18.

Promises made by the Feds to the states are promises broken.

And promises made by states to care for their citizens are obviously not very high on their list either. 

Rocky - it's not the states that are making the promises, it's the Feds promising, then requiring the states to pay.

A lot of states are broke, if they increase spending in one area it stands to reason they have to decrease spending in another - what do we cut?  Education, police, fire, infrastructure?

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

According to this report in the link I included above, these sample states would actually save half a billion to 1 billion dollars from the expansion:

In Michigan, a report by the University of Michigan and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan found that the state would save about $1 billion over 10 years if it expanded Medicaid. Most of the benefits come in the early years, with the state having to shell out funds starting in 2020. Though Michigan's Republican Governor Rick Snyder pushed hard for expansion, his peers in the state legislature blocked it.

Different researchers included different measures when estimating savings in their states. Some stuck purely to the payments from the feds, while others looked at savings from reducing state programs aimed at the indigent, such as mental health counseling and substance abuse treatment. And some looked at the indirect benefits, such as the additional jobs and tax revenues likely to come from higher federal funding.

"You can't make an economic case against expansion," said John Holahan, a fellow at the Urban Institute.
:::::  snip:::::
In Virginia, state officials estimated the state would have to spend $137 million over 10 years were it to expand Medicaid. But if you take additional tax revenue into account, that figure shifts to a savings of $555 million, according to a study by the Commonwealth Institute, which advocates for low- and moderate-income Virginians. The state has opted not to expand Medicaid at this time, but established a committee to study it further.

The financial benefits spurred several GOP governors, including Rick Scott in Florida and Jan Brewer of Arizona, to break ranks with their peers and endorse Medicaid expansion. Brewer was successful, but Scott was stymied by Republican legislators who refused to adopt the program.

Medicaid expansion will take place in the GOP-led states of Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey, Iowa and North Dakota. It remains questionable in Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.

Conservatives are unswayed by the argument that states will benefit from increased federal spending.

[justme]

Additional tax revenue from where? Did it say Rocky?

I can't figure out how adding that many people saves money.

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

The article mentioned a couple of things:

As for increased tax revenue:

While states will need to cover a portion of the Medicaid costs after that (2016), they are likely to make it up through new tax revenue spurred by the additional federal spending, according to Carter Price, co-author of the report.

And this regarding other projected savings areas:

...while others looked at savings from reducing state programs aimed at the indigent, such as mental health counseling and substance abuse treatment. And some looked at the indirect benefits, such as the additional jobs and tax revenues likely to come from higher federal funding.

[justme]

...while others looked at savings from reducing state programs aimed at the indigent, such as mental health counseling and substance abuse treatment.

I saw this in your first quote and it still confused me since I would assume the need for those treatments wouldn't magically go away. Are they meaning that the Feds will now be sending money to states to pay for mental health and substance abuse instead of the states paying now so that's one way the states will save money? But not necessarily save money overall since that just increases the money the Feds shell out?

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

Jul 3, 2013 15:34:22 GMT -5 justme said:

...while others looked at savings from reducing state programs aimed at the indigent, such as mental health counseling and substance abuse treatment.

I saw this in your first quote and it still confused me since I would assume the need for those treatments wouldn't magically go away. Are they meaning that the Feds will now be sending money to states to pay for mental health and substance abuse instead of the states paying now so that's one way the states will save money? But not necessarily save money overall since that just increases the money the Feds shell out?

Well, I think that (a) prevention and maintenance costs are usually less than after-the-fact treatment and emergency care costs so it could be overall reduced, and (b) yes, this point is from the states' perspective so every $ the feds kick in through expanded Medicaid is one less $ the states have to foot for the same low-income population. 

[Deleted]

I am only "kind of" surprised that it was delayed. I think that it was thought that our economy would be going big guns by now. It would have been easy to assume that because of how we came out of our last recessions. So they figured that Obamacare taxes wouldn't kill off the economy. But the economy isn't doing well & higher taxes could throw us into another recession. You don't want to be the party in power when another recession hits, so you stall the new taxes until after the election or at least as close to it as possible. It takes time for the full effects of a recession to hit & your party could win before that happens. Politically it's a pretty smart move but I doubt that Obama came up with it. Oh well.

[zibazinski]

Well, when Obama and his congress have to be covered under the same Obamacare that the rest of the country is stuck with, then ill think it might have some merit. Just like they and all their cronies should have to go through TSA screening every single time like the rest of the country. Lead by example.

[Deleted]

Jul 3, 2013 21:28:05 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Well, when Obama and his congress have to be covered under the same Obamacare that the rest of the country is stuck with, then ill think it might have some merit. Just like they and all their cronies should have to go through TSA screening every single time like the rest of the country. Lead by example.

zibazinski I don't think that the problem they have with it is really coverage. They make enough that if the problem was just coverage they could pay & then pay out of pocket for the providers that they would normally see. It wouldn't be a big deal. Remember though that this was passed as a tax & it was really a wealth redistribution tool (you know, European socialism). You make more so you pay for those that make less. The more you make the more you get hit. So without an exemption for them, they make a lot & they will pay a lot. So it ends up being a bad twofer for them. They get even less medical coverage plus they pay a lot more for it. Heck they even pay a lot more if they don't use it.

I think that says a lot about our politicians that we have now. They weren't even smart enough to exempt themselves before passing this thing. The only good news for them is that they probably make most of their money under the table where it doesn't count.