November 24, 2016
Where the line is drawn between noncitizens who are incorporated into American society and those who are not has changed greatly over time, resulting in the creation of a gray area where certain immigrants fall between those with lawful immigration status and those with no status at all. These individuals are granted “lawful presence” which permits them to remain and work in the United States, but does not provide them with a path to citizenship. The number of people in this ambiguous category continues to grow and may dramatically expand again soon as President Obama recently exerted broad scale executive action in response to Congress’ refusal to reform immigration laws.
This article looks at the ways immigration law grants lawful presence and the changing responses of the legal system in dealing with this “gap” between status and no-status. The recent exclusion of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals from the Affordable Care Act and other essential health insurance programs serves as a case study to demonstrate how inconsistently laws handle this middle category of people today. The consequences of such a narrow division between who receives benefits and who does not is that the gap between status and no-status widens, encouraging state lawmakers to further discriminate against this group. I argue that the struggle over where the line should be drawn to decide which noncitizens should and should not have access to essential rights and benefits is exacerbated by the tension between a progressive President and a conservative Congress. In a system where the Executive branch may confer lawful presence but only Congress can confer lawful status, hundreds of thousands of people are caught in the gap. I conclude by arguing that as the number of people in this gray area continues to grow, courts should lean toward inclusion rather than exclusion of lawfully present noncitizens in resolving this tension in the law.
Source: Caught in the Gap Between Status and No-Status: Lawful Presence Then and Now by Sara N. Kominers :: SSRN
September 28, 2016
If Clinton takes office next January, when ObamaCare’s next enrollment period is falling flat, as it inevitably will, the writing will be on the wall and Clinton will have to dangle the law’s controversial mandates to bring Republicans to the table. That means the only way that the mandates will survive is if Republicans are unwilling to deal. That can’t be ruled out, but it’s not the most likely outcome. To understand why, just recall the outcry when ObamaCare was about to launch, and millions of people started getting notices that their plans were being canceled. GOP policymakers understand that they can’t take away the coverage that 10 million people, many relatively old and not in robust health, have come to count on. That’s why they crafted a GOP plan to kill ObamaCare softly, vowing that if you like your ObamaCare plan, you can keep it.
Source: ObamaCare Mandates Are Dead — Even If Hillary Wins | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis – IBD
February 1, 2016
This one weird trick can help even rich people buy Obamacare at sharply reduced prices. Really. A number of wealthy individuals, some of whom were “disgusted” with Obamacare when it first went into effect, nonetheless are now taking advantage of federal financial aid available under that health-care law to help significantly reduce their monthly insurance premiums. Carolyn McClanahan, a Jacksonville, Florida-based financial advisor and medical doctor, told CNBC that she’s steered at least five such clients, whose individual net worths range between $1 million and $3 million, toward buying Obamacare health plans because of the federal subsidies available due to their taxable income levels.
Source: How Millionaires Get Obamacare Subsidies Intended to Aid the Poor – NBC News
January 12, 2016
The dependent care mandate is one of the most popular provisions of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA). This provision requires that employer-based insurance plans cover health care expenditures for workers with children 26 years old or younger. While there has been considerable scholarly and policy interest in the effects of this mandate on health insurance coverage among young adults, there has been little scholarly work measuring the costs and incidence of this mandate and who pays the costs of it. In our empirical work, we exploit the fact that some states had dependent care mandates in years prior to the passage of the ACA. Using data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), we find that workers at firms with employer-based coverage – whether or not they have dependent children – experience an annual reduction in wages of approximately $1,200. Our results imply that the marginal costs of mandated employer-based coverage expansions are not entirely borne only by the people whose coverage is expanded by the mandate.
Source: The Incidence of Mandated Health Insurance: Evidence from the Affordable Care Act Dependent Care Mandate
November 18, 2015
A new National Institute for Health Care Reform analysis compares the Cadillac tax to capping the tax exclusion on employer health benefits. The analysis found only modest differences in progressivity—or the degree to which higher-income people bear a higher tax burden—between the Cadillac tax and capping the tax exclusion, primarily because employers are likely to avoid a substantial portion of the taxes by restructuring health benefits, particularly in response to the Cadillac tax.
Source: NIHCR: Limiting Tax Breaks for Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance: Cadillac Tax vs. Capping the Tax Exclusion
October 19, 2015
Because employer-sponsored plans are exempt from payroll and income taxes, the benefit of the current exclusion is indeed relatively larger for higher-income people (who have high marginal tax rates) and relatively smaller for lower-income people (who have low marginal tax rates). However, as we illustrate with the numerical examples below, the Cadillac tax does not mitigate this inequity; it actually exacerbates it.
April 3, 2015
Is health care reform finding its footing—or fatally flawed? MIT economist and Affordable Care Act (ACA) expert Jonathan Gruber and Cato Institute Director of Health Policy Studies Michael Cannon share opposing viewpoints on the current state of reform.
via Keynote: HEALTH CARE REFORM: WORKING/NOT WORKING? – YouTube.