- 15,041
Yoda, can you share with us what it was about ERISA that killed pensions?
Nevada Third State to Receive MLR Waiver
- Thread starter Crabcake Johnny
- Start date
Yoda, can you share with us what it was about ERISA that killed pensions?
Mostly a change in funding requirements.
These plans float between underfunded (in down years) and over-funded ( in up years). ERISA was given to us in 1975, toward the end of a recession, so a lot of plans were underfunded.
ERISA imposed stiff penalties for underfunded plans, but they also provided private plans (since govt plans were, naturally, exempt) in the form of PBGC.
Some companies took this as an opportunity to bail and let the govt take over the obligation.
REA Express was the first company pension taken over by PBGC and many followed.
Eventually traditional pension plans went the way of powdered wigs and were replaced with the 401(k).
- 15,041
And we all know how 401(k)s are working out for the average employee...
Yup.
ERISA and later laws kept evolving and the plan sponsor, agent, investment advisor, etc all became personally liable if the plan failed to meet minimum funding standards. To avoid that they switched to 401(k)'s but with the employer deciding investment options.
More suits, so the employer gave employees the right to pick their investment (from a smorgasboard) and of course when the employee picked wrong they complained.
Retirement plans are a bigger headache than health insurance.
- 2,455
I HAVE A QUESTION!!!
Could the waivers in the end actually kill Obamacare?
If we get a GOP president, couldn't the new GOP president simply issue a waiver to each of the 50 states. Obamacare is dead without a single vote of Congress or a liberal judge intervening. Game over.
I think this might be a strategy that has been hatched although I haven't read about the strategy anywhere.
Could the waivers in the end actually kill Obamacare?
If we get a GOP president, couldn't the new GOP president simply issue a waiver to each of the 50 states. Obamacare is dead without a single vote of Congress or a liberal judge intervening. Game over.
I think this might be a strategy that has been hatched although I haven't read about the strategy anywhere.
- Thread starter
- #26
- 14,808
Not too sure. Parts of the law take effect at different times and come 2014 the main part of the law takes effect. Currently, the waivers issues are only for 1 or 2 year periods of time.
We'd have to see if it would be legal to give a permanent waiver. What you're going to see in 2014 is the money won't be there to fund the subsidies. It definitely won't be there for states to absorb more Medicaid cost as it moves from 100% FPL to 133%.
Remember also that the penalty to sit out is $95 first year increasing to a max of $225. And on top of that, the law greatly limits the collection efforts of the IRS - they cannot lien or levy property/wages to collect.
We've already seen per the national safety net that only around 1% of the nation's uninsured cares about getting covered. This is going by Obama's own numbers of 25M uninsured and only 18,000 in the national pool.
So basically what it'll be in a huge pool of sick people where the healthy sit out and pay the modest fine. That it'll crash and burn quickly is an understatement.
As a comparison, in Massachusetts if you earn 300%+ of FPL and choose to sit out, the annual fine is $1,116 and the state has the authority to garnish wages. Someone who doesn't file incurs double the penalty and someone who files a false return in order to evade the penalty can get up to 6 months in jail.
Government fine again.....$95.
We'd have to see if it would be legal to give a permanent waiver. What you're going to see in 2014 is the money won't be there to fund the subsidies. It definitely won't be there for states to absorb more Medicaid cost as it moves from 100% FPL to 133%.
Remember also that the penalty to sit out is $95 first year increasing to a max of $225. And on top of that, the law greatly limits the collection efforts of the IRS - they cannot lien or levy property/wages to collect.
We've already seen per the national safety net that only around 1% of the nation's uninsured cares about getting covered. This is going by Obama's own numbers of 25M uninsured and only 18,000 in the national pool.
So basically what it'll be in a huge pool of sick people where the healthy sit out and pay the modest fine. That it'll crash and burn quickly is an understatement.
As a comparison, in Massachusetts if you earn 300%+ of FPL and choose to sit out, the annual fine is $1,116 and the state has the authority to garnish wages. Someone who doesn't file incurs double the penalty and someone who files a false return in order to evade the penalty can get up to 6 months in jail.
Government fine again.....$95.
Last edited:
- 2,455
What is FPL? In Florida it means Florida Power and Light
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JOHN
But would any of that really matter if the law was somewhat waived if you will in all 50 states?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JOHN
But would any of that really matter if the law was somewhat waived if you will in all 50 states?
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #28
- 14,808
Federal poverty level. Right now 100% and below is Medicaid eligible. Come 2014 it's 133% for Medicaid eligibility.
I think more realistic if we get a changing of the guard is the program will be de-funded. Then in theory it dies on the vine.
That, however, doesn't unwind parts of PPACA that have already been implemented. To unwind that it would need to go through the House and Senate.
The fun, boys and girls, comes in 2014 if this is launched. Guaranteed issue coverage for everyone with no pre-ex period enrolling in policies without any caps or limitations where carriers can only apply certain max ratings. It will define "crash and burn."
If you're in P&C, an exact analogy would be State Farm having to take someone with 3 DWI's and 2 car accidents and couldn't care much more than their best customers. But wait....State Farm has to take that driver the day after they crash their car drunk into a pole and cover all the damage.
"State Farm? Yeah....listen, I'm actually calling from jail so I don't have a lot of time...arrested for DUI. But listen, I was uninsured yesterday and wrapped my new car around a tree and need a binder number. And hey...hurry up."
I think more realistic if we get a changing of the guard is the program will be de-funded. Then in theory it dies on the vine.
That, however, doesn't unwind parts of PPACA that have already been implemented. To unwind that it would need to go through the House and Senate.
The fun, boys and girls, comes in 2014 if this is launched. Guaranteed issue coverage for everyone with no pre-ex period enrolling in policies without any caps or limitations where carriers can only apply certain max ratings. It will define "crash and burn."
If you're in P&C, an exact analogy would be State Farm having to take someone with 3 DWI's and 2 car accidents and couldn't care much more than their best customers. But wait....State Farm has to take that driver the day after they crash their car drunk into a pole and cover all the damage.
"State Farm? Yeah....listen, I'm actually calling from jail so I don't have a lot of time...arrested for DUI. But listen, I was uninsured yesterday and wrapped my new car around a tree and need a binder number. And hey...hurry up."
Last edited:
- 2,455
Do the waivers take care of these parts in the PPACA? If so, then more waivers down the road might just implode the plan all together. They could become the Achilles heel of Obamacare.
- 3,352
Holy cow, a complete cluster F this Obamacare is its freakin unreal.
Similar threads
