A new, federal excise tax of 40 percent on health insurance benefits – once labeled the ‘Cadillac Tax’ by liberal activists — will slam unionized government employees most harshly in 20 U.S. states. The massive tax increase comes from a specific section of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which was written in 2009 to raise revenue and offset the billions of dollars required to cover previously uninsured Americans under the Obamacare legislation.
Category: Health Care
While the war over the use and taxation of electronic cigarettes wages, Dutch company E-njoint has started selling a new marijuana-flavored “e-joint” that will almost certainly lead to controversial legal[…]
Florida Republicans are considering legislation to create a “free market” alternative to Medicaid. But, they only plan to put the market-oriented program into practice if the new federal expansion of the health insurance program for the poor fails.
Health care insurance coverage for most Americans, under Obamacare, is simply “not worth the price,” writes Grace-Marie Turner, of the Galen Institute, in her recent column on the continuing policy fiasco in Forbes online.
Obamacare recently passed the five-year milestone, and etiquette would suggest an anniversary gift is in order for the politicians who passed and implemented the law. The traditional gift for five-year anniversaries is wood, and the more modern gift is silver. In this case, I’d recommend silver pieces – more than 29 but fewer than 31 – in light of the betrayal against American workers this law represents.
In today’s edition of The Heartland Daily Podcast, Managing Editor of Health Care News Sean Parnell speaks with Devon Herrick. Herrick, a senior fellow in health care policy at the National Center for Policy Analysis, discusses the fifth anniversary of Obamacare and what the touted drop in the number of uninsured really means.
My Mother taught gourmet cooking, haute cuisine, for three decades in the local adult schools, first just to women and later with courses just for men as they too wanted to learn how to make succulent dishes, delicious sauces, and to bake as well. She also wrote a cookbook, “Cooking with Wine and High Spirits”, as well as one filled with dishes that the colonial Americans enjoyed.
The agency has extended its comments period until April 15 as it considers a rule that would regulate a range of chemicals within a group called phthalates. These chemicals, among other purposes, keep plastics from shattering when bent, and play a useful role in a range of consumer products.
The Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell, the case challenging the Obama administration’s decision to award tax credits for health insurance sold through federally established exchanges, could turn on the question of whether a ruling that ends the tax credits on federal exchanges might cause something known as a “death spiral” in health insurance markets.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report on March 9 projecting Obamacare premium prices to outpace both private insurance premiums and government spending between 2016 and 2018.
In today’s edition of The Heartland Daily Podcast, managing editor of Health Care News, Sean Parnell, talks with John R. Graham. Graham is a senior fellow in health care policy at the National Center for Policy Analysis. Graham and Parnell discuss the health care related impacts of the proposed GOP budget.
Expect the FCC’s new Open Internet Order’s assertion of Title II authority ultimately to be rejected in court (90%), because of its core illegal confiscatory purpose and its serial ends-justify-the-means trampling of due process.
The FCC’s Title II legal defense is a “modern” day version of “the Emperor has no clothes” fable, where the vain FCC confidently parades in public clothed in the legal fabric that utopian legal alchemists have convinced the FCC is invisible only to those who are “hopelessly stupid” or “unfit for their positions.” Sadly, this emperor (the FCC) has no clothes (sustainable legal case).
There are three paths Congress could take in the wake of a ruling from the Supreme Court that strikes down the Obamacare insurance exchange subsidy system. They amount to a path toward doing nothing, a path toward doing something, and a path toward doing everything.
Tucson, AZ. One of the biggest selling points for the Affordable Care Act (ACA or ObamaCare) was the promise that insurers couldn’t cancel your plan if you get sick. But if the U.S. Supreme Court, in King v. Burwell, holds premium subsidies to be illegal in Exchanges not established by States, the Administration will allow insurers to abrogate their contracts, says the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.
On June 28, 2012, Chief Justice John Roberts announced his vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) individual mandate provision, siding with the Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) liberal cohort to obtain a 5–4 vote in favor of the Obama administration in the now-infamous case National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius.
In this edition of the Heartland Daily Podcast, Director of Communications Jim Lakely sits down with the Managing Editor of Health Care News Sean Parnell. Parnell and Lakely discuss the Supreme Court case King v. Burwell.
The Obama Administration was apparently shocked when the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of King v. Burwell, which challenges insurance subsidies flowing through federal Exchanges. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) clearly states that subsidies flow only through Exchanges established by States.
New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman made a shocking announcement earlier this month. He alleged that DNA tests his office commissioned found that about 80% of GNC supplements tested, including those sold as Ginkgo Biloba, St. John’s Wort, and Ginseng didn’t actually have any of the herb in the capsules.
Most people instinctively understand when government shelters companies from competition it is ultimately the consumer who suffers from higher prices, lower quality, or both. Unfortunately, this bit of common sense hasn’t made much difference in the minds of those arguing Indiana should impose a moratorium on new nursing home facilities and beds.