Author Topic: Obama health official: The Obamacare 'bailout' of insurers will be financed by a new tax on everyone's health plan  (Read 376 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65,681
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
Obama health official: The Obamacare 'bailout' of insurers will be financed by a new tax on everyone's health plan



Scott Gottlieb | Forbes

June 19, 2014


Article Highlights
• "Bailout" money will come from a new tax levied on the insurance companies.
Tweet This

• Few if any Obamacare plans had excess profits this year, owing to the rocky rollout.
Tweet This

• The new tax will be passed onto everyone in the form of higher premiums.
Tweet This



For months, there have been assertions that the mechanisms embedded in Obamacare, designed to offset losses that insurance companies will take this year on their exchange business, amount to a bailout of the insurance industry.

At the same time, it wasn’t clear where the money to pay for these “risk adjustments” would come from in the first place.

One scheme had the Obama Administration using money that it clawed away from profitable health plans to offset the losses incurred by the less fortunate insurers.

This, at least, was the way the so-called “risk corridors” were supposed to work, according to the original legislation. Problem is, it’s not clear that there will be enough health plans this year (or any at all) with excess profits that could be used to offset the losses incurred by insurers who were less fortunate.

Another scheme — the one that gave influence to the specter of a bailout– had the Obama team using taxpayer funds to directly offset the losses taken by exchange health plans. This approach had obstacles as well. Chief among them is that the money for the bailout doesn’t exist. It was never set aside.

Even if the Obama team tried to re-program slush funds that it surfaced inside the Department of Health and Human Services, a recent analysis by the Congressional Research Service makes clear that first, Congress would have to separately appropriate the funds in order for any money to be spent on the Obamacare plans.

Now we know where the “bailout” money is going to come from. It will be paid for by a new tax levied on the insurance companies.

Mandy Cohen, the Acting Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicare Service’s Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, delivered that message yesterday. Cohen was testifying before the House Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation and Regulatory Affairs. She said that if funding for the risk corridors can’t be financed off the money that gets clawed away from profitable insurers (therefore allowing the entire scheme to remain budget neutral) then CMS has the authority, if not the intention to impose additional “user fees” on all health insurers to cover the higher losses experienced by the Obamacare plans.

At issue is what’s being referred to as the “three R’s.” These are Obamacare policy constructs that are designed to offset losses that insurers will take as a result of the mostly older, and less healthy mix of patients that enrolled in the exchanges.

These three R’s include: A reinsurance fund of about $25 billion (financed off a fee on commercial insurance plans) that compensate health plans that enroll a costlier pool of patients; “Risk corridors” that substantially limit insurance company losses by shifting these costs to taxpayers; and Risk adjustment that balances health plans that enroll a disproportionate share of costlier patients.

The money drawn off the newly proposed user fees (tax) would be used to finance the risk corridors. This scheme is largely aimed at shifting money between insurers that lost excessive amounts of money, and those that were profitable.

Problem is, almost everyone lost money. Few if any Obamacare plans had excess profits this year, owing to the rocky rollout. So there isn’t any money to shift around — absent, of course, some new cash infusion. That’s where the user fee comes into play.

Since Obamacare health plans were prevented from pricing products to reflect true risk, they were always going to have atypically high cost, and in turn, losses. The red ink was inevitable. Now all of us will be forced to pay for it, whether we have an Obamacare plan or not. That new tax will be passed onto everyone in the form of higher premiums.

http://www.aei.org/article/health/obama-health-official-the-obamacare-bailout-of-insurers-will-be-financed-by-a-new-tax-on-everyones-health-plan/
« Last Edit: June 22, 2014, 05:16:07 AM by rangerrebew »
Abraham Lincoln:

There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law.
--January 27, 1838 Lyceum Address

Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties. And not to Democrats alone do I make this appeal, but to all who love these
great and true principles.
--August 27, 1856 Speech at Kalamazoo, Michigan

Let us then turn this government back into the channel in which the framers of the Constitution originally placed it.
--July 10, 1858 Speech at Chicago

Offline flowers

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,767


Online jmyrlefuller

  • J. Myrle Fuller
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,635
  • There's no one out there quite like me.
    • Fullervision
This may be the end-around to any challenge of the Obamacare mandate as a head tax. Levy the tax on the uninsured, then levy the tax on the insured, so either way, you get hit.
"Just because people in positions of authority are stupid, it doesn’t mean you have to go along with it." —Arlo Guthrie

"In the excitement of great popular elections, deciding the policy of the country, and its vast patronage, frauds will be committed, if a chance is given for them." —Richard Henry Dana, Jr.

Online Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 45,534
  • #ToldYouSo
This may be the end-around to any challenge of the Obamacare mandate as a head tax. Levy the tax on the uninsured, then levy the tax on the insured, so either way, you get hit.

If it's levied on everyone regardless of whether they have insurance or not then it becomes much more like a head tax.  If it's only levied on people without insurance then it's closer to being a sort of excise tax rather than a head tax.

Online jmyrlefuller

  • J. Myrle Fuller
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,635
  • There's no one out there quite like me.
    • Fullervision
If it's levied on everyone regardless of whether they have insurance or not then it becomes much more like a head tax.  If it's only levied on people without insurance then it's closer to being a sort of excise tax rather than a head tax.
True, but if it is levied equally, or "in proportion with the census," then it is constitutional.
"Just because people in positions of authority are stupid, it doesn’t mean you have to go along with it." —Arlo Guthrie

"In the excitement of great popular elections, deciding the policy of the country, and its vast patronage, frauds will be committed, if a chance is given for them." —Richard Henry Dana, Jr.

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65,681
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
How can there be a tax on a tax? :shrug:
Abraham Lincoln:

There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law.
--January 27, 1838 Lyceum Address

Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties. And not to Democrats alone do I make this appeal, but to all who love these
great and true principles.
--August 27, 1856 Speech at Kalamazoo, Michigan

Let us then turn this government back into the channel in which the framers of the Constitution originally placed it.
--July 10, 1858 Speech at Chicago

Online Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 45,534
  • #ToldYouSo
True, but if it is levied equally, or "in proportion with the census," then it is constitutional.

But in this case the penalty is set as the greater of the minimum or 2% of gross income, plus there are waivers for those with incomes under certain levels; as such, the tax cannot ever be levied in proportion to the census.

Also, since the tax would not be levied on every individual pro-rata - it goes through the tax return so anyone who is not required to file a tax return is not required to pay that tax, such as minor children included as dependents on their parents' tax returns - it will necessarily fail the proportionality requirement even if it isn't set in relation to gross income.

Just in case it seems like I'm stepping on my own toes:  I agree that if every single individual who is counted in the census is also required to pay the exact same dollar amount, then the tax would be a constitutionally apportioned head tax (i.e., a "direct" tax).  All I am adding to the mix is that in this case the Obastardcare tax will never be that sort of tax and therefore will never survive muster as a properly apportioned head tax.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf