The Congressional panel investigating the fetal tissue research company StemExpress, which the Center for Medical Progress exposed in its groundbreaking undercover videos about fetal body parts trafficking, found that StemExpress and the abortion centers with which it contracted violated federal patient privacy and informed consent regulations.
In two letters to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives Chair Rep. Marsha Blackburn detailed the panel’s findings on StemExpress’s cozy relationships with abortion facilities. The panel found that StemExpress employees had access to confidential patient health information—which they had no medically necessary reason to see and the abortion centers had no reason to disclose—in order to streamline their workflow and thus maximize profits. According to the Panel, StemExpress was allowed to use this confidential information to be matched up with patients whose aborted babies matched their tissue demands.
The letters indicate that StemExpress employees were working alongside abortion workers in ways that appear to conflict with regulations related to research on human subjects and federal privacy law.
Blackburn wrote that federal regulations require specific procedures to be followed when research is being conducted on human subjects. Research on human subjects must be approved by a valid Institutional Review Board (IRB) to ensure that the research is ethical and safe.
StemExpress didn’t follow these procedures when obtaining informed consent from abortion clinic patients, Blackburn wrote. Blackburn’s letter said it’s unclear whether patients consented to donating tissue from their aborted infants before or after the abortion procedures took place and the manner in which patient consent was obtained raises “serious concerns” about whether patients were coerced or unduly influenced into donating fetal tissue. (Read more from “House Panel Says Abortion Centers, Fetal Harvesting Company Violated Federal Law” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/baby-feet-833375_960_720.jpg640960Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-06-01 22:03:282016-06-02 02:06:43House Panel Says Abortion Centers, Fetal Harvesting Company Violated Federal Law
The identity of the “impressive” independent presidential candidate to challenge presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump that conservative commentator Bill Kristol tweeted about Sunday night reportedly has been revealed.
Bloomberg Politics reports that two Republicans familiar with Kristol’s efforts say the person who will put his hat in the ring is constitutional attorney and National Review writer David French.
French is an Iraq War veteran and former senior counsel with both the American Center for Law and Justice and Alliance Defending Freedom, according to his biography on National Review’s site. He is a gradate of Harvard Law School and also the author of the No. 1 New York Times best-selling book Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can’t Ignore.
Just a heads up over this holiday weekend: There will be an independent candidate–an impressive one, with a strong team and a real chance.
Clearly Kristol’s description of him as “impressive,” at least with regards to his credentials, is accurate. Whether that will translate into a credible run for the presidency is the question. While Trump never served in political office, he had the advantage of having nationwide name recognition.
French’s credibility with social conservatives would likely be strong, given his work with two organizations important to that group: the ACLJ and ADF. His wife, Nancy, is also a New York Times best-selling author of books, mostly dealing with Christian topics, and she collaborated on a book with former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
The National Review, for which French is a staff writer, dedicated an entire issue in January to conservative thinkers voicing their opposition to Trump’s candidacy.
Trump responded to Kristol’s Sunday tweet with some of his own, including this one:
If dummy Bill Kristol actually does get a spoiler to run as an Independent, say good bye to the Supreme Court!
This past week has been a milestone of sorts for those who closely follow the continuing saga of Hillary Clinton’s wrongful use of email systems during her tenure as Secretary of State. But the kind of milestone it was depends on where you stood when the week began.
For those of us who recognized from the outset that Ms. Clinton’s exclusive use of a personal email system for all her official business (not to mention her unprecedented use of a private server atop that) was a clear violation of the Federal Records Act (“FRA”), the findings of the State Department’s Inspector General (“IG”) to that effect in his May 25 report were no surprise. In fact, on the admitted facts of the case, no other conclusion was possible, and it was simply another “shoe waiting to be dropped.”
To us, knowing that there are no applicable penalties within the FRA (or in the FOIA, for that matter, which Ms. Clinton also blatantly circumvented), the primary significance of the IG report is that it so flatly and persuasively belies nearly every public “defense” that she has uttered on the matter, from her extraordinary news conference at the United Nations on March 10 of last year to even her initial stunned reactions to the IG report itself this past week.
No, her self-serving email set-up was not “allowed” under the State Department’s rules. No, she was not “permitted” to use a personal email system exclusively as she did. No, what she did was hardly just a matter of her “personal convenience.” No, there is no evidence that any State Department attorney (other than perhaps Secretary Clinton herself) ever gave “legal approval” to any part of her special email system. No, everything she did was not “fully above board” or in compliance with the “letter and spirit of the rules,” far from it. Yes, she was indeed required by the FRA to maintain all official emails in an official system for proper review, delineation, and retention upon her departure. Yes, her private server equipment was in fact the subject of multiple attempted intrusion attempts (i.e., hacks), including by foreign nations. The list goes on and on. (Note that this does not even include Ms. Clinton’s many serious “misstatements” about her handling of classified or potentially classified information.) (Read more from “Hillary Clinton’s Emails Now Might Finally Take Her Down” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/3114480676_1162c04150_b.jpg7681024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-06-01 02:14:542016-06-01 02:18:20Hillary Clinton’s Emails Now Might Finally Take Her Down
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton only has a small lead over Republican candidate Donald Trump in New Jersey, according to a new poll, suggesting Trump may be putting another safe Democratic state in play for November.
The poll, conducted by Monmouth University, has Trump trailing Clinton 38-34 in New Jersey. Eleven percent say they plan to vote third party and 15 percent are undecided. Like other polls of the 2016 race, Monmouth’s poll shows a gargantuan gender gap, with Trump leading by nine points among men and Clinton leading by 16 among women. Trump leads 44-29 among white voters, while Clinton unsurprisingly leads 54-14 percent among all non-white voters. Notably, Trump has the support of just 1 percent of black voters, though 21 percent say they are undecided.
New Jersey has been a safe Democratic state in every election since 1992, so if it becomes competitive it’s a very bad sign for Clinton. For comparison, President Barack Obama crushed former Gov. Mitt Romney in the state by a margin of nearly 18 percentage points.
Trump’s enhanced appeal may be based partly on his life-long presence in the New York area, as well as the strong endorsement he received from Gov. Chris Christie.
The poll was conducted May 23-27 with a sample of 703 registered voters. The margin of error was plus or minus 3.7 percentage points.
Meanwhile, another poll released Tuesday, conducted by the Boston Herald and Franklin Pierce University, had Trump and Clinton tied 44-44 in the swing state of New Hampshire. Obama won the state by about 5.5 percent in 2012.
New Jersey isn’t the first blue state Trump has appeared to put in play. A Quinnipiac poll from early May showed Trump trailing by just a single point in Pennsylvania, which also hasn’t voted for a Republican since George H.W. Bush in 1988. (For more from the author of “Trump Trails Clinton by Only 4 in Blue State New Jersey” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Donald_Trump_by_Gage_Skidmore_2-2.jpg31684752Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-06-01 02:07:582016-06-01 02:07:58Trump Trails Clinton by Only 4 in Blue State New Jersey
Despite anti-gunnite talking points, most law abiding gun owners are not against background checks. We have no problem with making sure that the person attempting to purchase a firearm is not a bad person. But, do background checks actually stop Bad Guys from getting guns? For the most part, no. Hence, the NRA is not suggesting that we do away with the backgrounds check system, they just think it’s absurd to expand it, because it will almost never stop a bad character from getting a gun. And they are against the gun registration schemes of the anti-gunnites, because it is simply a big government control scheme. Furthermore, the government fails to enter those who are “adjudicated mentally incompetent into the National Instant Check System.” But, nothing will ever stop the gun haters from pushing their schemes
FOR more than 80 years, the United States has enforced a tough and effective gun control law that most Americans have never heard of. It’s a 1934 measure called the National Firearms Act, and it stands as a stark rebuke to the most sacred precepts of the gun lobby and provides a model we should build on.
Leaders of the National Rifle Association rarely talk about the firearms act, and that’s probably because it imposes precisely the kinds of practical — and constitutional — limits on gun ownership, such as registration and background checks, that the N.R.A. regularly insists will lead to the demise of the Second Amendment.
In speeches, publications and a steady stream of fund-raising literature, the N.R.A. rails against gun registration and gun owner databases. In 2008, the organization’s chief executive, Wayne LaPierre, claimed that photographing and fingerprinting gun owners was “the key gun control scheme” of the candidate Barack Obama, who, Mr. LaPierre predicted, would confiscate every gun in America before the end of his first term as president. The N.R.A. now says that the “real goal” of “gun control supporters” like Hillary Clinton is “ gun confiscation.”
But the longstanding National Firearms Act not only already mandated the registration of all owners of machine guns, short-barreled rifles, silencers and other weapons deemed highly dangerous at the time, it created a national database of those gun owners with their mug shots and fingerprints, and a detailed description of each weapon purchased, including its serial number. Purchasers of “N.F.A. weapons,” as they are known, must pass an F.B.I. background check, be approved by the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and pay a $200 tax. Stolen weapons must be reported to the A.T.F. immediately — the sort of requirement the N.R.A. opposes for other gun thefts.
In other words, the article is about requiring registration, mug shots, and fingerprints, among others, of all guns and their owners. A woman who wants a small .9mm for protection? Take her mugshot and fingerprints, just like she’s a criminal. Yet, these same people who push to treat law abiding gun owners like felons want to turn around and make things easier on actual felons.
Mr. Folloder, a manufacturer and collector of machine guns and silencers, is no fan of the firearms act. He’d like to make machine guns more readily available, and lobbied successfully to repeal a requirement that N.F.A. owners be preapproved by a local law enforcement officer. But Mr. Folloder and the A.T.F. agree that registrants are rarely implicated in crimes. People with registered weapons who can pay $40,000 for a machine gun “bend over backwards to obey the law,” he says. “If you’re going to spend that much money and put that much effort into obtaining one of these, you’re not going to be holding up the liquor store.”
N.F.A.-classified weapons do show up at crime scenes. But nearly all of them were unregistered, so the simple act of possession was a crime. According to A.T.F. analysis, among N.F.A. weapon owners there were only 12 felony convictions between 2006 and 2014, and those crimes did not involve an N.F.A. weapon. If that conviction rate were applied to the owners of the other privately owned firearms in the United States, gun crime would virtually disappear.
The idea here is to make it so damned expensive and burdensome to own a firearm that only those who can afford them will get them, and it won’t be people who will use them for crime. In essence, only people with money will be able to get them, people who tend to live in fancy pants neighborhoods, which rarely see crime, leaving the lower and middle classes un-armed, easy prey for criminals who do not get their guns legally.
Who will be most in danger? Women. Way to support women being able to defend themselves, Liberals.
The case for licensing and registration is stronger now than ever. Yet to today’s N.R.A. such measures are an existential threat to the Second Amendment. If that is true, why hasn’t the government used the N.F.A. database to confiscate weapons? Why has it failed to move against the holders of hunting licenses and concealed carry permits who readily submit to milder forms of gun licensing and registration?
Because they are a tiny number of weapons. But, let me turn the question around: why is it that anti-gunnites constantly push for schemes that make it harder for law abiding citizens to purchase and carry firearms? Why do they constantly push for more burdensome registration schemes for law abiding citizens? Why do them want things like registration, mug shots, and fingerprints for law abiding citizens? Why are they not pushing for measures against the criminals that use them and obtain them illegally? Why is it that the cities and states with the most burdensome gun schemes, areas run by the Democratic Party, tend to have the high amount of gun play?
I have a compromise: if law abiding gun owners agree to having their fingerprints and mugshots take for gun ownership, how about doing the same for an official voter ID card, which would be necessary to place a vote? Would that be acceptable to the anti-gunnites? (For more from the author of “The New York Times Super Excited About Massive Gun Registration Schemes!” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Houston_Gun_Show_at_the_George_R._Brown_Convention_Center-1.jpg22473356Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-06-01 01:32:292016-06-01 01:32:29The New York Times Super Excited About Massive Gun Registration Schemes!
When President Barack Obama first visited Elkhart, Indiana, in March 2009, the county’s unemployment rate had just spiked to 18.9 percent—the highest in the country.
Pointing to those numbers at the time, Obama urged Congress to pass an $800 billion economic stimulus package to keep the nation from slipping further into a recession “we may be unable to reverse.”
Seven years later, the town and surrounding county “look considerably better,” says Elkhart’s new mayor Tim Neese, a Republican. Unemployment has dropped to around 4 percent, manufacturing has returned, and help wanted signs are everywhere, he said.
On Wednesday, Obama will return to the rejuvenated district to highlight what he considers one of his administration’s greatest success stories. “The story of Elkhart’s recovery is the story of America’s recovery,” the president said in a statement.
But some Hoosier business leaders, local lawmakers, and analysts tell The Daily Signal that the state did the majority of the heavy lifting.
In advance of the president’s visit on Tuesday, Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., cautioned that the visit “shouldn’t be about glad-handing, but should instead be a celebration of Elkhart’s strong work ethic and renewed economic success.”
In a statement to The Daily Signal, Coats said he hopes that Obama “also acknowledges the pro-growth policies pursued by the state of Indiana, which have made our state one of the nation’s economic success stories.”
The leader of Indiana’s state Senate put the situation in starker terms.
“What’s happening in Elkhart isn’t because of the federal government, it’s despite it,” said Sen. David Long, the ranking Republican in the state Senate who represents the neighboring Fort Wayne area.
The recreational vehicle industry “dominates” the Elkhart economy, explained Jerry Conover, director of the Indiana Business Research Center at Indiana University. The professor said that more than half of area jobs, about 60,000, come from the industry.
Known as the “RV Capital of the World,” reliance on that business makes Elkhart subject to dramatic swings and shifts in the market, Conover explains. In 2009, when the economy started to slump, unemployment spiked.
In response, the Obama administration pushed Elkhart to diversify its industry and promised millions of dollars of grants to jumpstart an electric car industry specifically. With a $39.2 million federal grant, officials at Navistar Inc. predicted they could create 700 jobs.
“That was not nearly as successful as we had hoped,” Neese noted: Navistar Inc. and similar electric car ventures came to a halt shortly afterward.
“The only thing [Obama] promised was to come in and transform a lot of these jobs into electrical vehicle jobs and they were going to reinvent the Elkhart economy,” Long said. “There’s nothing to show for it.”
Asked about other attempts to spur growth, Conover said he couldn’t “really recall anything specific to the RV industry” from the federal stimulus. He did note that more general infrastructure projects probably created jobs and put some “money in local cash registers.”
Now that the town has turned around though, Obama credits the revival to “the choices we made as a nation.” But Republicans argue that slashing corporate and individual income taxes along with streamlining regulation made the change possible.
Under Gov. Mike Pence, a Republican, tax rates fell by half a percentage point in 2016 for the fourth consecutive year from 7 percent to 6.5 percent, in order to create an attractive tax environment for companies.
Mark Dobson, the president of the Economic Development Corporation of Elkhart County, credits the revival to coordination between state lawmakers and the local business community.
In the Indianapolis capital, Hoosier lawmakers are “excelling by setting a table in a very favorable fashion for growth,” he said. And in the manufacturing district in Elkhart, leaders and workers united to “do a phenomenal job returning from the downturn.” (For more from the author of “Indiana Lawmakers Reject Obama’s Stimulus Success Story” please click HERE)
Bill Kristol has lit a political fire this Memorial Day weekend, hot enough to cook steaks. The conservative pundit and editor of The Weekly Standard sent out a tweet Sunday declaring that an “impressive” independent candidate is set to jump into the race.
Just a heads up over this holiday weekend: There will be an independent candidate–an impressive one, with a strong team and a real chance.
Presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump didn’t think much of Bill Kristol’s tweet, branding Kristol a “dummy” and a “loser” and urging the GOP to stand “smart & strong.”
Bill Kristol has been wrong for 2yrs-an embarrassed loser, but if the GOP can't control their own, then they are not a party. Be tough, R's!
Kristol has been very open and determined in his effort to recruit a third-party or independent candidate to run against Trump and Hillary Clinton. He met with Mitt Romney in Washington and his courting of the former Massachusetts governor has included everything but flowers and chocolate.
Romney has said he’s not interested, that “it’s someone else’s turn.” But have his interests changed? Kristol told a Bloomberg podcast last week “The real last chance here is with Mitt Romney, who has said ‘no’ but who I think is thinking seriously about it. He’s a very serious person, he really knows that Trump should not be President of the United States. He strongly believes that Hillary Clinton should not be president of the United States.”
CBS News reported that other conservative names being considered by GOP #NeverTrump operatives for an independent run include former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn and retired Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal.
Columnist Dan Senor has argued that Kristol knows that Romney is not the guy to square off against Trump in this anti-establishment year, but is merely seeking Romney’s backing for another candidate, freshman Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse.
Hot Air‘s Allah Pundit weighed the Stasse possibility, writing that “Sasse said a few days ago that a third-party candidacy requires a candidate who’s not preoccupied with raising small children, as he is, but having the last GOP nominee leaning on him to do it as a matter of duty to conservatism and an act of patriotism for his country might soften him up.”
Kristol is certainly digging into the well of patriotism in his fight against Trump. His hint about an independent candidate was accompanied by tweet referencing the great American revolutionary Patrick Henry.
Those accused of betraying GOP by opposing Trump can take heart from P. Henry 251 years ago today:“If this be treason, make the most of it!”
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/2000px-Question_Mark.svg-1.png15002000Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-31 00:32:362016-05-31 00:32:36Bill Kristol Teases an ‘Impressive’ Independent Candidate Is Getting in the Race
Shortly after the failed al-Qaida “underwear bomber” plot to massacre 290 passengers on a Christmas Day flight to Detroit, President Obama scolded the nation’s intelligence community for failing to “connect the dots” . . .
But Obama’s words were not only dispiriting to Haney and many of his DHS colleagues, they were filled with wicked irony.
Just before the Christmas Day attack, Haney had been ordered by his superiors at DHS to delete or modify several hundred records of individuals tied to designated Islamic terror groups from the important federal database, the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS).
These types of records, Haney explained, are the “dots” that enable DHS Customs and Border Protection officers to see patterns that could pose a threat to the nation’s security . . .
As Haney explains in his new, revelatory book “See Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad,” the order to scrub the records came even after the trial of an Islamic charity exposed the vast Muslim Brotherhood network in the U.S. and its stated aim, according to FBI evidence, to “destroy Western Civilization from within.” (Read more from “DHS Agent: Obama Erased My Intel, Then Scolded Me” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/8403802474_f593ae3964_b.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-30 23:26:182016-06-05 00:14:01DHS Agent: Obama Erased My Intel, Then Scolded Me
Make that 42, not 43, Republicans who voted with Democrats for the controversial LGBT amendment in the House of Representatives.
When the amendment passed late Wednesday night, 223-195, Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., voted for the measure but only by accident. The next day, Shimkus entered a statement into the congressional record to clarify his gaffe.
“My position on this issue has not and will not change,” Shimkus said in a press release. “I’ve consistently defended religious liberty and I always will. During a series of 14 votes on the House floor, I accidentally cast a ‘yea’ vote for the Maloney amendment when I intended to vote ‘nay.’”
Though the veteran Illinois representative did not cast the deciding vote and while the underlying bill with the LGBT amendment attached ultimately failed, Shimkus added that he “regrets the mistake.”
The apparent blunder comes during the middle of an unforeseen and controversial battle that threatens to derail the entire appropriations process.
Shimkus is not the first representative in Congress to unknowingly cast the wrong vote. The House of Representatives records votes using an electronic system first introduced in 1973. Small and narrow voting buttons allow a member to vote yea, nay, or present.
Supporters describe the amendment—introduced by Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, D-N.Y.—as an effort to prohibit federal contractors from discrimination against members of the LGBT community on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Opponents characterize the measure as a violation of conscience rights.
An intentional vote for the Maloney amendment would mark a significant shift for Shimkus. The Illinois representative voted against the amendment when it was first introduced to a separate appropriations bill.
Shimkus also supported other legislation to curb President Barack Obama’s transgender bathroom directive. (For more from the author of “Republican Says He Accidentally Voted for LGBT Amendment” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/US_Congress_02.jpg15362048Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-30 23:18:002016-05-30 23:18:00Republican Says He Accidentally Voted for LGBT Amendment
When Maryland business owner Thomas Kunkel first learned about the Affordable Care Act, he was excited about the prospect of the new health care law.
“From the small business standpoint, it was actually one of the first times I felt like a bit of a social program might actually benefit a small business,” he told The Daily Signal. “Usually it’s the opposite.”
Kunkel owns Full House Marketing and Print in Edgewood, Maryland, and employs 21 full-time workers and up to 10 part-time employees. While he doesn’t provide them with health insurance, Kunkel cuts his workers a monthly check through a Health Reimbursement Agreement.
Obamacare, he said, would allow a lot of his employees with pre-existing conditions conditions to get insurance, especially those who had trouble purchasing coverage in the past.
“That was the biggest positive I saw,” he said.
But Kunkel, who previously worked in the health care industry, anticipated premiums and deductibles were going to rise as insurers worked to adjust to the changes to the health care market.
Under Kunkel’s agreement with workers, he pays a set dollar amount each month, and employees are free to purchase plans on the individual market, putting the money Kunkel provides them toward the cost of their premiums.
“It was actually allowing me to offer a medical insurance benefit to my employees without having to go through all of the challenges of a group plan,” he said of the Health Reimbursement Agreement.
But in September 2013, the IRS and Treasury Department issued guidance prohibiting businesses from using Health Reimbursement Agreements, which help workers pay for health insurance plans purchased on the individual market and other medical expenses. Businesses that integrate Health Reimbursement Agreements with group plans can still offer the benefit.
The Treasury Department said Health Reimbursement Agreements failed to satisfy specific provisions of Obamacare, such as the prohibition on annual limits for health benefits and the requirement that plans must include preventive care.
And for Kunkel, that left him forced to do away with one benefit that helped him retain employees and gave him a competitive edge when hiring.
“Before, I could at least say we don’t offer health care because there are a lot of options available on the individual market, but we do reimburse up to ‘x’ number of dollars a month,” he said. “I could sell that as a better plan than a group plan. But of course now I don’t have that to offer. It makes it tougher to hire and retain and to be competitive.”
‘A Little Betrayed and a Little Misled’
Prior to the Obama administration’s announcement, many small business owner were under the impression the Affordable Care Act would have little to no impact on them, especially because the law’s employer mandate created requirements for businesses with more than 50 employees.
However, small businesses are now faced with having to do away with a vital tool used for their employees or face hefty fines.
Kevin Kuhlman, director of legislative affairs for the National Federation of Independent Businesses, called the Treasury Department’s rule for small businesses a “solution in search of a problem.”
“They feel a little betrayed and a little misled,” Kuhlman told The Daily Signal. “It just has reduced flexibility for a lot of small businesses. These businesses with fewer than 50 employees were told 100 times, ‘Oh, you have fewer than 50 employees, the law doesn’t apply to you,’ and then Treasury quietly put out regulations that say you can no longer do this flexible benefit that we’re offering instead.”
“You either have to offer expensive group coverage, which you can’t afford, or you’re completely on your own, and you can’t help your employees,” he continued.
Any business that violates the rule is subject to fines of $100 per day per employee, totaling $36,500 in a year. Businesses face a maximum penalty of $500,000 per year.
In February 2015, the Treasury Department delayed enforcement of the ban on Health Reimbursement Agreements until July 1, 2015. Despite the delay, Kunkel said many small businesses could be surprised with fines for not complying with the rule.
“I think many are not even aware of it still and could be subject to penalties,” Kuhlman said. “This is the first tax season that both employers and employees are filing their taxes. Discrepancies could appear there, and that could invite unwanted audits, which have costs in and of themselves, and then the potential penalties.”
In the wake of the Obama administration’s guidance banning the use of Health Reimbursement Agreements, a number of business groups have come out in opposition of the ban and are calling on Congress to reverse the rule.
In April, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and 60 groups representing small businesses across a variety of industries sent a letter to Republican and Democratic leaders on the House Ways and Means Committee urging them to roll back the IRS’s regulation by taking up bipartisan legislation addressing the guidance.
That legislation, called the Small Business Healthcare Relief Act, has more than 90 Republican and Democratic cosponsors in both the House and Senate. It would allow small businesses to continue providing employees with a defined reimbursement for medical expenses and health coverage.
“This arrangement has worked well for small businesses that can’t afford group insurance or don’t have human resources departments to manage a health care plan,” Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, a main sponsor of the legislation, wrote in an upcoming op-ed. “…It all made sense. Then Obamacare pulled the plug on it.”
Earlier this month, senators expressed concerns with the Obama administration’s decision to prohibit small businesses from helping employers through reimbursements.
During a Small Business Committee hearing, Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., questioned Department of Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation Richard Frank about the administration’s position on tools like Health Reimbursement Agreements and Health Savings Accounts.
“As we look at the big picture, these are tools that we need to look at,” Ayotte said. “We can’t have one side of the federal government doing this, and the other side of the federal government interfering with other really important tools that people use that are very helpful in covering their health care costs.”
Similarly, Small Business Committee Chairman David Vitter, R-La., reinforced concerns small businesses have with the fines that could be levied against them by the IRS for continuing to assist workers through Health Reimbursement Agreements.
“This penalty is a big deal, and it’s a big part of the system, and it’s a big impact on health care,” Vitter said. “It’s there to penalize small businesses who want to do it one way versus the SHOP exchange. This is a big deal.”
Frank said any issues with the administration’s rule regarding Health Reimbursement Accounts were under the purview of the Treasury Department and not the Department of Health and Human Services, but said that his agency is focused specifically on expanding access to care.
“HRAs are not insurance They are other health accounts, and they don’t meet the definition of insurance so one issue is that I think people conflate the two,” he told lawmakers. “There are provisions that if you have insurance and you want to use additional funds through an HRA, that’s permissible. What gets conflated in many corridors is where the line between HRAs and insurance are drawn.”
Ed Haislmaier, senior fellow in health policy studies at The Heritage Foundation, stressed it’s not just the IRS’s rules surrounding Health Reimbursement Agreements that have hurt small businesses.
“What Obamacare has done in terms of small business coverage is, first, various provisions have increased the cost of the coverage through other regulations, including this one, and second, it has limited the available options for small business in terms of plan design and also possibly in same places the number of available insurers,” he told The Daily Signal.
Haislmaier also said that Obamacare is “premised on providing traditional kinds of insurance with traditional financing arrangements,” but added a layer of restrictions in terms of plans.
Taking It Away
After Kunkel learned of the IRS’s new rules regarding Health Reimbursement Agreements, he began exploring options.
Kunkel looked into purchasing plans through the SHOP, or Small Business Health Options Program, exchange. However, insurance brokers warned Kunkel enrolling in the SHOP exchange could prove to be confusing, time-consuming and costly.
He also looked into offering his workers a group plan and selected one through Evergreen Health, Maryland’s co-op.
Though the group plan through Evergreen Health was among the cheapest Kunkel could find, not a single employee decided to enroll, as it was more expensive than individual plans.
Kunkel even raised some of his employees’ pay to help compensate for their lost reimbursements, but that caused some workers purchasing coverage on Obamacare’s exchange to lose subsidies or qualify for less.
“They’re good people. They’re good friends of mine, and most of them have worked for me for years,” Kunkel said of his employees. “It’s always tough when you’re taking something away from them, especially something like health care. You feel compelled to try to help out in some other way.”
Already this year, Kunkel has had two employees leave his company, citing health insurance as a major reasons for leaving.
Now, he’s hoping Congress can provide some much-needed relief for small businesses.
“I’m vying for qualified staff just like everybody else. The fact that I was contributing, I felt I was going above and beyond,” he said. “Then I had to be the person to take it away.” (For more from the author of “Under Obamacare, Small Business Owner Forced to Get Rid of Health Care Benefits or Face Fine up to $500K” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/7028375371_f565bc698a_b.jpg7681024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-30 23:11:522016-05-30 23:11:52Under Obamacare, Small Business Owner Forced to Get Rid of Health Care Benefits or Face Fine up to $500K