Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Open Enrollment for the Nation

I was able to see some recent figures for health insurance costs for the year 2013, and I have to say I hope companies are doing their open enrollments now - before the election.

If not, many people may be in for a surprise after the election.  Of course, I know a lot of people who support Obamacare who say they don't mind paying more for health care if it means everyone is covered, among other things.  Fine and good, but let's let the People decide if they agree with that as a majority.

Based on the surprise to the increases and changes I've already seen, there may be quite a few Americans that are unprepared for just how much getting everyone covered is going to cost them, especially in light of the promises that came with Obamacare to reduce health care costs.

Health Savings Accounts are taking some of the biggest hits, and it looks like employer support of them could be dropping significantly.  That isn't good news for many who saw it as a good option between being covered and being frugal by cutting overall health care costs yourself and saving money for future health needs.  Costs for the minimum premiums are going up for both individuals and employers, and how contributions to the HSA accounts are accounted for is also causing controversy over whether it really makes sense to contribute much money to them at all.

And if you liked the idea of using Flexible Spending Accounts, the $2,500 contribution limit may really  hamper your plans if you have kids that need braces, or have needs that exceed $2,500 per year.  Unless someone can show me otherwise, this new limit is an "invisible" tax on every dollar above $2,500 that the normal FSA account holders was used to contributing to their accounts in years past.

But it isn't just those costs that have gone up.  Even traditional plan premiums are going up for employers and individuals.

I'd start asking your employer and/or health care provider to get you information about what next year's costs are going to be, before you vote this year.  Once you determine how it will affect you, then cast your vote.

The next few weeks left in the election are America's open enrollment period.  We'd better be ready for what the majority decides it wants.  Because it will be many years before we again have a chance to change our plan as a nation.

Below is some information from the HSA Council on changes being made through Obamacare.


The primary issues of concern for high-deductible plans are that:
  • The medical loss ratio formula doesn’t take into account contributions to HSAs.  Many high deductible health plans are accompanied by an HSA, which covers much of the first-dollar costs before the plan’s deductible is reached.  HSA contributions are currently not reflected in the medical loss ratio calculations.
  • High deductible health plans may not be able to raise rates fast enough to keep up with rising costs.  High deductible health plans will require larger annual rate increases than typical medical plans because medical inflation will have a greater impact on claim levels than plans with lower deductibles. 
  • High deductible health plans have fewer premium dollars to cover their fixed expenses.  Every plan has fixed expenses that it covers with premiums. Since high deductible health plans have lower premiums than other plans, a greater percentage of the premium must be used to pay these fixed expenses.  For example, $400 of fixed expenses represents 40 percent of a $1,000 premium, but only 20 percent of a $2,000 premium and just 8 percent of a $5,000 premium.  Therefore, it is harder for a lower premium plan to keep its non-claim expenses below 20 percent of its adjusted premiums as the medical loss ratio rule requires.
  • High deductible health plans have less predictable claims experience that could increase the risk of paying rebates.  High deductible insurance plans pay fewer claims than plans with low deductibles.  But when high deductible health plans pay claims, the claim dollar amounts tend to be larger. This lower-frequency/high-payment creates less actuarial predictability which can result in high claims in one year and low claims in another. If the plan has low claims, it may not meet the 80 percent medical loss ratio and be required to pay rebates.  If the plan has high claims, it may lose money that it cannot “make up” in other years.

The information below was provided by HSA Bank:

 • Qualified Medical Expenses: Starting January 1, 2011 you will no longer be able to pay for over-thecounter medications from your HSA as a qualified medical expense. The new law removes over-the-counter 
drugs not prescribed by a physician from being paid from an HSA, FSA, or HRA on a tax-free basis.
 • Non-qualified expense penalty: Under the new law, if you use your HSA funds for non-qualified expenses, 
you will face a higher penalty. The tax penalty for non-qualified HSA distributions will increase, effective 
January 1, 2011, from 10% to 20%.
 • Mandated insurance coverage: Effective January 1, 2014, the legislation will require most U.S. Citizens 
and legal residents to have health insurance. It also outlines the minimum coverage and essential health 
benefits that need to be provided for a plan to qualify for the mandated coverage. This could potentially limit 
the types of health plans that will be available to consumers. Below are a few of the areas which require 
clarification by the Secretary of Health and Human Services: 
   • Preventive care services:  All insurance policies will be required to provide first dollar coverage for 
preventive care services. While HSA-compatible health plans are currently allowed to provide first-dollar 
coverage of preventive care services, in the future, all plans will be required to do so. These provisions 
will go into effect in 2014. Additionally, further clarification must be provided regarding what constitutes 
“preventive care” under the new regulations and whether or not that definition conflicts with current IRS 
guidance on what constitutes “preventive care” for HSA purposes.
   • Minimum actuarial value: All insurance policies will be required to provide a minimum actuarial value 
of at least 60 percent for the benefits covered. Clarity must be provided regarding how “actuarial value” 
is defined. It is also not clear whether a plan’s actuarial value would include employer or individual 
contributions made to the individual’s HSA. Including the contributions in the calculation of a plan’s 
actuarial value would make it easier for more HSA-compatible health plans to meet the minimum 
actuarial value requirement. If contributions are not included, many plans could no longer be sold. 
 • Small employer benefit requirements: The legislation also includes a provision that would prevent small 
employers from offering plans with deductibles greater than $2,000 for singles and $4,000 for families 
(indexed annually). Employers may offer plans with deductibles higher than $2,000 / $4,000 if the employer 
offers a flexible spending arrangement (FSA) that reimburses the difference between the higher deductible 
and $2,000 / $4,000. This provision will affect the health plans that can be offered to small employers and 
still qualify for HSA contributions. This provision goes into effect in 2014.
 • Excise tax on ‘Cadillac’ plans: The new law will impose an excise tax of 40 percent on employersponsored coverage that has a benefit value in excess of $10,200 for single coverage and $27,500 for 
family coverage (indexed annually). The benefit value of employer-sponsored coverage would include the 
value of the group health plan and contributions to employees’ FSAs, HRAs, and HSAs. This tax would be 
imposed on insurance companies, including self-insured plans and plans sold in the group market, and plan 
administrators. However, this provision does not go into effect until 2018.
Medical loss ratio requirement:  The new law imposes a “medical loss ratio” requirement. It would require 
a set percentage of premiums to be paid directly to medical claims. Since HSA-compatible plans have lower 
premiums, this may make it challenging for plans to meet the established ratios and still qualify for HSA 
coverage.

Saturday, August 11, 2012

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan: The Next Steps

Today, Mitt Romney formally announced Paul Ryan as his running-mate in the 2012 presidential election. This is an interesting decision on many fronts, underscoring the choice between fiscal change and spending reductions, and Keynesian policies and spending increases from who we choose as President this year.

Actually, before the news leaked last night about Ryan receiving the nod, I would have liked to have seen Marco Rubio get the nomination for Vice President. My feeling is the Republicans need to to a better job at embracing and showing the nation that they want minority figures taking top positions in government. Latinos are going to start making a large part of the voting block, and the Republicans will need their help. I thought about it some more since then, though, and I think leaving Rubio in the Senate is key for many reasons, which may help Republicans take the next steps. Some of those key reasons include:

  • Needing Senators there that can finally pass a budget!
  • Rubio has some campaign issues he is dealing with that could cause some problems.
  • Paul Ryan is from Wisconsin, where the State has shown some guts in passing austerity measures.
  • But mostly, and I think Republicans should start mulling this over, Rubio could be made the next Senate Majority Leader if Republicans take the Senate. If they don't, I think they ought to put him in the Minority Leader spot.




By putting Rubio in such a position, I think the Republicans would gain a fair amount by showing they are committed to letting Latinos and other minorities take on key roles, which is important to a large cross-section of American voters.

We will be researching Paul Ryan over the next while, so stay tuned to find out more about this man who's political career got started at a very young age.

Sunday, August 05, 2012

Reid v. Romney

A few months ago I stated that I hate the argument that if you don't release something, or don't allow an unwarranted search, that you must be hiding something. 

That was the accusation the Republicans were making at the time vs. Obama in regards to the faster and Furious discussion.

Now Reid & Co. are using the same argument against Romney.

So I propose that Romney make a deal with Obama that he'll release the 10 years of returns if Obama will release the FaF documents.

Since both are equally as interesting to the public and likely somewhat damning to both of the candidates, I think it would be a fair trade.

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Think Progress Image

I just saw an image from Think Progress that states:

"These five people just saved millions of Americans by protecting Health Care" - Think Progress

Here is the image below. I took the image, photoshopped it, and posted it as saying "These five people just raised your taxes. And you didn't even get to vote for them." - Think About It.

Supreme Court Ruling Infers Obama Was Wrong

The Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare is a tax, so it can be imposed by Congress.

To be clear, I have no qualms with individual mandates at the State level. They are instituted and upheld all the time.

But at the Federal level, they can only be instituted as a tax. However, I thought Obama said Obamacare wasn't a tax? (see video)

Looks like the Supreme Court disagrees.

So, Obama has increased our tax burden by $1.76 Trillion, by latest CBO numbers. According to the IRS, there were 142,856,282 Individual Tax Returns for the 2010 Tax Year (most recent available statistical year), meaning Obama's new tax liability on average will be 12,320.07 over the next 10 years by those figures.

Anyone out there know of a president or congress that has levied such a large tax before?

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Cramer: Obamacare Will Topple the Market

All,

Take a look at this article published today by Jim Cramer.  Although he's a democrat and was a supporter of Obama in the beginning, he has reversed course over the last year after viewing the destructive attitudes of the democrats (and some republicans who have gone along with them) in power.  Then read my comments after the article:

Cramer: Obamacare Will Topple the Market

Either the market doesn't care that the health care bill will pass -- and it will -- or it doesn't think that the proposal will cost that much -- something I think is nuts. Which brings us to a very tenuous crossroad: We have to wonder if this is one of those occasions, like in 2008, where the market doesn't see the coming catastrophe. Or perhaps the market sees any resolution as positive.

>>Here's Your Portfolio If Obama's Agenda Wins

I don't. I think when the health care bill passes -- and it will pass, I believe, because Nancy Pelosi has worked diligently behind the scenes to bend the anti-abortion foes, the key votes, to her will -- the president will get a second wind. That means the whole agenda -- cap-and-trade, Card Check for easier organizing (something that Wal-Mart's (WMT) inability to move even on its dividend boost tells you is coming) and amnesty for immigrants who are currently not citizens -- will quickly come to pass, perhaps even before the election. To pay for these items I see a dramatic increase in ordinary tax rates and perhaps capital gains and dividend tax rates in 2011 either reaching or exceeding those ordinary income rates as this current version of the Democratic Party believes that only rich people own stocks. (That's been a hallmark from Day 1 with this administration.)

Given those hurdles, which include a suicide pact with financial health for small businesses that obviously can't afford health care without risking the capital formation necessary, I think you have to put the double-dip recession back on the table.

Those who have read me here and watch "Mad Money" know that I was out there early thinking that 2010 would not produce a double-dip, despite ample commentary that it would. But if health care reform passes, I am going to revise my thinking -- and you know I think it will -- especially because immigrant amnesty will cause the health care system to be overloaded and our taxes to soar.

The stakes seem so high while the market appears so complacent, perhaps because none of the levies will pass until 2011. To me that's around the corner. It's been slightly more than a year that I have been bullish. That's hanging by a thread this week.

Obamacare cuts that thread. Even if the market doesn't seem to know it.

At the time of publication, Cramer had no positions in the stocks mentioned.


I have had this sentiment for a while, and back in January began scaling down positions, moving to cash.  I will continue to do so ahead of this vote, especially with the Dow now sitting at 10,700.  This seems like a good level to take some money of the table and wait to see what congress decides to do.

My dad recently asked me what direction the market might be going, and to be honest, I don't know any big professionals that I read who have much to say on it right now either.  That being said, while it is hard to get any direction in most sectors of the economy as we await the decision in DC, I think one sector that will do well regardless of what happens is the energy sector.  So if you still want to have some money in play, I would think investing in mutual funds, ETFs, or stocks in the energy sector might be a good idea.  In my view, if Obama wins and gets health care, he'll probably get Cap and Trade, which will make energy stocks go up.  If he loses, energy should still go up because the economy should improve. 

And anyway, Energy stocks, especially those with direct holdings in the commodity, gain value the longer the Fed keeps the interest rate depressed.  As well, OPEC is not backing down on supply restraints, so oil should hold up and increase in price as demand continues to increase, and production continues to fall.  One big player in the price right now is the drilling failure rate which is up dramatically over the last year.  That makes oil more expensive to produce, making the future price go up, meaning if you hold a share in the actual fields producing oil the value of that oil in the field increases.

My favorite energy stocks right now are Royalty Trusts and Master Limited Partnerships, or basically anything with either direct holdings in oil or gas reserves or companies that own the pipelines for distributing it.  Royalty Trusts and MLPs also pay very nice returns that have tax benefits, so their values hold up better even if the market moves against you.  Right now some RTs are distributing about 1% per month (12% annually) which is a great return.

Mutual funds and ETFs in this sector are also a good idea, just be sure they have exposure to natural gas and good oil companies like Devon Energy, Enbridge, and MLPs and RTs as part of their overall holdings.

Good luck out there.  And don't wait for Obama to mess things up market wise.  Right now the markets are showing no true direction and that is always a good time for some profit taking regardless of your overall market sentiment.  But as I said, a lot of the pros are becoming worried there might be a pullback, or worse, a double dip recession.  And cash is always nice to have to buy the dip when it happens.

Tijs Limburg


Blogs:
http://phystrings.blogspot.com/
http://getoutofthedark.blogspot.com/

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Reply: The Election, my final reflections

The thing that makes me more calm are the statistics for voter turnout.  This time America really did come out and speak their voice, with over 110 million votes and over 66% voter turnout.  I believe in the democratic-republic system so geniusly prescribed by Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Washington, and the other founding fathers, and if that system elected Barack Obama in the end, then I believe as all of you do that we can only rally behind our new president in patriotism, supporting him where we agree and opposing him where we differ in ideals.

Something else I realized last night.  I really can't complain about my life so far, most everything has been good.  There are a few notable catastrophic events that took place such as the Gulf War, the Oklahoma City bombing, 9/11, and Columbine, but overall the economies have always been good, there has never been a draft, and the information revolution occurred while I was still young, so I have been able to be a participant in practically the whole of it.

Interestingly, I was born during the Regan administration which totaled the first 5 years of my life.  Then we had Bush senior, making 9 years of my life under a Republican president.  Then we had Clinton for 8 years, and then Bush for another 8 years, totaling 17 of my 25 years under a Republican.  With this in mind I am interested to see what 4 added years to the democrat side of the equation will bring.  I will be 29 when the next election for president is held.  What am I going to accomplish for myself, my family, and my country in those 4 years?

It will be interesting to see if other Americans are asking the same questions about themselves ("ask what you can do for your country") or if they will be asking what their new president and government will do for them ("ask what your country can do for you").  While I am excited to see that Americans on both sides became more involved this time, they have yet to prove that they will stand up and take action for themselves to improve their lives and their situation.  I guess time will tell.

Tijs


--
Tijs Limburg

The Election, my final reflections

A letter I received in regards to the election last night.

Dear Friends,

You know that I was quite passionate about the presidential elections.  Today, the day after, I am quite mellow about it, and at peace.  I listened well to both speeches last night following John McCain's concession to Barack Obama.  I want to follow what McCain said that we should all do as Americans, and that is work together to solve our problems.  I believe McCain delivered the most dignified, classy, generous, respectful, and positive concession speech that I have ever heard from a candidate.  I also believe that President-Elect Obama's speech was truly inspirational and that he positively reached out to all Americans, and I want him to succeed in what he said.  He absolutely must come more to the center of the political arena to accomplish what he promised, and I will remain a conservative with the values that I have to help in my small way to be a voice to bring about a greater America.  I invite all of you to join me in that, or to just do what your own desires dictate to contribute to the cause of a more righteous behavior in our government and across this great land of the free.

Your friend,

Nevin

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

A Commentary on the Election that I agree with

Not Moderates but GOP Wimps
A Commentary By Debra J. Saunders
Tuesday, October 28, 2008 Email to a FriendAdvertisement
I've long considered myself a bad Republican. During the Bush administration, for example, I've felt free to whack George W. and Republicans in Congress for passing big-spending bills, such as their pork-rich 2002 farm bill, the underfunded prescription-drug bill and earmark spending. But in 2008, I find that I'm a piker in the bad Republican department.

Enter Christopher Buckley, the satirical novelist and GOP legacy prince who wrote a piece in the New York Times in February excoriating Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives for not supporting John McCain for president, despite McCain's conservative credentials and unassailable character. This month, Buckley announced he would vote for Democrat Barack Obama for president, as McCain's campaign had rendered the former P.O.W. "inauthentic."

Republicans Colin Powell, William Weld and Scott McClellan also have endorsed Obama. On Friday, Limbaugh lashed out at Buckley and company, as he asked, "What the hell happened to your theory that only John McCain could enlarge this party, that we had to get moderates and independents?"

"Good riddance," Limbaugh said, to GOP moderates. In an e-mail Monday, Limbaugh wrote, "What I meant to imply is that moderates leading a conservative revival will doom it. I'm happy to have them -- but not as definers and leaders."

Limbaugh should ease off on the "moderate" bashing. Buckley, Powell, Weld and McClellan don't represent moderate Republicans so much as they represent themselves -- and a small universe of New York and Beltway conservatives who have not retreated to the middle, but simply bolted for the nearest exit.

They had spent the last eight years in a contentious marriage marred by a circular argument revolving around George W. Bush. McCain appeared as the man who might offer a chance for happiness. But when they found themselves trapped in the same ceaseless argument that plagued their last unhappy marriage, they announced they were leaving home to buy a pack of cigarettes.

William Ayers? Everyone knows that if McCain had held a campaign event at the home of someone who founded a violent anti-abortion group, it would be an issue. McCampaign seemed out of touch in bringing up in the midst of an economic crisis Ayers, an education professor who helped found the terrorist Weather Underground in the 1960s. When GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin hit Obama's "socialist" tax policies, here again, the campaign seemed not so much too conservative, as too 1950s.

They were still arguing about style, as McCampaign had morphed into a style-crime road show. The factor here is not moderate versus conservative Republicans, but the cool guy versus the old guy.

Buckley did not claim that Obama's policies are better. Indeed, he wrote that he will "pray, secularly" for Obama to betray the traditional left-wing politics he espouses. Powell told NBC's "Meet the Press" that he supported Obama "because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America" -- not because of Obama's position papers.

When Obamacons explain why they are deserting the GOP nominee, you don't hear them arguing that Obama will do better by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. They don't say that Obama has the best ideas for the economy. They instead lean on the belief that Obama can bring people together.

They gloss over the fact that McCain will settle for nothing short of a successful military policy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Or that Obama sees Iraq as a place where the U.S. government spends $10 billion a month that could go to social programs at home. They count on Obama to do what is expedient, not what he has pledged to do.

They tend to agree more with McCain's emphasis on limiting taxation to encourage job creation than Obama's zeal to spread around affluent people's wealth. So they don't dwell on the policy questions.

They don't care that McCain has a history of working with Democrats, while Obama has a history of talking about working with Republicans. Because they have lined up behind the Democrat, they have determined that Obama will bring people together.

This isn't about ideology -- moderate or conservative. It's a personality contest.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

See Other Political Commentary


"We should be too big to take offense, and too noble to give it"
Abraham Lincoln.