The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

[joecct]

Where were we??

Nice to see yet another pundit ripping off my material! I said weeks ago that this is the most likely face saving scenario. Fiscal cliff hits Jan 1st; new law passed Jan 2nd. That way Dems get the tax rates they want while GOP can say they cut the existing rates that were in effect (for a day) at the time.

The author did miss a few important points though, which are 1) polls show the GOP is poised to take the blame for failure to resolve the crisis, and 2) Obama isn't up for re-election in two years. The GOP House is (as well as Dem senate, but not all of them). That leaves a lot more potential exposure on the Republican side for a party at record lows in popularity already.

Read it again.. There are a lot of Dem goodies that will go away on 1/1/13, too. They're going to get blamed, too.

If going over the fiscal cliff provides an impetus to a rewrite of the tax code in this congress, then it has my tentative support.

[FreshFish]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

It is starting to look like governors can cause PPACA to topple merely by stepping out of the way and watching it collapse as a result of its own unwieldyness.

All they need to do is to refuse to set up state-run exchanges for health insurance.

The law says that if a state doesn't set up a state-run exchange, the feds will step in and set one up and run it in that state; however, some people say that the actual language of the law (if upheld as it is written by the inevitable Court challenge) that if the feds set up an exchange in a state, residents of that state won't be eligible for the federal subsidies that are available for participants in state-run exchanges.

As of the original November 16 deadline for a decision, at least 30 states had not opted to develop state-run exchanges. HHS has extended the decision deadline to Dec 14.

If more than half the states decline to set up state-run exchanges, the burden of administration will fall squarely and exclusively on the federal government, yet when Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress, they did not provide any funding to the government to run the programs. Now there are intensive negotiations on reducing the rate of growth in federal spending going forward: not quite the ideal time to be adding a huge new staffing requirement to a federal department, eh?


More details here.

It would be ironic indeed for the mandate to be found unconstitutional, for the law to be allowed to stand anyway under an alternate theory (the taxing power) and then for the law to fail after all because of how incredibly poorly it was drafted.

Thanks to Judge Roberts, the only way to save it will be through a tax increase, and right now all the discussion over tax increases are to deal with the existing deficit. None of the funding shortfalls discussed herein are yet included in the spending baseling.

[Rover]

It is starting to look like governors can cause PPACA to topple merely by stepping out of the way and watching it collapse as a result of its own unwieldyness.

All they need to do is to refuse to set up state-run exchanges for health insurance.

The law says that if a state doesn't set up a state-run exchange, the feds will step in and set one up and run it in that state; however, some people say that the actual language of the law (if upheld as it is written by the inevitable Court challenge) that if the feds set up an exchange in a state, residents of that state won't be eligible for the federal subsidies that are available for participants in state-run exchanges.

As of the original November 16 deadline for a decision, at least 30 states had not opted to develop state-run exchanges. HHS has extended the decision deadline to Dec 14.

If more than half the states decline to set up state-run exchanges, the burden of administration will fall squarely and exclusively on the federal government, yet when Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress, they did not provide any funding to the government to run the programs. Now there are intensive negotiations on reducing the rate of growth in federal spending going forward: not quite the ideal time to be adding a huge new staffing requirement to a federal department, eh?


More details here.

It would be ironic indeed for the mandate to be found unconstitutional, for the law to be allowed to stand anyway under an alternate theory (the taxing power) and then for the law to fail after all because of how incredibly poorly it was drafted.

Thanks to Judge Roberts, the only way to save it will be through a tax increase, and right now all the discussion over tax increases are to deal with the existing deficit. None of the funding shortfalls discussed herein are yet included in the spending baseling.

Once again you are either drinking Drano or living in a conservative fantasyland world to make up for the humiliation your ideology suffered at the ballot box on Nov 6th. Governors refusing Medicare funding is irrelevant. Everybody needs to get health insurance. If said governors want their lower income residents to pay more for that by forgoing federal dollars, so be it. The law stays the same. My guess is those voters, particularly in Dem leaning states, will be wanting to have a chat with their elected officials come election day...

Second, its of no consequence whether the feds, the state, or a joint fed/state program is run. What we're seeing right now is a capitulation on the GOP side of Congress in regards to raising revenues via higher taxes and lower deductions. With Obama in the drivers seat, GOP has to either accept some tax hikes and cuts to defense spending, or do nothing and get ALL tax hikes and massive cuts to military spending. I'm not sure what reality you're living in, but if the GOP had the ability to defund the law, they would have done so over the past two years when they had some momentum. Not now after they've been publically b ! tch slapped by the voters.

[LynahFan]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

What we're seeing right now is a capitulation on the GOP side of Congress in regards to raising revenues via higher taxes and lower deductions. With Obama in the drivers seat, GOP has to either accept some tax hikes and cuts to defense spending, or do nothing and get ALL tax hikes and massive cuts to military spending.

I am glad that the GOPis capitulating on taxes - they absolutely need to go up. However, I don't think the GOP is going to go along with higher taxes + reduced military spending - increased health care administration spending = the same deficit we had before. The deal is that the higher taxes are supposed to reduce the deficit, not fund additional social programs.

[Rover]

I am glad that the GOPis capitulating on taxes - they absolutely need to go up. However, I don't think the GOP is going to go along with higher taxes + reduced military spending - increased health care administration spending = the same deficit we had before. The deal is that the higher taxes are supposed to reduce the deficit, not fund additional social programs.

No doubt. If Obamacare suddenly required an explosion in spending I'm sure there would be a problem. I don't see an issue with funding at its current levels as the GOP has signed off on this with all of the continuing budget resolutions already. One would think they would have drawn a line in the sand at that point.

I can see tort reform working its way into the mix to not only achieve some small cost savings but also throw the GOP a bone.

[FreshFish]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

The deal is that the higher taxes are supposed to reduce the deficit, not fund additional social programs.

that's always been the sticking point, eh?

They are not even discussing spending "cuts" at all. Typical DC talk: "cut" really means a reduced rate of growth.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

I am glad that the GOPis capitulating on taxes - they absolutely need to go up. However, I don't think the GOP is going to go along with higher taxes + reduced military spending - increased health care administration spending = the same deficit we had before. The deal is that the higher taxes are supposed to reduce the deficit, not fund additional social programs.

The PPACA was supposed to be a zero sum game. No added costs. We'll see what actually happens. If it does end up costing more you will be right.

As for additional taxes being used to reduce the deficit. That remains to be seen as well considering that the costs of our existing programs are increasing not decreasing.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Phase 1, we collect underpants.

[Rover]

Phase 1, we collect underpants.

I thought you were still on probation because of that?

[joecct]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

I am glad that the GOPis capitulating on taxes - they absolutely need to go up. However, I don't think the GOP is going to go along with higher taxes + reduced military spending - increased health care administration spending = the same deficit we had before. The deal is that the higher taxes are supposed to reduce the deficit, not fund additional social programs.

I don't know what your tax bracket is, but read the article I cited in the old thread. A LOT of middle class taxes are going up. If our margins are tight, the increased taxes (AMT, payroll, etc.) are going to be a lot more painful than the Paris (I've got accountants that pay for it all) Hilton's of this world.

[FreshFish]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

I don't know what your tax bracket is, but read the article I cited in the old thread. A LOT of middle class taxes are going up. If our margins are tight, the increased taxes (AMT, payroll, etc.) are going to be a lot more painful than the Paris (I've got accountants that pay for it all) Hilton's of this world.

Not only that, but when you look at the IRS data, the "rich" don't have enough money on their own to pay for everything either. Not only are taxes going up, but the middle class also is being screwed with really low interest rates (my mother used to live off her CD interest income, you don't ask people in their 80s to "diversify" chasing stock market returns!)

Of course, this is really a disguised "tax" since artificially low interest rates are keeping the deficit from exploding even more. Debt service will become intolerable when rates revert to normal levels.

All they are talking about is reducing the rate at which spending increases.

[LynahFan]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

I don't know what your tax bracket is, but read the article I cited in the old thread. A LOT of middle class taxes are going up. If our margins are tight, the increased taxes (AMT, payroll, etc.) are going to be a lot more painful than the Paris (I've got accountants that pay for it all) Hilton's of this world.

We are in a heck of a mess. Anybody who tells you we can fix everything without pain is running for office, monumentally stupid, or more likely, both. I am neither.

[joecct]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

We are in a heck of a mess. Anybody who tells you we can fix everything without pain is running for office, monumentally stupid, or more likely, both. I am neither.

.

[manurespreader]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

We are in a heck of a mess. Anybody who tells you we can fix everything without pain is running for office, monumentally stupid, or more likely, both. I am neither.

There are very few posts on here where I agree but not only do I agree but you understated the problem, IMHO.

[joecct]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

hmm
*****https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/318908_494976100524364_1021275833_n.jpg******

cynical.....