[Peace-discuss] Fw: ACA - devil is in the details and fine print
E. Wayne Johnson
ewj at pigsqq.org
Sun Aug 12 15:24:01 UTC 2012
It seems to me that the inevitable result will be a massive outbreak of
default due to the
inability of citizens to cough up the tribute money to the Insurance
Companies.
Some will simply refuse to pay. Some will be unable to pay.
There will be chaos. There may well be bloodshed also.
Waxman reminds me of Gerald Scarfe's evil professor from THE WALL.
Wroo--ong! Do it again!
On 8/12/2012 10:55 PM, David Johnson wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* David Johnson <mailto:dlj725 at hughes.net>
> *To:* david johnson <mailto:dlj725 at hughes.net>
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 12, 2012 9:20 AM
> *Subject:* ACA - devil is in the details and fine print
>
>
> Ambiguity in Health Law Could Make Family Coverage Too Costly for Many
>
>
> By ROBERT PEAR
> <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/robert_pear/index.html>
>
>
> Published: August 11, 2012
>
> WASHINGTON --- The new health care law
> <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/health_care_reform/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>
> is known as the Affordable Care Act
> <http://www.healthcare.gov/law/index.html>. But Democrats in Congress
> and advocates for low-income people say coverage may be unaffordable
> for millions of Americans because of a cramped reading of the law by
> the administration and by the Internal Revenue Service
> <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/i/internal_revenue_service/index.html?inline=nyt-org>
> in particular.
>
>
> J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press
>
> Representative Henry A. Waxman believes that an Internal Revenue
> Service interpretation of the health care law is wrong.
>
>
> Related
>
> *
>
>
> U.S. Officials Brace for Huge Task of Operating
> Health Exchanges
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/us/us-officials-brace-for-huge-task-of-running-health-exchanges.html?ref=us>
> (August 5, 2012)
>
> National Twitter Logo. <https://twitter.com/#%21/nytnational>
>
>
> Connect With Us on Twitter <https://twitter.com/#%21/nytnational>
>
> Follow @NYTNational <https://twitter.com/#%21/nytnational> for
> breaking news and headlines.
>
> Twitter List: Reporters and Editors
> <https://twitter.com/#%21/NYTNational/nyt-national-desk>
>
> Under rules proposed by the service, some working-class families would
> be unable to afford family coverage offered by their employers, and
> yet they would not qualify for subsidies provided by the law.
>
> The fight revolves around how to define "affordable" under provisions
> of the law that are ambiguous. The definition could have huge
> practical consequences, affecting who gets help from the government in
> buying health insurance
> <http://topics.nytimes.com/your-money/insurance/health-insurance/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>.
>
>
> Under the law, most Americans will be required to have health
> insurance starting in 2014. Low- and middle-income people can get tax
> credits and other subsidies to help pay their premiums, unless they
> have access to affordable coverage from an employer.
>
> The law specifies that employer-sponsored insurance
> <http://topics.nytimes.com/your-money/insurance/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>
> is not affordable if a worker's share of the premium is more than 9.5
> percent of the worker's household income. The I.R.S. says this
> calculation should be based solely on the cost of individual coverage
> for the employee, what the worker would pay for "self-only coverage."
>
> Critics say the administration should also take account of the costs
> of covering a spouse and children because family coverage typically
> costs much more.
>
> In 2011, according to an annual survey <http://ehbs.kff.org/> by the
> Kaiser Family Foundation, premiums for employer-sponsored health
> insurance averaged $5,430 a year for single coverage and $15,070 for
> family coverage. The employee's share of the premium averaged $920 for
> individual coverage and more than four times as much, $4,130, for
> family coverage.
>
> Under the I.R.S. proposal, such costs would be deemed affordable for a
> family making $35,000 a year, even though the family would have to
> spend 12 percent of its income for full coverage under the employer's
> plan.
>
> The debate over the meaning of affordable pits the Obama
> administration against its usual allies. Many people who support the
> new law said the proposed rules could leave millions of people in the
> lower middle class uninsured and frustrate the intent of Congress,
> which was to expand coverage.
>
> "The effect of this wrong interpretation of the law will be that many
> families remain or potentially become uninsured," said a letter to the
> administration from Democrats who pushed the bill through the House in
> 2009-10. The lawmakers include Representatives Henry A. Waxman of
> California and Sander M. Levin of Michigan.
>
> Bruce Lesley, the president of First Focus, a child advocacy group,
> said: "This is a serious glitch. Under the proposal, millions of
> children and families would be unable to obtain affordable coverage in
> the workplace, but ineligible for subsidies to buy private insurance
> in the exchanges" to be established in each state.
>
> Businesses dislike the idea of insurance mandates and penalties, but
> said the I.R.S. had correctly interpreted the law.
>
> "Employers who offer health coverage do so primarily on behalf of
> their employees," said Kathryn Wilber, a lawyer at the American
> Benefits Council, which represents many Fortune 500 companies.
> "Although many employers do provide family coverage to full-time
> employees, many do not."
>
> The I.R.S. issued final rules for the health insurance premium tax
> credit in May, but deferred its final decision on the affordability of
> family coverage.
>
> Sabrina Siddiqui, a Treasury Department spokeswoman, said, "We welcome
> comments from stakeholders and consumer groups and look forward to
> continuing to work with them to implement these rules and to ensure
> families get the affordable care they need."
>
> The administration is trying to strike a balance. If the rules allow
> more people to qualify for subsidies, it would increase costs to the
> federal government. If the rules require employers to provide
> affordable coverage to dependents as well as workers, it would
> increase costs for many employers.
>
> Wayne Goodwin, a Democrat who is the insurance commissioner of North
> Carolina, said the proposed federal policy would create a hardship for
> many state employees.
>
> North Carolina pays all or nearly all of the premium for health
> insurance covering state government employees, but it has never paid
> the cost for their dependents, Mr. Goodwin said.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20120812/2c37f70b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: moz-screenshot-173.png
Type: image/png
Size: 269380 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20120812/2c37f70b/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 13956 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20120812/2c37f70b/attachment-0002.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 8381 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20120812/2c37f70b/attachment-0003.jpe>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list