Questions no one is asking! (Part 1)

 

Questions no one is asking - Part 1

Affordable Care Act –ACA (Democrat tax on health)

Why did the Democrats choose to redo our entire insurance system rather than addressing the 30 to 40 million uninsured?

   
If a business has a problem with a number of its stores but the majorities are performing well they address the underperforming stores rather than change the whole business model.

We, the public, were originally told that a change in the way people are insured needed changing because there were 30 to 40 million uninsured. Yet under the ACA we are being told that the same numbers of persons will likely remain uninsured.  Insuring that same 30 to 40 million could have been done by using the money already allocated to the ACA rather than disrupting our entire financial system and raising purchase price and co pay cost to everyone.

What new taxes are included in the ACA?

Page numbers and references to the ACA included.

Employer: If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees.  Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer). Bill: PPACA; Page: 345-346

(Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion)

$60.1 Billion: Tax on Health Insurers (Takes effect Jan. 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year.  Phases in gradually until 2018.  Fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,986-1,993

$32 Billion: Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Takes effect Jan. 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family).  Higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions.  CPI +1 percentage point indexed. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,941-1,956

$23.6 Billion: “Black liquor” tax hike (Took effect in 2010) This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 105

$22.2 Billion: Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Took effect in 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,971-1,980

$20 Billion: Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax.  Exempts items retailing for <$100. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,980-1,986

$15.2 Billion: High Medical Bills Tax (Takes effect Jan 1. 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI).  The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994-1,995

$13.2 Billion: Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax” (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited).  Indexed to inflation after 2013. There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children.  There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education.  Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,389

$5 Billion: Medicine Cabinet Tax (Took effect Jan. 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957-1,959

$4.5 Billion: Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Takes effect Jan. 2013) Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994

$4.5 Billion: Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” (Took effect in 2010): This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 108-113

$2.7 Billion: Tax on Indoor Tanning Services (Took effect July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,397-2,399

$1.4 Billion: HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Took effect Jan. 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,959

$0.6 Billion: $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,995-2,000                                                                                                                 

$0.4 Billion: Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (Took effect in 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,004

$ Negligible: Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Took effect in 2010): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,961-1,971

$ Negligible: Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Took effect in Jan. 2012): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957

 

 

Why didn’t the Administration phase in signing up for their new insurance program rather than setting a sign up date of Oct.1 with a deadline of Jan 31?

The administration knew there would be problems created by making everyone have to sign up on a certain date rather than phasing it in over a period of a year.  Common sense would dictate that by setting a sign up period of time would have alerted them to the “glitches” and allow time to fix them and  allowing those who sign up the time to research Exchanges for the best rate.

DNC Chair Woman Debbie Wasserman Schultz claims the system is designed to allow access of 50,000 applications a day. At that rate I will take over 2 years to sign up the 30 to 40 million uninsured.

Why won’t the administration extend the mandatory sign up date for individuals by one year?

The President has extended by one year the date of mandatory compliance for business’s yet is opposed to doing the same for individuals.  Even though the law states that once a bill is signed into law changes can only be made by the Congress.

The President has changed that law for some but not for others. Even though the Administration claims the ACA is “the law of the land”, the law applies to everyone equally and contains provisions to give subsidies to low income people he has granted exemptions to some and made the taxpayers provide subsidies for Congress and its staff.

Why didn’t the Administration create a federal “Insurance Exchange” rather than make each state create a separate Exchange program?

By creating a federal exchange program every insurance company in the U.S. could apply to be in the exchange giving everyone a larger choice of programs forcing the insurance companies to compete for clients and holding down cost. Under present law insurance companies cannot sell their product over state lines reducing the individual choice of insurance policies. Republicans offered an attendant to the ACA allowing this but Democrats wouldn’t allow it,

Why did the Obama’s Administration reduce full time employment from 40 hours per week to 30 hours per week?

Given that the ACA seems to have been thrown together without any thought of the possible consequences I am inclined to believe that it never entered their mind that doing so would have any impact.

President Obama and members of Congress are still claiming that business are not cutting hours of fulltime to part time in order to save on the cost to them to comply with the ACA.

Here is a link to a list of over 300 companies that have already done so.  I’m sure more will follow suit the closed they get to the compliance date.

http://tinyurl.com/kexm3fe