T1B

Employers who have more than 50 employees and don't offer insurance will also begin to face a penalty.

R-Jack wrote:

Employers who have more than 50 employees and don't offer insurance will also begin to face a penalty.

Peace out.

Sin,
small business.

Sirfindafold wrote:Whats another "tax" amongst friends?

Mikey wrote:

R-Jack wrote:

Employers who have more than 50 employees and don't offer insurance will also begin to face a penalty.

Peace out.

Sin,
small business.

Actually, no.

My employer has fewer than 50 employees and already offers a very generous health insurance plan. Has been since before I started there 10 years ago.

Python wrote:Again, what the heck is being taxed?

Python wrote:That doesn't answer the question.

Python wrote:Wrong.

Python wrote:That's the dumbest response I've ever seen.

BSmack wrote:Now let's see Romney run against it.

88 wrote:And they have to figure out how to force the States to expand Medicaid services as they want them to do without providing the States with sufficient funds to do so and without the ability to coerce the States into doing it by threatening to cut off ALL of their Medicaid moula.

Truman wrote:You ARE aware, of course, of the House of Representatives intention to immediately repeal the Affordable Care Act, correct?

Futile gesture, granted, as such legislation should easily go down in flames on a party-line vote in the Senate. HOWEVER…

Only four Senatorial votes stand in the way of full repeal and a trip to Obama’s desk for immediate veto. Will that margin be narrowed to three?

While I certainly can’t speak for other Democrat Senators currently on the election hot-seat in other states, it will be fascinating to see if Claire McCaskill will have the sack to cast her vote to reject the repeal of her president’s legacy, or if she’ll placate the home folks, vote to repeal and try to save her political ass.

It’s one thing for an incumbent Senator seeking re-election to transparently distance herself from her president by citing a pressing need to stay home and serve her constituency instead of attending the Democrat Convention in Charlotte; and quite another to see her name once again attached to a vote reaffirming Obamacare. Especially when an overwhelming majority of Missourians (75%) voted to reject the federal mandate errrr, tax to purchase health care insurance in a state-wide election.

R-Jack wrote:

Employers who have more than 50 employees and don't offer insurance will also begin to face a penalty.

Peace out.

Sin,
small business.

BSmack wrote:
Which means that he would have to use reconciliation. In order to make reconciliation work, the changes would have to be deficit reducing.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:
Which means that he would have to use reconciliation. In order to make reconciliation work, the changes would have to be deficit reducing.

Eliminating Obamacare is deficit reducing, you brainless fuckpuddle.

PSUFAN wrote:

Funniest thing I've seen in quite a while...

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:
Which means that he would have to use reconciliation. In order to make reconciliation work, the changes would have to be deficit reducing.

Eliminating Obamacare is deficit reducing, you brainless fuckpuddle.

CBO says nope.

PSUFAN wrote:

88 wrote:It is now a new tax on young, healthy people, who have to derive significantly less benefits from it than they pay in, otherwise there would be no money left over to pay for the new people in the risk pool with high medical costs.

Cadillac Health Plan Tax to Penalize Majority of Employers by 2018

Top-Performing Companies on Target to Hold Costs Below Excise Threshold Until 2023

New York, May 19, 2010 — Health care reform’s so-called “Cadillac plan” excise tax will affect more than 60% of large employers’ active health plans by the provision’s 2018 effective date, according to an analysis conducted by Towers Watson (NYSE, NASDAQ: TW), a global professional services company. Based on data from the firm’s 2010 Health Care Cost Survey, the study also found that, by taking certain actions, employers can contain their costs and significantly delay hitting the excise tax cost ceiling for a number of years.

"The original concept of the excise tax was to penalize employers with excessively rich health benefit plans,” said Randall Abbott, a senior consultant for Towers Watson. “Assuming even reasonable annual plan cost increases to project 2018 costs, many of today’s average plans will easily exceed the cost ceiling primarily directed at today’s ‘gold-plated’ plans."

The excise tax was included in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) passed into law on March 23, 2010. The provision levies a 40% nondeductible tax on the annual value of health plan costs for employees that exceed $10,200 for single coverage or $27,500 for family coverage in 2018. Towers Watson data reveal that the average 2010 cost of medical coverage for active single and family plans is $5,184 and $14,988, respectively. When these figures are projected out to 2018 with reasonable estimates of future health care inflation, the excise tax is often triggered.

As a result of the excise tax provision, a plan with single coverage costs of $11,200 in 2018 would exceed the limit by $1,000 and be assessed a tax of $400. If 10,000 employees were enrolled in that plan, the total tax bill would be $4,000,000. The tax is paid by the employer either through increased premiums on an insured plan or a surcharge levied by the administrator of a self-funded health plan. Employers will be forced to either absorb the additional tax or pass some, or all, of it back to employees in the form of higher premiums.

"All it takes to drive costs above the excise tax cap for six in ten employers is an 8% average annual cost increase. And, without making plan design changes, that’s what many employers are projecting," said Dave Osterndorf, a consulting actuary with Towers Watson. "This rate of increase has been typical for the past several years. We see it as an open question as to whether the recently passed PPACA will mitigate cost trends in the near term for employers."

The study found wide variations by industry. For about half of the industries examined, more than seven out of 10 employers will have at least one plan that will exceed the excise tax threshold in 2018, including the aerospace, chemicals, energy and utilities, health services and pharmaceutical industries.

It’s important to note that, based on the survey data, employers who are top performers* at managing their health benefit strategies have lower costs and face an annual plan cost increase of only 6%. These companies will experience about a five-year buffer before hitting the excise tax ceiling. "These top performers may avoid hitting the excise threshold until 2023 or beyond due to their focus on workforce health improvement, wellness, chronic condition management, and communicating the prudent use of health care goods and services," explained Osterndorf.

"There is some good news: Employers have a long runway to plan for 2018, so there is time to approach the issue strategically and thoughtfully. But reform and the excise tax may have unintended consequences," Abbott said. "As employers strive to preserve the affordability of core health coverage, there will be difficult decisions to change or eliminate ancillary benefits like dental coverage and health flexible spending accounts, which are included in the excise tax definition." Excise tax rules will also be needed to clarify certain confusing aspects of the law. For example, it appears that the cost of a self-funded dental plan is included in the tax calculation, but an insured dental plan is not.

One reason that employers need to be thinking about the excise tax now is the potential impact on any retiree plans they may sponsor. While the actual excise tax is not charged until 2018 (at the earliest), the projection of that future tax might be required to be recognized in an employer’s financial statements today. “This is one of the more poorly understood impacts of the excise tax — and one that employers are just beginning to address with their actuaries and auditors,” noted Osterndorf.

“The excise tax is likely to have repercussions beyond health care plan design and delivery. To continue to offer sustainable employee benefit programs, employers today will need to look at all areas of employee rewards,” Abbott concluded.

http://www.towerswatson.com/press/1895

BSmack wrote:

Truman wrote:You ARE aware, of course, of the House of Representatives intention to immediately repeal the Affordable Care Act, correct?

DOA when it hits the Senate.

Truman wrote:Futile gesture, granted, as such legislation should easily go down in flames on a party-line vote in the Senate. HOWEVER…

BSmack wrote:Obviously you don't understand WHY it is DOA in the Senate. Democrats can play the filibuster game too. Which means 60 votes would be needed to even get to debate. None of the Senators with seats actually in any danger will ever have to cast a meaningful vote because now instead of a 4 vote cushion, there is a 14 vote cushion.

BSmack wrote:But you say, what about when Romney wins [snort]? Surely then he will be able to repeal?

Nope. Not a chance. Romney would have to overcome a Democratic filibuster in the Senate. Don't you see? Your dream of killing Obamacare is dead and you guys don't even know it yet. Watching and listening to dittotards today is like watching headless chickens running around a yard.

Truman wrote: I don't think President Romney would agree with you. So a little something called the "constitutional option" only works when the Dems are in control? I think that option is pronounced "nuclear" in places like Rochester. Never say never, B.

And yes, in the case of Obamacare, I think it would be appropriate for Senate Majority Leader McConnell to exercise such an option. And once your precious Obamacare is gone - it's gone. Maybe in another generation when everybody either dies or forgets how destructive and dangerous a Democrat controlled House, Senate and Whitehouse are to our republic, you will have the votes again to pass such an abominable tax on the American people.

Wolfman wrote:Affordable Care Act. Marvelous.

Wolfman wrote:Affordable Care Act. Marvelous.

Python wrote:Again, what the heck is being taxed?