<p>I wonder if some of the numbers about nonpayment for exchange policies are because insurance companies are bogged down by massive enrollments. Blue Cross-Blue Shield in NY has been cited for this. I have a friend who signed up early in December who made her payment before the end of the year, but the payment has not been credited by BCBS, and she never received a card. Many, many hours on hold on the phone.</p>
<p>I was thinking that when that old bet came through, too bad we all couldn’t toast together.
I have to say, this has been running through my head: are we all drinking age on this thread??? No, let me alter that: are we all, like, roughly the same number of years past 21? Romani (and Ema, if she was on this thread,) gets honorary status. Are we all parents and folks with sets of experiences behind us? Sometimes, I wonder.</p>
<p>Okay - I am losing money and I decide that I don’t want to provide insurance to my employees (or at least cover most of the premiums) so I cut my workforce from 105 to 98 employees to circumvent the mandate and to reduce my overall wages. Does the IRS allow me to escape the penalties for not providing health insurance? I say no.</p>
<p>Anytime you go under 100 employees and you don’t provide insurance or pay the required amount of premiums as mandated by Obamacare, of course the IRS is going to accuse you of purposely trying to avoid the onerous rules of the mandate. Just by doing it, you are dodging their very expensive mandate. Am I going to represent to them the mandate had nothing to do with it? I don’t think so because it would definitely be a factor; otherwise, I would just continue to comply with the mandate. Next thing you know you got the IRS potentially accusing you of lying to them. Orwellian.</p>
<p>“I was thinking that when that old bet came through, too bad we all couldn’t toast together.”</p>
<p>Would have had to sit that one out, since I didn’t bet. Unless you all made an exception for fence sitters.</p>
<p>“I have to say, this has been running through my head: are we all drinking age on this thread??? No, let me alter that: are we all, like, roughly the same number of years past 21? Romani (and Ema, if she was on this thread,) gets honorary status.”</p>
<p>I think most everyone on this thread is between the 40-60ish age category. The students seem to get bored and fall off pretty quickly. Romani seems to have an ageless maturity, more than most of the adults on here, certainly more so than dstark (insert emoticon big smiley face here), and Ema seems really mature too (though I don’t know her that well).</p>
<p>“Are we all parents and folks with sets of experiences behind us? Sometimes, I wonder”. </p>
<p>Most definitely. Just different experiences and viewpoints.</p>
<p>We’ll make an exception for fence sitters. Why not? </p>
<p>Interesting article in Wall Street Journal.</p>
<p>For Many, Few Health-Plan Choices, High Premiums on Online Exchanges
Analysis Shows Americans in Poorer Counties Have Limited Options on Health-Care Exchanges</p>
<p>"Hundreds of thousands of Americans in poorer counties have few choices of health insurers and face high premiums through the online exchanges created by the health-care law, according to an analysis by The Wall Street Journal of offerings in 36 states.</p>
<p>Consumers in 515 counties, spread across 15 states, have only one insurer selling coverage through the online marketplaces, the Journal found. In more than 80% of those counties, the sole insurer is a local Blue Cross & Blue Shield plan. Residents of wealthier, more populated counties in the U.S. receive lower-priced choices than those living in counties with a single insurer."</p>
<p><a href=“For Many, Few Health-Plan Choices, High Premiums on Online Exchanges - WSJ”>For Many, Few Health-Plan Choices, High Premiums on Online Exchanges - WSJ;
<p>Google the title to breach the paywall.</p>
<p>“We’ll make an exception for fence sitters. Why not?”</p>
<p>That’s a relief! I guess I’ll just drink a glass retroactively.</p>
<p>Though if I was to be honest, I suppose I would have bid with your lot on that bet if I had to. But I just couldn’t quite bring myself to do a bet on something I didn’t have a hint about.</p>
<p>Bluebayou, you forgot to mention the part about how those regulations apply ONLY to companies applying for an extension of time to meet the ACA mandates (“transitional relief”).</p>
<p>The LAW says that companies with 50 or more employees are supposed to provide insurance THIS year - 2014. </p>
<p>The Obama administration has granted two extensions. The latest extension says that some companies with 50-99 employees can wait until 2016 before providing insurance to their employees, but the company needs to meet certain requirements.</p>
<p>In order to apply for the relief, the company has to file a form attesting that they meet the requirements.</p>
<p>One of the requirements is that they can’t reduce the size of their workforce in 2014 solely to qualify for the extension, but they can reduce their workforce for other reasons. </p>
<p>Any company that doesn’t want to ask for relief from the deadline in the LAW doesn’t have to make any certifications at all. </p>
<p>Sometimes when you want to get an extension for a deadline you have to state a good reason. Sometimes you have to do that under penalty of perjury. During the 20 years that I practiced law, that was routinely required every time I asked for relief from anything – I always had to write a an affidavit setting out the reasons for relief, and also a statement that I had been diligent in my duties and was not merely trying to delay the case.</p>
<p>(And yes, as a lawyer I was routinely subject to a variety of deadlines imposed by statutes that could be extended in the discretion of the judge. So it is fairly common that the law specifies one thing but the agencies that enforce the law have discretion to grant extensions or waivers in appropriate circumstances).</p>
<p>Here’s what it says on the IRS web site:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You can read the whole thing here: <a href=“http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Questions-and-Answers-on-Employer-Shared-Responsibility-Provisions-Under-the-Affordable-Care-Act#Transition”>http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Questions-and-Answers-on-Employer-Shared-Responsibility-Provisions-Under-the-Affordable-Care-Act#Transition</a></p>
<p>Yeah, what if one of the bona fide business reasons for reducing the workforce is to lower their costs from complying with the mandate. Why isn’t that a bona fide reason?</p>
<p>It’s not a bona fide reason for the same reason that lowering your costs by bribing the building inspector is not a bona fide reason. You absolutely could save money in building by bribing the inspector to look the other way when you used inferior concrete in your foundation. But wanting to save money is not a bona fide reason for lawbreaking.</p>
<p>CF, avoiding the mandate is hardly comparable to bribing a building inspector. You can do better with your analogies. Saving money is tantamount to lawbreaking. LOL</p>
<p>What if you had two reasons for reducing your workforce. To stem business losses by lowering your overall wages and the considerable costs of the mandate. The IRS is going to say no and let you go out of business. For instance, if employees currently pay half of their premiums, the mandate could be very onerous for a small business. Remember, the mandate is potentially going to increase the company’s payroll considerably in 2015, something many businesses may not be able to afford. Of course, they want to delay it for another year. Who wouldn’t.</p>
<p>“It’s not a bona fide reason for the same reason that lowering your costs by bribing the building inspector is not a bona fide reason. You absolutely could save money in building by bribing the inspector to look the other way when you used inferior concrete in your foundation. But wanting to save money is not a bona fide reason for lawbreaking”</p>
<p>Seriously? You are really comparing illegal bribing of a building inspector with not wanting to pay the large health care cost increase that Obamacare is going to cost companies? You really don’t see an ethical and legal difference? Hey, we put people in jail for trying to bribe others to do illegal things, how about if we jail people for trying to lower the impact of the cost of Obamacare on their businesses? That must be illegal, to want to reduce the impact of suddenly higher costs.</p>
<p>I know, it’s the same if people rob and murder others to get rich, as investing in the stock market. Hey, it’s all the same, everyone is just trying to get increase their income. What’s the difference?</p>
<p>"This may be a little simplistic but I prefer to keep things simple. If this is all so great why is most of it on hold?</p>
<p>I think you are asking a very profound question. If people loved what was happening to them, they would probably be accelerating the law.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I’m comparing illegal bribing of a building inspector with illegal firing of employees to evade a tax penalty. You will notice that what they have in common is they’re illegal. </p>
<p>If you are charged with violating a law, I predict that, “But I wanted to save money!” is not going to be accepted as a defense. Even if you really, really wanted to save money.</p>
<p>(But I think if you made the case that you would have to fire some employees even if it wasn’t going to save you on the employer mandate, you’d be OK. )</p>
<p>CF, I am glad you’re not running our govt.</p>
<p>Oh my goodness, so am I! I’d be terrible.</p>
<p>We could come up with so many examples. GP’s first question hinged on “want.” Now it’s “stem business losses,” which is a legitimate reason to reduce the workforce. No issue. </p>
<p>LF, even if tell the IRS that the way I intend to stem those losses is by principally avoiding the expense of the mandate. How about the scenario where I am breaking even but would like to increase my profits so I can make a living.</p>
<p>How would that be different from telling the IRS that you want to increase your profits by not paying the employee part of payroll taxes?</p>