Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Economy
In reply to the discussion: STOCK MARKET WATCH -- Wednesday, 23 January 2013 [View all]Demeter
(85,373 posts)9. Even With the Affordable Care Act, Health Insurance Coverage Remains Unaffordable for Many
http://truth-out.org/news/item/14019-even-with-the-affordable-care-act-health-insurance-coverage-remains-unaffordable-for-many
Any hopes that large employers would be penalized for failing to offer affordable insurance coverage to the spouses and dependent children of their employees under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) were recently dashed by a proposed interpretation of the law from the Obama Administration.
The interpretation, which was released by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) late last month in the form of a proposed rule, related to the Employer Shared Responsibility Provision of the ACA, popularly known as the employer mandate. That provision provides that larger employers (those with more than 50 employees) offer insurance coverage not only to their employees, but to the dependents of those employees as well. If these employers fail to offer affordable coverage, they may be subject to monetary penalties.
But the IRSs definition of dependents in the proposed rule excludes the spouses of employees, regardless of whether the spouse is employed.
Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University and an expert on legal interpretations of the ACA, explained that there is thus nothing in the proposed rule that would incentivize large employers who do not currently offer coverage to spouses to do so. And for employers who do currently offer coverage to spouses, he said, there is no disincentive in the proposed rule against dropping that coverage in the future...
ANOTHER FINE MESS
Any hopes that large employers would be penalized for failing to offer affordable insurance coverage to the spouses and dependent children of their employees under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) were recently dashed by a proposed interpretation of the law from the Obama Administration.
The interpretation, which was released by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) late last month in the form of a proposed rule, related to the Employer Shared Responsibility Provision of the ACA, popularly known as the employer mandate. That provision provides that larger employers (those with more than 50 employees) offer insurance coverage not only to their employees, but to the dependents of those employees as well. If these employers fail to offer affordable coverage, they may be subject to monetary penalties.
But the IRSs definition of dependents in the proposed rule excludes the spouses of employees, regardless of whether the spouse is employed.
Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University and an expert on legal interpretations of the ACA, explained that there is thus nothing in the proposed rule that would incentivize large employers who do not currently offer coverage to spouses to do so. And for employers who do currently offer coverage to spouses, he said, there is no disincentive in the proposed rule against dropping that coverage in the future...
ANOTHER FINE MESS
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
41 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations