Obamacare cost...

[Uncle Ted]

It seems this sh*t is getting real for a lot of folks...

Wal-Mart Health Cuts Reopen Debate Over Obamacare Costs, Savings

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT)’s move to eliminate health insurance for about 30,000 part-time workers underscores the mixed benefits of Obamacare for companies and their employees.


Wal-Mart said yesterday it would no longer provide health coverage to employees who work less than 30 hours a week, following similar moves by retailers such as Target Corp. (TGT), Home Depot Inc. (HD) and Walgreen Co. (WAG) Wal-Mart had already dropped benefits for many new part-time workers in 2012.


The U.S. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, has brought more health-care options for employees pushed out of corporate benefit plans. That may have made it more palatable for Wal-Mart to make the change, which could save the company about $50 million in premiums this year.


Still, adopting Obamacare has brought other costs, leaving the total effect on large companies unclear. Wal-Mart said in February that the Affordable Care Act contributed to a $330 million increase in health costs -- a number it later raised to $500 million. Employers shedding coverage also may have to pay workers more to make up for the loss of benefits, said Larry Levitt, a senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation of Menlo Park, California.
[...]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-1...s-savings.html

The good news is the health insurance exchanges and the associated welfare benefits may be growing faster than ISIS.

[cowboy]

It seems this sh*t is getting real for a lot of folks...


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-1...s-savings.html

The good news is the health insurance exchanges and the associated welfare benefits may be growing faster than ISIS.

I don't think it takes much economic knowledge at all to see that the ACA will have a measurably negative economic impact. I can't imagine this being anything but an effort by dems to demonize insurance companies and move to a single payer system.

[imanihonjin]

It seems this sh*t is getting real for a lot of folks...


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-1...s-savings.html

The good news is the health insurance exchanges and the associated welfare benefits may be growing faster than ISIS.

Obamacare supporters will simply blame this on Wal-Mart being greedy.

[Uncle Ted]

Obamacare supporters will simply blame this on Wal-Mart being greedy.

Yes, I, for one, can't wait for the day that Amazon and its army of automated warehouses and delivery drones puts a serious dent in that evil SoB Sam Walton business. Amazon provides in-house healthcare to their valued robots and drones. Of course, I wonder how long would it take those greedy b*turds at walmart to adopt the same delivery model and even provide in-house healthcare to their robots and drones as well.

[imanihonjin]

So much for Obamacare not adding one cent to the deficit:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...on_816288.html

[byu71]

So much for Obamacare not adding one cent to the deficit:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...on_816288.html

Have I ever mentioned Pelosi and Reid make me want to puke.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

The Supreme Court has decided to hear one of the Obamacare subsidy cases. There's not actually a circuit split right now, so the move is unusual. I think the subsidies going to people buying policies on the federal exchange are toast.

It's one thing to validate the individual mandate under the Congressional taxing power even when that power was not expressly invoked -- Congress does have that power under the constitution and Roberts thought it shouldn't be something the court encroaches on. It's an entirely different thing to completely ignore the plain language of the statute and allow the executive branch to interpret and enforce it any way it pleases. Validating the individual mandate doesn't establish a bad precedent. Giving the executive branch carte blanche to subvert clear statutory language and thereby usurp legislative power does establish bad precedent.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

There was a decision at the federal district level in Oklahoma that ruled with the original Halbig panel. The judge that wrote the opinion in that case blasted the 4th Circuit panel and the dissent from the original Halbig panel:

Of course, a proper legal decision is not a matter of the court “helping” one side or the other. A lawsuit challenging a federal regulation is a commonplace occurrence in this country, not an affront to judicial dignity. A higher-profile case results in greater scrutiny of the decision, which is understandable and appropriate. “[H]igh as those stakes are, the principle of legislative supremacy that guides us is higher still. . . This limited role serves democratic interests by ensuring that policy is made by elected, politically accountable representatives, not by appointed life-tenured judges.”

This is a case of statutory interpretation. “The text is what it is, no matter which side benefits.” Such a case (even if affirmed on the inevitable appeal) does not “gut” or “destroy” anything. On the contrary, the court is upholding the Act as written.

[Topper]

Anything that undermines this law is good by me.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Here is the decision that was issued around a month ago in Oklahoma, which is in the 10th Circuit along with Utah. The judge was citing pretty recent precedent issued by the 10th Circuit in support for his decision. The precedent dealt with questions of statutory construction and how to deal with anomalies and ambiguities, and not with the statute at hand.

I doubt anyone wants to read the whole thing, but the conclusion is a thing of beauty:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/241479045/...ct-Court-Order

Simply put, the argument that the IRS should administer the law as its written when there's clear guidance instead of how they want to administer it is a pretty good argument. There are implications here beyond mere statutory construction. The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that line item vetoes are unconstitutional because they give legislative power to the president that the constitution does not allow. But what the executive branch, through the IRS, is doing here is beyond a line-item veto. They're first vetoing the one provision and then creating a new tax subsidy that the law doesn't allow. We already know how Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Kennedy will rule on this, and they're probably the four justices that granted cert. But I can't imagine that Roberts will go along with the IRS's and administration's interpretation of the subsidy statute.

[Topper]

Who knows about Roberts. He doesnt take controversial positions.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Who knows about Roberts. He doesnt take controversial positions.

He deferred to Congress because he identified that the Congress could clearly pass Obamacare under the taxing power. He thought it was a political question. The idea is that the Congress is subject to the voting public and the Congress has to defend unpopular pieces of legislation to voters' satisfaction or get thrown out of office. As long as Congress doesn't exceed its authority, its legislation is best dealt with through the political process instead of the Supreme Court invalidating it. I understand and agree, for the most part, with his rationale, but the flaw is that Congress didn't invoke the taxing power when they passed it, they passed it under the commerce clause. They didn't label it a tax because it was politically unpalatable.

The elections of 2010 and 2014 have validated Roberts' reasoning. The Democrats had something like 250 seats in the House and 59 seats in the Senate when Obamacare passed in March 2010. Now they have something like 185 seats in the House and 46 in the Senate. Additionally the Democratic party has lost numerous Governorships and state legislatures. Obamacare played a primary role in this happening.

I think the subsidy cases are different. The precedent of ignoring the plain, unambiguous language and letting the IRS, an administrative agency, run roughshod over this statute is a leap I just don't see Roberts taking. As the judge in Oklahoma points out, the plaintiffs in the subsidy cases aren't asking the court to gut the statute, they're merely asking the executive branch to uphold the statute as written. If the Obama administration and the Democrats don't like it, then tough shit. They shouldn't have passed a bill this extensive and important along partisan lines and in a rushed manner. Voters in Massachusetts by electing Scott Brown were telling the Democrats not to do it. The Court's job isn't to correct clear statutory language the Democrats now find inconvenient.

[Topper]

He looked for an easy way out. The adminisyration waffled on the characterization of the tax. IMHO he is a weak justice who looks foer the easy way out.

[byu71]

I wish I could blame this on Obamacare, but I probably can't. I can say those who write laws and the stinking IRS beaurocracy that interprets them nails me again.

As a good citizen, I don't want to burden tax payers with my health care through medicare. I still work and pay premiums for private insurance. I always participate in the plan that let's you put money away pre-tax to cover non covered expenses.

Whether you use medicare or not, you have to sign up for it by a certain time.

I had to go to a new plan thanks to Obamacare. Not as good as the one I had, but still good. Now I find out though even though I don't take a dime from medicare, because I am signed up for it I can not participate in any Health Savings Plans.

Why do these jackasses continually want to give incentives for people not to work?

[Y84it]

I wish I could blame this on Obamacare, but I probably can't. I can say those who write laws and the stinking IRS beaurocracy that interprets them nails me again.

As a good citizen, I don't want to burden tax payers with my health care through medicare. I still work and pay premiums for private insurance. I always participate in the plan that let's you put money away pre-tax to cover non covered expenses.

Whether you use medicare or not, you have to sign up for it by a certain time.

I had to go to a new plan thanks to Obamacare. Not as good as the one I had, but still good. Now I find out though even though I don't take a dime from medicare, because I am signed up for it I can not participate in any Health Savings Plans.

Why do these jackasses continually want to give incentives for people not to work?

I am pretty sure you know the answer to this.