ACA Repeal UPDATE - Sebelius Denies, BDaddy Checks the Facts

The Hill reported that HHS Secretary Sebelius is denying that she repealed Obamacare.  That wasn't the actual question, but she did say that there was not plan to delay the individual mandate until 2016 as the WSJ reported yesterday and I repeated on this blog.  That prompted me to review the policy in question.  Turns out... it's complicated.  But this is the ACA, what else would we expect?
If you want to read the relevant documents they are here, here, and here.  Here is how I break it down.

The March 5th memo states:

On December 19, 2013, CMS issued guidance indicating that individuals whose policies are cancelled because the coverage is not compliant with the Affordable Care Act qualify for a hardship exemption if they find other options to be more expensive, and are able to purchase catastrophic coverage.³ This hardship exemption will continue to be available until October 1, 2016, for those individuals whose non-compliant coverage is cancelled and who meet the requirements specified in the guidance. 

In English: hardship for cancellations extended.  The footnote links to the actual December 19 memo which applies only to cancelled policies that did not meet the ACA standards.  The actual change in policy is that the exemption for cancelled policies is extended to 2016.  The WSJ makes the point that there seems to be a lax standard for proving that one's cancelled coverage is a reason to opt out.  But that depends on how much scrutiny HHS gives to such hardship applications. Not mentioned is the real possibility, in my view, that such applications may be denied. Also, it is clear that the rule change only applies to exemption category 13, cancellations on the HHS Exemption Form.  This makes the sub-headline misleading: HHS quietly repeals the individual purchase rule for two more years.  What is not discussed in the article is that the cancellation process is different from other processes, because the individual must submit the hardship exemption to another insurer who offers catastrophic coverage before the exemption can be considered.

So what of the realities of the individual mandate.  Hardship exemptions do seem fairly easy to obtain, but the rub is that since the process is so arcane, no one is going to know how to do this ahead of tax filing time.  As a matter of fact, it seems likely that only the better educated and therefor more well off will file an exemption.  Here are some comforting words from the HHS on getting your exemption, from the "What happens next?" part of the form.

 Except for cancellations, send your complete, signed application to the address on page 4. We’ll follow-up with you within 1–2 weeks and let you know if we need additional information. If you get this exemption, we’ll give you an Exemption Certificate Number that you’ll put on your federal income tax return. If you don’t hear from us, visit HealthCare.gov, or call the Health Insurance Marketplace Call Center at 1-800-318-2596. See page 4 for next steps for cancellations. 

So what if you just don't pay?  Here is what the IRS has to say about that:

The IRS routinely works with taxpayers who owe amounts they cannot afford to pay. The law prohibits the IRS from using liens or levies to collect any individual shared responsibility payment. However, if you owe a shared responsibility payment, the IRS may offset that liability against any tax refund that may be due to you.

So, you are better off owing the feds taxes, which I have always told people, because they can't impose a lien.  

Bottom Line:

How much of an actual mandate still exists is a matter of conjecture and based on unknown future behavior of citizens and the HHS.  This is a set up for both tyranny and revolt.  

Sifting the News

Like many of you, I don't trust the news as reported by the big outlets like CNN, the New York Times or even Fox News.  They all have agendas, but in a free market information tends to eventually get out.  But you can also learn a lot by reading between the lines, and analyzing the self-interest of the players involved in the news.  More importantly, the media, by trumpeting a particular sensational story diverts the public eye from more important issues.  Here are some things I am watching and my take.

Detroit's bankruptcy. This is one of the most important stories in the country right now, because if the unions can claim constitutional protection for their pension benefits, most big cities will become totally dominated by unions and who will then state taxpayers with the tab for outrageous pensions.  Union pensions getting trimmed might impose a small measure of discipline on out of control spending in some cities.

The Snowden Distraction.  After the leaks about NSA spying the attention shifted to Snowden as a person, not his allegations.  But the allegations were not really denied by the big internet firms, like AT&T and Google.  Government intervention required them to word their denials in a way that makes them unbelievable.  I am not sure if I believe Snowden entirely, but I don't believe Big IT.

Filner's Dance with Destiny. (No she's not an ex-employee.)  Daily and more frequently, revelations about the Filner case are served up by the U-T.  But the whole Sunroad play to pay scandal has disappeared from the news, despite an FBI inquiry.  This is not Sunroad's first dust up with allegations of improper influence.  (See a great timeline on the previous difficulties with zoning and influencing then Mayor Sanders at Community Airfields Assn of SD.) I always assume that the U-T is aligned with the big downtown business interests of this city, often hoteliers and developers.  I don't think they are pushing the Filner sexual harassment story because it takes the spotlight off of a developer; but it seems to fit their self-interest.

IRS Scandal.  This is a real scandal that should have legs. My sense is that it doesn't go to the White House, but to key Democratic politicians.  If we knew the whole truth, the Dems would be reeling, which is why the full court press to keep it covered up.  This is how tyranny starts. Darrell Issa could do the Republic a service if he can blow this open.  Bradley Smith analyzes the self interests of the parties involved.

That's a wrap on that topic.  I have instituted a new part of my daily posting, but neglected it of late:

What You Should Be Reading:

• Dean's take on the low information voters who put Filner in office.  Read him, he makes good sense and links back to me.  
• Tax revolt coalition Blogger-in-Chief Dawn reports on the latest federal effort to take over local education everywhere and the coalition of Moms in opposition.  Just more argument for shutting down government schools.

What You Should NOT Be Reading:

• Some rich dude bought the Washington Post.  I heard he likes to read. It's a trophy purchase and I guarantee that he overpaid.
• Anything about George Zimmerman as the media should give the man some peace.

Insanity in Our Back Yard - Filner Must Go

There is plenty of coverage of the allegations regarding Filner's sexual harassment.  Leslie Eastman at College Insurrection has a nice summary and sdrostra.com is chock full of articles on the subject. But Filner has demonstrated plenty of other out-of-control behavior that together paints a portrait of a man teetering on the edge of sanity.

• Most disturbing to me, because it is such an affront to civil behavior, his ex-fiancee said that  she made the "gut-wrenching decision" to break up with Filner after she said he recently started text messaging other women sexually explicit messages and set up dates in front of her.  Bronwym Ingram, the ex, said that he had lost the ability to treat anyone with civility.
• His ongoing feud with Jan Goldsmith that is harming the city.  His aggressive take-over of a Goldsmith news conference prompted me to predict he wouldn't finish the term.
• The Sunroad Centrum pay-to-play investigation is still ongoing, with the FBI involved.  Citybeat has more details.
• Jerry Navarra of Jerome's Furniture donated free furniture to the mayor's office while he has two properties in East Village that cannot be developed unless an historical designation is lifted.

Here is that Goldsmith presser video.

He has clearly shredded the norms of civil behavior.  Here is the an article about conduct disorders, including DSM-IV diagnostic criteria.  Check out these symptoms and ask how much of Filner's behavior fits:

Four types of symptoms of conduct disorder are recognized: 

(1) Aggression or serious threats of harm to people or animals;
(2) Deliberate property damage or destruction (e.g., fire setting, vandalism);
(3) Repeated violation of household or school rules, laws, or both; and
(4) Persistent lying to avoid consequences or to obtain tangible goods or privileges.

Should someone who has the symptoms of a conduct disorder be our mayor?

What You Should Be Reading:

• The Daily Caller has a sneak peak at testimony in the IRS targeting of tea party groups.  It ain't pretty and true to expectation, the trail leads to Washington.
• DooDoo Econ on exposing accounting fraud at Treasury to avoid breaching the debt limit.  He also makes a compelling case, with pictures, of why Filner will stay in office until after Comic-Con.

The Cover Up - IRS Harassment of tea party Groups

Here comes the cover up.  Yesterday, I wrote about the IRS illegal targeting tea party groups for harassment.  Today, there are reports of a cover up and much, much earlier knowledge by senior IRS officials.  Hotair has great coverage of the story, but if you don't have time, here is all you need to know, from the AP.

A federal watchdog's upcoming report says senior Internal Revenue Service officials knew agents were targeting tea party groups in 2011. 

The disclosure contradicts public statements by former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, who repeatedly assured Congress that conservative groups were not targeted.

And the left mocks conservatives for buying guns as insurance against eventual government tyranny or anarchy.  How are the IRS' tactics any different from what Chavez did in Venezuela?  Oh, I forgot, he was BFFs with the likes of Sean Penn and Danny Glover, so he couldn't have done anything wrong either.

Hopefully Mr. Shulman can find himself on trial for perjury, since he denied any of this in March 2012.

What You Should Be Reading

Walter Russell Mead looks at the future of work and paints a scary picture.  I actually agree with his conclusions.  Mead is a great writer and thinker in general, I read and listened to a number of his lectures in a strategic planning class I took last year and always found his work insightful.

W.C. Varones explains why San Diego County Taxpayers Association is not to be trusted through the example of the Poway "borrow $100 million - pay back $1 billion bonds."

Mark Steyn, with his usual bite, sums up the utter depravity of Hillary Clinton's response to Behghazi. Many conservatives believe that she would have been a less awful President than Obama. I just think it would have been a different kind of awful.

An Apology is not Enough - IRS Harassment of tea party Groups

The IRS finally acknowledged what conservative groups have known since early 2012, they were targeted for special scrutiny by the IRS when applying for tax exempt status.  The WSJ is reporting:

A congressional aide familiar with the findings of the inspector general's report said it concludes that tea-party groups were delayed in the application process, and were asked unnecessary questions.

The power of the IRS to ruin the life of the average citizen is well known.  Besides being a clear abuse of power, IRS harassment is a powerful tool to stifle dissent.  Nixon is alleged to have used the IRS to harass those on his "enemies list," to great and well deserved outrage.  Leftists who are the most vocal about Nixon are saying nothing or even saying that the tea party groups deserved the scrutiny because of collective guilt for being front organizations for business interests.  I won't link the Daily Kos articles that so state.

I am not alleging that this effort was directed by the Obama administration.  It matters not why the harassment took place, when it is targeted based on belief it is unconscionable.  The IRS has too much power over our lives.  The complexity of the tax code makes average citizens potential criminals.  The ACA has put an even larger burden the IRS, and at the same time made it more likely that an individual tax return will be out of compliance and subject to audit.

There will be a lot of hoopla about ensuring there is an investigation.  Much will be made of imposing new rules that ensure "fairness."  What is really needed is tax code simplification, across the board, not just in the area of tax exempt organizations.

What You Should Be Reading

DooDooEcon examines this IRS story and other Friday dumping by the administration that tends to escape notice.  

Byron York summarizes how heightened border security proposals are getting killed in Senate committee on 10 Democrats plus Graham and Flake. Lack of adequate border security will kill the usefulness of this bill.  We need to contact our House members.

The IRS Issues Even More Health Insurance Rules

CNS News is reporting on the IRS' efforts to ensure that employers don't avoid compliance with ACA requirements.  The IRS is issuing regulatory rulemaking to make everything clear, in a tersely worded 144 page notice.  Here is a little excerpt

   Section 4980H generally provides that an applicable large employer is subject to an assessable payment if either (1) the employer fails to offer to its full-time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage (MEC) under an eligible employer-sponsored plan and any full-time employee is certified to the employer as having received an applicable premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction (section 4980H(a) liability), or (2) the employer offers its full-time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll in MEC under an eligible employer-sponsored plan and one or more full-time employees is certified to the employer as having received an applicable premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction (section 4980H(b) liability).
Generally, section 4980H(b) liability may arise because, with respect to a full-time employee who has been certified to the employer as having received an applicable premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction, the employer’s coverage is unaffordable within the meaning of section 36B(c)(2)(C)(i) or does not provide minimum value within the meaning of section 36B(c)(2)(C)(ii).  As noted, an employer may be liable for an assessable payment under section 4980H(a) or (b) only if one or more full-time employees are certified to the employer as having received an applicable premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction.
  The assessable payment under section 4980H(a) is based on all (excluding the first 30) full-time employees, while the assessable payment under section 4980H(b) is based on the number of full-time employees who are certified to the employer as having received an applicable premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction with respect to that employee’s purchase of health insurance for himself or herself on an Exchange. In contrast, an employee’s receipt of a premium tax credit or cost sharing reduction with respect to coverage for a dependent will not result in liability for the employer under section 4980H. Under section 4980H(b), liability is contingent on whether the employer offers minimum essential coverage under an eligible employer-sponsored plan, and whether that coverage is affordable and provides minimum value, as determined by reference to the cost and characteristics of employee-only coverage offered to the employee. Section 4980H(c)(4) provides that a full-time employee with respect to any month is an employee who is employed on average at least 30 hours of service per week. An applicable large employer with respect to a calendar year is defined in section 4980H(c)(2) as an employer that employed an average of at least 50 full-time employees on business days during the preceding calendar year. For purposes of determining whether an employer is an applicable large employer, full-time equivalent employees (FTEs), which are statutorily determined based on the hours of service of employees who are not full-time employees, are taken into account.

It goes on like this for another 100 or more mind numbing pages.  The law will predictably do nothing to improve health care in this country, because it is too complex for anyone to understand or comply with.  If I were running a business, I would just say forget it, drop all coverage, pay my fine and raise my prices to make up for the lost profit.

Predictably, fewer Americans will have health insurance after this law goes into full effect.