ACA

[Christian]

A recent article I just read indicates what may be a critcal flaw in the ACA. In computing credits

for those entitled the law was written indicating only those buying insurance through the STATE

exchange would be receiving them. Apparently the drafters did not forsee the establishment of FEDERAL exchanges believing the punitive measures in the law were sufficient to force all states to set up an exchange. The Supreme Court killled this requirement so now they are scrambling to draft an IRS regulation to effect the credits on the federal exchanges. This is being challenged

in federal court as the law clearly states STATE exchanges and says nothing about a FEDERAL exchange. I ordinarily would not take note of this but it was in the Barron's issue for this week.

[Guest Taxed]

Anyone remember Tax Reform Act 1986? (The Republicans should).

We had Technical corrections Act after that for many years to "technically correct" the voids and other conflicting provisions of the law.

I suspect we will have many Technical corrections to remedy "gaps" and other provisions that require a bit of tweaking.

I would love to see a candidate run on the platform that it is ok. to give tax credits if purchased from state exchanges but it is NOT ok. if you purchased it from the federal exchange. Guess which states chose NOT to setup their own state exchanges.

This one is a winner for Dems. so please don't screw this up in the communications.

[Mr. Pencil]

now they are scrambling to draft an IRS regulation

I wouldn't say "scrambling." The question was addressed in regulations more than a year ago and has long been before several courts. The legal argument is that residents of certain states want to deny themselves a tax credit.. Really, that's the argument.

[Guest Taxed]

>>> The legal argument is that residents of certain states want to deny themselves a tax credit.. Really, that's the argument.

The usual suspects who always cry taxes are too high, there is too much regulations will argue that they don't want a tax credit under Obamacare but were proposing tax credits under Paul Ryan's plan?? :wall:

[Christian]

I don't have any clients who want to deny themselves a tax credit. Rather the reverse.

[KEYWEST_RICKS]

Indiana is bringing up this issue and taking it one step further.....if an employee doesnt receive a credit due to the fact that it is a federal exchange and not a state exchange... then an Indiana employer does not owe a penalty.

The last time i saw any response to this it was..."well thats what the law says... but that is not congressional intent"

This would be huge for employers in Indiana...

[Guest Taxed]

There is a very good possibility that the individual mandate could be delayed for one year. Enough Dems are making noise, especially those up for re-election in 2014 in red or purple states.

[Christian]

The Affordable Care Act was intended to provide a tax credit to subsidize private health insurance for Americans with too much income to qualify for Medicaid but no health insurance from their jobs.

The law says they can qualify if they buy that insurance through an insurance exchange established by the state.

The law does not say that the government can give tax credits to people who get their insurance on federal exchanges (assuming that people can get computer access to the federal exchanges in the first place).

But 36 states have decided not to operate their own exchanges. Whether in malice or laziness or incompetence, those states decided to let Uncle Sam build their exchanges.

The administration's position is that it was an accident, a mere oversight, easily corrected by the Internal Revenue Service in its regulations concerning the tax credit. Gleeful critics of Obamacare, however, say that it was an intentional oversight, aimed at giving the reluctant states an incentive to start their own exchanges. They have filed suits in Indiana, Oklahoma, Virginia, and the District of Columbia.

Opponents of Obamacare think they have found the perfect chain shot to de-mast the law. If the government can't give the subsidies, it probably can't enforce the mandate for individuals to have health insurance.

Neutral observers, if there be any, probably could agree that the Democratic majority that passed the law intended to give a subsidy to everyone who qualifies. But they would also agree that the IRS can't change a law by writing a rule that contradicts it. They would conclude that the only way out is for Congress to amend the Affordable Care Act.

[Guest Taxed]

A simple solution may be for the states to take over the operation of their exchange from the Feds. The Feds built it, but you operate it under an agreement.

[MAMalody]

Why would the states want to do that?

[kcjenkins]

There is a very good possibility that the individual mandate could be delayed for one year. Enough Dems are making noise, especially those up for re-election in 2014 in red or purple states.

I think it's too late now, as all those cancellations, and the business decisions behind them, have already been made.