Monday Afternews

■ The Revenooer's have published the 2017 guidelines for deducting LTCi premiums. What, you didn't know that you could deduct some of your Long Term Care insurance premiums on your taxes?

Yup, and the "Internal Revenue Service is increasing the maximum long-term care insurance premium deduction for 2017 faster than the 2016 inflation rate."

Sweet!

At the same time, they're also increasing how much one can set (temporarily) aside in a Flexible Spending Account (for certain health and child care expenses).

■ With the World Series now officially a nail-biter, it may be interesting to note how much the life insurance industry has changed in the 100+ years since the Cubs last won one. For example:

- Group life insurance came into being in 1911

- In 1914, just over a decade since Dayton's Wright Brothers made the first powered flight (no TSA, either), Northwestern Mutual paid "its first death claim caused by an airplane accident" when some unfortunate passenger exited before the actual landing. Hundreds of feet in the air before

- One I first heard many years ago when I entered this business is that during the Depression, James C Penney (yes, that JC Penney) used his life insurance cash values to help keep his company afloat and employees paid.

Lots more at the link.

More ObamaTax Rate Decreases

Largest premium hikes for benchmark #Obamacare plans:

AZ: 116%
OK: 69%
TN: 63%
MN: 59%
AL: 58%
PA: 53%
NE: 51%
MT: 44%
IL: 43%
KS: 42%

— Fox News Research (@FoxNewsResearch) October 29, 2016

#Winning!

[Hat Tip: FoIB Holly R]

Self-Awareness: How does it work‽

I just don't get "journalists." It seems to me that, if one is going to write about something, then one should exhibit more intellectual curiosity than, say, the average broccoli floret (no offense to Cruciferous-Americans). Reason I ask is this blaring headline:

"Millions buying insurance outside exchanges amid ObamaCare woes"

Underneath this attention grabber, we find this gem:

"While premiums are set to rise by double digits on the ObamaCare exchanges, millions of Americans already have made the decision to abandon the markets altogether and shop for health care on their own"

Um, Jennifer?

This is nothing new: people have been buying "direct" (off-Exchange) all along, and trust me, their premiums haven't been decreasing 3000%, either (see here, for example).

So why buy off-Exchange?

Well, as Jenny notes, the "big downside to shopping off the exchanges is that customers would not receive insurance subsidies." And this is true. But most people don't actually qualify for subsidies (and really, what does it say about the "roaring" economy when so many folks do?). And if you're not subsidy-eligible, then the dangerously unsecure Exchange is the very last place you want to be.

Yes, insurance carriers are also vulnerable, but as private sector entities they can be held accountable. Good look trying that with a government agency.

Ms Jenny is also under the mistaken impression that there are more plan choices off-Exchange. As we're seeing, this is not necessarily true.

In all, Ms Jenny spoke with: "a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute ... Karen Pollitz of the Kaiser Family Foundation ... [and] Katherine Hempstead, a senior adviser at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation"

Notice anyone missing?

Here's a hint.

Next time, how 'bout reaching out to someone who actually works in the marketplace?

We Have Ways: An Update

Back in March of Aught 10 (just after the ObamaTax was enacted), Bob pointed out that "[a]n adult who does not have health insurance by 2014 would be penalized $95 or 1 percent of income," and went on to ridicule it.

His point then was that, compared to projected premiums, this didn't even get to "paltry" levels.

And of course he was right, and of course we still have over 27 million folks uninsured, despite [ed: because of?] the joke that is the ObamaTax.

And, evidently, other folks have finally gotten around to noticing what most have us have known for years:

"In my experience, the penalty has not been large enough to motivate people to sign up for insurance,” said Christine Speidel, a tax lawyer"

Well, she'd know, right?

And then there's rocket surgeon director of tax history Joseph J. Thorndike, who brilliantly deduces that the "penalty for violating the individual mandate has not been very effective ... If it were effective, we would have higher enrollment, and the population buying policies in the insurance exchange would be healthier and younger.”

Perhaps.

But it would be interesting to know what these folks mean when they say "more effective;" after all, if they raise it too much, then folks might start to notice that it's completely unenforceable as written.

Oh.

I think I see the problem there.

[Hat Tip: Co-Blogger Bob V]

Putting Lipstick on the Pig

Almost 7 years after passing the largest tax increase in history, the Complainer-in-Chief is still begging for shills to promote his signature legislation.

Obama is asking volunteers to promote Obamacare to everyone they know. He admits it will be hard, given all the negative publicity about the takeover of the health care and health insurance system, but he wants your support anyway.

Ignore the fact that many Americans LOST coverage, can no longer see the doctor of their choice and many cannot afford the premiums.

Don't pay attention to carriers that are leaving the health insurance market in droves.

That's not important.

What IS important is protecting HIS legacy.

The folks at Yahoo are preventing the curation of their post about this, but you can read it all here.


#Obamacare

Gleaner Life Scholarships

Once again, the fine folks at Gleaner Life demonstrate how to give back in meaningful ways. Via email:

"Since 1980, The Gleaner Life Insurance Society Scholarship Foundation has awarded more than $2.6 million in scholarships on a competitive basis to Gleaner members and their families. In 2016, the foundation awarded $225,000 in scholarships."

Mutual insurance companies reward long-time clients with (non-guaranteed) dividends, which can help reduce the net cost of a policy, or add to the cash value, or even increase the death benefit. But dividends are based on how the company performs financially (investments, real estate rentals, whatever). Gleaner goes above and beyond that by putting net corporate dollars where its metaphorical mouth is:

"Eligible Gleaner members who are students can apply for a one-time $3,000 competitive scholarship. Gleaner family members are eligible to apply for one-time $1,500 awards. Both scholarships are awarded on a competitive basis."

I like that last: it rewards performance.

Interested Gleaner policyholders can click here for details.

Not a Gleaner policyholder? You know what to do.

DOL vs Small Group

Via email from our friends at Cornerstone:

"The Department of Labor, Health & Human Services and Treasury recently issued proposed regulations that would eliminate the "small plan" exemption currently in place for small employers sponsoring a group health plan with fewer than 100 participants.

If adopted, small employers would be required to furnish the same Form 5500 information to the Department of Labor as large employers." [emphasis in original]

Now why would this be a big deal?

Well, the estimated cost "will add 2.2 million work hours and $241.6 million in reporting costs for small employers (both self-insured and fully-insured)."

Think this won't affect you?

Well remember, all of these additional costs will be passed on to consumers. Not to mention, employers, particularly small employers, have limited funds, so this could very well cost someone(s) their job, or potential job.

What can you do about it?

Well, the DOL is taking comments about it through December 5th, and the folks at Cornerstone have helpfully provided us with an example:

"I am requesting that the Department of Labor reconsider the proposed Annual Reporting and Disclosure rules relating to Form 5500 and Schedule J.

The proposed rules that would eliminate the small group exemption on Form 5500 filings plus the additional data collection requirements on Schedule J will add 2.2 million work hours and would cost small employers $241.6 million.

Small employers are already challenged to stay current and compliant with excessive federal, state and local rules and regulations. The proposed changes place yet another unnecessary burden on small employers.

I urge the Department of Labor to reconsider this proposal."