Obamacare’s regulatory surtax on exchange insurance plans
Despite over 2,000 pages of legislative text, many key details of President Obama’s national health care law were left up to regulators to work out, with Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius given the lead role. The Obama administration wanted to avoid issuing potentially controversial health care regulations during an election year, but now that it’s over, regulations are starting to roll out. In a news dump this past Friday afternoon, HHS released 373 pages of new insurance regulations, and buried on page 299 is a proposed 3.5 percent monthly “user fee” to be levied on the premiums collected by insurers who offer policies on the new government-run exchanges. Effectively, it’s a regulatory surtax that will inevitably be passed onto individuals who purchase insurance on these new exchanges. …
Regardless of whether this authority exists, it’s another example of how the Obamacare’s true costs are only going to become known over time. When the law was written and it said “no federal funds” after January 1, 2015, as far as the Congressional Budget Office was concerned, that meant the exchanges won’t impose recurring costs on the federal government. But, now it’s clear that there will be ongoing costs, which the federal government will impose on insurers, who will in turn raise premiums on exchange consumers who receive federal subsidies.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Every one of you Bark voters who lose your job, house, or savings because of this deserve to be laughed at and ridiculed. You wanted it, you’re going to get it.
Bishop on December 3, 2012 at 8:09 PM
Even with the Roberts decision that the penalty for not having insurance is a tax, there is an aspect to this that I don’t think has been addressed by the court. That is that the federal government does not get to mandate state insurance policy. By this, I mean that the tax penalty is assessed if you do or do not have a qualifying medical insurance policy. Ok, fine, that is a tax. But what is or is not a qualifying policy should be left to the states to decide. The states should decide what the minimum coverage amounts should be, not the federal government. Costs vary widely from one state to another and what is a “low” deductible in NY might be unaffordable for many in Arkansas or Mississippi. What the federal government is doing here is using this penalty to effectively do an end run around state insurance regulatory authority. I believe this is unconstitutional. The federal government would have authority to tax people if they don’t have a qualifying policy but what qualifies is a matter for each state to decide.
crosspatch on December 3, 2012 at 8:19 PM
The state of MI imposed a 1% tax on my health care premium at the beginning of 2012. The made it retroactive to the first of the year sometime in late spring. Thy billed me for several month’s of taxes the next month after it passed. Overall, this tax will cost me wrens $80 this year. Now obamacare will add almost $300 more to this premium tax. Vultures.
karenhasfreedom on December 3, 2012 at 8:20 PM
Dang it, hard to post via iPhone. Sorry for the typos.
karenhasfreedom on December 3, 2012 at 8:24 PM
They are charging people beginning January for non-ObamaTax compliant plans. Here’s the kicker–all plans are non-compliant because the regs have yet to be written.
txhsmom on December 3, 2012 at 9:09 PM