How The Sale of Insurance Across State Lines Would Work
Cost-Shifting Does Not Justify ObamaCare
Obama Administration Uses Medicare Slush Fund to Aide Obama's Reelection
President Obama and Democrats in Congress pushed for cuts to Medicare Advantage to "pay for" ObamaCare. These cuts will have a devastating impact on Senior's ability to access care under the Medicare program. It has recently been discovered that the Administration is now using a slush fund to temporarily stave off the impact of these devastating Medicare Advantage cuts - at least until the election.
According to the Washington Examiner:
"According to a Government Accountability Office report published yesterday, the administration has been doling out cash from an $8 billion slush fund to temporarily cushion the blow from these cuts. The pain will come later, presumably after his re-election."
You can read the full commentary from the Examiner here.
Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC
States Can Improve Their Business Climate by Rejecting Establishment of ObamaCare Exchange
Are there many ways that a state could shield businesses in their state from an onerous, job killing tax penalty? In most cases - no. But in the case of ObamaCare the answer is a definitive "yes!!!"
ObamaCare seeks to have states set up insurance exchanges or government controlled "markets" whereby federal subsidies are dolled out so that people can buy heavily regulated, government approved health insurance. According to this article from The Wall Street Journal, if a state establishes an exchange, ObamaCare allows the subsidies to be given out (see Section 1311). If a state refuses to set up an exchange, the federal government will do so but ObamaCare does not permit any subsidies for people who access the federal exchanges (see Section 1321).
So, a state that takes a pass on establishing an exchange (as many states have chosen to do) is effectively telling the feds, "we aren't going to spend state tax dollars to do your dirty work - have at it." But here is where a state that decides to take a pass can really benefit that state's economy. Under ObamaCare, if someone receives an exchange subsidy, their employer is subject to a penalty under ObamaCare but if no employees receive a subsidy employers are not subject to the penalty. Get it? The bottom line is that states can protect job creators from onerous federal taxes if they refuse to create and set up an ObamaCare insurance exchange. That is a significant incentive for states to protect their economy and jobs. The alternative is to create an exchange, letting the penalty kick in, resulting in fewer businesses and fewer jobs which will create a double-whammy for state taxpayers. Taxpayer will have to foot the bill to deal with the further strain on a state's social safety net resulting from higher unemployment and would end up footing the bill to finance a system to hand out federal bennies. A bad deal all around for states, employers, employees and taxpayers.
Read more about this here.
Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC
Liberal WaPo Declares Obama Story About Mother's Health Insurance Problems False
Senate Finance Committee Details Regulatory Cost and Lost Jobs Due to ObamaCare
Democrat Admits Obama Administration is Ignoring Constitution
Indiana Senate Rejects Health Care Compact Medicare Takeover
Senate to Vote on Conscience Protection Tomorrow
According to Roll Call, the United States Senate will vote on conscience protection on Thursday. Stay tuned for more details.
Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC
Free Isn't Free (When it Comes to Contraception)
Recent Posts
- House Questions Obama Admin For Using Taxpayer Money to Push ObamaCare
- Government Can Lead by Getting Out of the Way
- ObamaCare's Job Killing Tax on Innovation
- How The Sale of Insurance Across State Lines Would Work
- The Coming Government Price Controls Under ObamaCare
- The Future of Health Care Innovation
- The Future of Health Care Innovation
- Calls Grow Louder for Montana to Reject ObamaCare Exchanges
- ObamaCare Threatens the Poor, Most Vulnerable Among Us
- Just in Time for the Election, HHS Releases ObamaCare Propaganda
Tags
- AAA (3)
- Abortion (18)
- Alabama (81)
- Alaska (82)
- Arizona (84)
- Arkansas (74)
- Bureaucracy (9)
- California (81)
- CHIP (Children’s Health) (7)
- CLASS Act (13)
- Colorado (78)
- Compacts (20)
- Comparison to other nations (3)
- Congressional Budget Office (47)
- Congressional Oversight (58)
- Connecticut (68)
- DC (67)
- Delaware (68)
- Elena Kagen (10)
- Exchanges (18)
- Expanded Bureaucracy (36)
- Federal Budget Impact (52)
- Federal Spending (36)
- Florida (90)
- Free Market (35)
- Georgia (79)
- Hawaii (67)
- HHS (39)
- HSAs (12)
- Idaho (77)
- Illinois (70)
- Impact on Consumers (89)
- In the States (59)
- Indiana (80)
- Individual Mandate (58)
- Innovation (9)
- Iowa (73)
- IPAB (10)
- Kansas (78)
- Kentucky (71)
- Lawsuits (64)
- Losing Coverage (38)
- Louisiana (81)
- Maine (77)
- Maryland (69)
- Massachusetts (76)
- Media (8)
- Medicaid (65)
- Medicare (71)
- Michigan (90)
- Mini-Med Plans (10)
- Minnesota (70)
- Mississippi (77)
- Missouri (76)
- Montana (72)
- Nebraska (79)
- Nevada (80)
- New Hampshire (72)
- New Jersey (72)
- New Mexico (69)
- New York (73)
- North Carolina (71)
- North Dakota (78)
- ObamaCare Implementation (245)
- Ohio (79)
- Oklahoma (84)
- Oregon (69)
- Pennsylvania (79)
- Polling/Public Opinion (19)
- Prescription Drugs (10)
- Price Controls (4)
- Rationing (5)
- Regulations (34)
- Repeal (54)
- Rhode Island (69)
- Seniors (19)
- Socialized Medicine (11)
- South Carolina (79)
- South Dakota (75)
- State Budget Impact (21)
- Tax Burden (25)
- Taxes (40)
- Tennessee (78)
- Texas (91)
- Utah (80)
- Vermont (70)
- Virginia (79)
- Waivers (21)
- Washington (77)
- West Virginia (68)
- Wisconsin (82)
- Wyoming (84)




You can reach our