Is Target right to send its part-timers to Obamacare? Probably. - latimes.com

Not exactly. As Trader Joe's did in September when it took a similar step, Target is suggesting that most of the affected workers will do better under the exchange system than they were with company-sponsored insurance. Target is probably right.

We say "probably" because the Minneapolis retail giant refused our request for data that would help nail down the pluses and minuses. We asked for the average wage of part-time employees affected by the change in policy; the number of part-timers; their average hours per week; and the benefits and premiums they were eligible for up to now. (The new policy takes effect April 1.) Target said none of that information is public.

Target also said workers averaging more than 32 hours a week would remain eligible for its company-sponsored health plan. That's curious, because the ACA requires big employers to provide coverage for full-time employees, who are defined as those working 30 hours a week or more. Target refused to clarify the discrepancy, though it's proper to note that the employer mandate doesn't kick in until next year.

[,,,]
What's happening under the surface, of course, is that these companies are shifting some of their own employee benefit costs to the taxpayers, who are providing the applicable subsidies.

But that's not a bug in the Affordable Care Act; it's a feature. Its goal was to get more people covered, in part by spreading the cost society-wide. And that's what's likely to happen. The cost of employee healthcare for part-time workers was on the long road to unaffordability long before enactment of the law.

[,,,]
The missing piece of the puzzle, still, is what the companies do with the money they save. If they use at least some of it to pay their workers better, that's a net gain for everyone. If they merely shovel it out to top management and shareholders, then they've gotten something for nothing, and acted shamefully.

Is Target right to send its part-timers to Obamacare? Probably. - latimes.com

House Republican Bill Requires That the IRS Investigate Sexual Assault Survivors

This little tidbit came across my feed initially as a signature request on a petition. Not being familiar with it I decided to do a bit of digging. From my understanding it has been floating around since approximately 2011. It gets so far in the legislative process and then stalls. It was presented again in May of 2013 where it has again sat, current status: "Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice." Accordingly this bill is on the House agenda for this session, so it bares watching,,,

Smith’s bill punishes every healthcare policy holder in America by disallowing a tax deduction on income tax returns for any medical insurance if the policy includes coverage for family planning that nearly all healthcare plans provide. It even punishes women who pay for an abortion with cash because it disallows a medical deduction on Schedule A of individual income tax returns whether it was included in a healthcare insurance plan or not. The bill does allow a sexual assault victim to take the medical deduction for abortion care in a case of rape, but only after an IRS auditor verifies the victim was really sexually assaulted and conceived her attacker’s progeny.

Smith’s bill violates Republicans’ abhorrence of raising taxes, particularly on millions of small businesses because H.R. 7 raises their taxes if their employer-provided health insurance plan includes abortion coverage. The great majority of private and employer-provided plans do include abortion coverage as a legitimate medical procedure and expense, but theocrats in the House want to regulate the health insurance industry to inflict physical, psychological, and economic harm on women. Tax experts have already weighed in and the consensus is that if businesses are forced by federal regulations to choose between an increased tax liability and providing a healthcare plan that includes abortion coverage, most small businesses will switch to a Christian-approved plan under duress from theocrats masquerading as the federal government. The legislation also disallows all businesses from deducting, as a legitimate expense of doing business, their contribution to an employee’s healthcare insurance package or claim employer tax credits if the policy includes family planning coverage.

[,,,]
Americans should be asking fundamentalist Smith exactly who the first piece of Republican legislation in 2014 benefits other than the personhood movement, Family Research Council, American Family Association, and misogynist Christians across America. The legislation certainly does not benefit every business in America offering healthcare insurance as an employee benefit, and definitely not every taxpayer who is fortunate enough to afford healthcare insurance. It certainly offers no help to the underfunded and understaffed Internal Revenue Service tasked with interrogating rape victims to verify they were indeed raped, or businesses mandated to file annual IRS reports verifying that their healthcare plans do not violate the Christian tax-code.



House Republican Bill Requires That the IRS Investigate Sexual Assault Survivors

Daily Kos: Families USA: Romney health plan would leave millions more uninsured, higher premiums

Two important articles concerning Romney's idea of what health care should be,,,it ain't pretty,,,

Daily Kos: Families USA: Romney health plan would leave millions more uninsured, higher premiums

Mitt Romney Health Care Plan Would Make Consumers Pay For Basic Services