Latest Post

Friday ObamaTax Miscellany

■ First, a word on "strategery:" Got snail-mail from United Health One (UHC's individual medical outlet), alerting folks that plans "with an effective date up through December 31, 2013 ... can feel secure knowing that their plan/benefits will stay the same until the end of 2014."

The carrier is pretty insistent that plans with 2013 effective dates will see their benefits remain the same until the end of next year. Note, though, that they don't make the same promise about rates.

I have a problem with this: as we noted in April, there's simply no way to know what Ms Shecantbeserious will do with in-force plans.

■ Along similar lines, FoIB Beth D alerts us that at least one carrier (UHC, perhaps not coincidentally) is offering a special, one-time deal to existing client groups to "avoid the effects of adjusted community rating until 12/01/2014"

She helpfully sends along an "Attestation Form" that the group would complete and submit in the next week or so requesting that their effective (renewal) date be changed to December 1rst.

I expect to see similar efforts from other carriers shortly.

■ Finally, The Wall Street Journal finally figures out what we've been saying all along:

"But Chris Angelo, a second-generation owner ... doesn't expect a groundswell of enrollments next year from lower-wage workers ... They'd rather have the cash than pay the employee portion of the premium."

Hunh.

This has ripple effects, of course:

"[E]mployers may struggle to figure out how many of their low-wage workers will opt in for employer coverage in 2014. By the same token, it suggests that many low-wage workers could remain uninsured next year, despite the law's subsidies and penalties."

Where's my free insurance?
 

Cavalcade of Risk #185: Call for submissions

Rebecca Shafer hosts next week's Cav. Entries are due by Monday (the 10th).

To submit your risk-related post, just click here to email it.

You'll need to provide:

■ Your post's url and title
■ Your blog's url and name
■ Your name and email
■ A (brief) summary of the post

PLEASE remember: ONLY posts that relate to risk (not personal finance tips and the like). And please only submit if you are willing to link back to the carnival if your submission is accepted.
 

LICERA (Large Insurance Company Expense Relief Act) out of Committee

Well, technically it's the "National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers Reform Act (of 2013)," but as we noted a few short months ago, its stated purpose and it's actual 'raison d'etre' are quite different.

According to the folks in Capital City, the legislation "before you today represents over a decade worth of effort and ... will finally achieve the goals ... that ensures that regulators can continue to protect consumers"

Lofty words.

Now let's run them through the Capital City Sunshine Removal Filter:

"The NARAB would not only duplicate many (most?) of the functions of the existing NIPR, but it would afford these large carriers a welcome break in their cost of doing business ...  it's industry-funded, which means a non-trivial portion will be borne by smaller, regional carriers to subsidize their larger competitors"

Doesn't have quite the same ring, though, does it?

On the other hand, it does have the value of being, you know, accurate.
 

Tri-State ObamaTax Roundup

So, news from 3 of the 58 states today.

■ First up, Vermont deals a blow to an ObamaTax co-op:

"A Vermont regulator said today organizers of a proposed Obamacare health insurance co-op who claimed last week they were "blindsided" were told "from the beginning" of problems with their application to operate in the state."

Oops. As we've noted before, co-ops "are nonprofit, customer-owned health plans, designed to compete against the major for-profit insurers." And, as we've also noted, they don't seem likely to fare very well. Screwing up the initial paperwork is probably not a good sign for Green Mountain State co-op wannabes.

■ Next, news from Oklahoma (okay!):

"Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt has found an ingenious way to call a halt to the Obamacare project: Hold the federal government to the letter of that misbegotten law."

Turns out, the Sooner State is sticking by its guns in its federal lawsuit challenging the train-wreck's (sorry, Max!) constitutionality. As one of the 33 states that took a pass on creating its own Exchange, its citizens stand to get hit with tax penalties that seem pretty blatantly illegal.

'Course, they're only illegal if SCOTUS Chief Roberts says they're illegal.

■ Finally, the Natural State (really!) is trying out a bold new Medicaid experiment:

"Arkansas appears poised to move ahead with a plan that will bring private coverage to a population very close to the poverty level while defanging [the ObamaTax's] controversial Medicaid expansion ... that would allow — if the federal government grants a waiver — those for whom the Medicaid expansion was intended to buy private health insurance through the Arkansas health insurance exchange or marketplace."

If you "get" vouchers, then you'll "get" this: instead of an expensive and ineffectual bureaucracy, you give folks the means to purchase their own coverage, which also reinforces the basic (but recently all but extinct) concept of personal responsibility.

Win-win.
 

Health Wonk Review: I'll Take Health Care for $600, Alex edition

My favorite (health) econ blogger, Jason Shafrin, hosts this week's intriguing round-up of interesting health care policy posts. Don't put yourself in Double Jeopardy, click on over!
 

Who ARE those guys? A bunch of outtacontrol frat boys?

From Buzzfeed via Gateway Pundit:

IRS confirmed that two employees have been placed on administrative leave — which is paid — and have begun the process of removing them . . . The IRS informed congressional staff investigating the agency that Fred Schindler had been put on leave for accepting the gifts. A second unnamed staffer in the division was also put on leave for accepting the gifts . . ."

So just another case of graft in IRS, right?

Well, not exactly

Schindler is the deputy for Sarah Hall Ingram, who is heading up implementation of the Affordable Care Act for the IRS. Ingram has come under scrutiny recently because she oversaw the division of the IRS which targeted conservative organizations seeking nonprofit status.

Madre de dios
 

No good answers

Ms Shecantbeserious finds herself once again in the hot seat:

"House Republicans on Tuesday pressed the country’s top health official to cut through the government red tape in order to let a dying child have a chance at getting a lung transplant"

Here's the thing, though: there are no "right" answers here. As much as we like to bust Ms Kathy's chops, I find myself siding with her in this particular instance.

Are you kidding, Henry?

No, and please hear me out.

As we saw in the Nataline Sarkisyan case, sometimes the legacy media is quick to pounce on what appears to be a case of process over life. But is this really the case here?

From the media coverage, it's impossible to know for sure. But the rules have (apparently) been in place since 2005, so it's not exactly news that they exist. And here's the thing: while each life (and especially a child's) is precious, if an exemption is made in this case, how do you tell the next set of parents "no?"

Maybe you don't, but obviously the rule was implemented for a reason. Perhaps we should pause to consider Mr Chesterton's observations on fences.
 
 
Support : Creating Website | Johny Template | Mas Template
Copyright © 2011. The Insurance Blog - All Rights Reserved
Template Created by Creating Website Published by Mas Template
Proudly powered by Blogger