Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family

Posted by   + Show Post


(CNSNews.com) – In a final regulation issued Wednesday, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assumed that under Obamacare the cheapest health insurance plan available in 2016 for a family will cost $20,000 for the year.

Under Obamacare, Americans will be required to buy health insurance or pay a penalty to the IRS.

The IRS's assumption that the cheapest plan for a family will cost $20,000 per year is found in examples the IRS gives to help people understand how to calculate the penalty they will need to pay the government if they do not buy a mandated health plan.

The examples point to families of four and families of five, both of which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of $20,000 per year for a bronze plan.

“The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.

Bronze will be the lowest tier health-insurance plan available under Obamacare--after Silver, Gold, and Platinum. Under the law, the penalty for not buying health insurance is supposed to be capped at either the annual average Bronze premium, 2.5 percent of taxable income, or $2,085.00 per family in 2016.

In the new final rules published Wednesday, IRS set in law the rules for implementing the penalty Americans must pay if they fail to obey Obamacare's mandate to buy insurance.

To help illustrate these rules, the IRS presented examples of different situations families might find themselves in.

In the examples, the IRS assumes that families of five who are uninsured would need to pay an average of $20,000 per year to purchase a Bronze plan in 2016.

Using the conditions laid out in the regulations, the IRS calculates that a family earning $120,000 per year that did not buy insurance would need to pay a "penalty" (a word the IRS still uses despite the Supreme Court ruling that it is in fact a "tax") of $2,400 in 2016.

For those wondering how clear the IRS's clarifications of this new "penalty" rule are, here is one of the actual examples the IRS gives:

“Example 3. Family without minimum essential coverage.

"(i) In 2016, Taxpayers H and J are married and file a joint return. H and J have three children: K, age 21, L, age 15, and M, age 10. No member of the family has minimum essential coverage for any month in 2016. H and J’s household income is $120,000. H and J’s applicable filing threshold is $24,000. The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000.

"(ii) For each month in 2016, under paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (b)(2)(iii) of this section, the applicable dollar amount is $2,780 (($695 x 3 adults) + (($695/2) x 2 children)). Under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, the flat dollar amount is $2,085 (the lesser of $2,780 and $2,085 ($695 x 3)). Under paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the excess income amount is $2,400 (($120,000 - $24,000) x 0.025). Therefore, under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the monthly penalty amount is $200 (the greater of $173.75 ($2,085/12) or $200 ($2,400/12)).

"(iii) The sum of the monthly penalty amounts is $2,400 ($200 x 12). The sum of the monthly national average bronze plan premiums is $20,000 ($20,000/12 x 12). Therefore, under paragraph (a) of this section, the shared responsibility payment imposed on H and J for 2016 is $2,400 (the lesser of $2,400 or $20,000).”

source

by on Feb. 1, 2013 at 1:44 PM
Replies (201-208):
AMBG825
by on Feb. 4, 2013 at 3:39 PM

 I've come up with another way to express my position.

 

Statement 1:

This bill has the potential to benefit some people.

Statement 2:

This bill has the potential to benefit all people.

 

 

I've already stated, several times, that I agree with statement 1. I disagree, wholeheartedly with statement 2. What difference do you see in those 2 statements? Both statement use the word "potential" so it isn't that word. Which word is different between those 2 statements that causes us to disagree?

Quoting brookiecookie87:

Saying yes you understand it doesn't make sense when your next statement proves otherwise.

You say you understand that something can both benefit someone and hurt them. Then state there is no possibility for it to benefit someone because it has already hurt someone. Either you don't understand it, or you are in some extreme case of denial.

Then you say you understand what potential means. Then you state there is no possiblity for EVERYONE to benefit from this bill so there is no potential for everyone to benefit from this bill. Again-Either you don't understand what Potential means, or you are in some extreme case of denial.

Again. Everyone does have the potential to be helped. Even if they are currently negative impacted by it they still have the potential to be positively impacted by it later on.

Again. POTENTIAL. That does not mean everyone WILL benefit from it. You are getting lost because you are focusing on the word Everyone and seem to be ignoring/making up everything else.

Quoting AMBG825:

 Yes. I understand it. There is no possibility for this bill to benefit everyone when people have already been harmed by it. Yes I understand that perfectly.

 

There is no possibility for EVERYONE to benefit from this bill. Ergo, there is not POTENTIAL for EVERYONE to benefit from this bill. It wasn't written to benefit everyone. and in practice has not benefitted everyone.

 

The problem isn't with your use of the word "potential." The problem is with your use of the word "everyone."

Quoting brookiecookie87:

 

That's not addressing it. Look at the word potential. Do you see the word absolute or can only be one sided in it?

The answer is no. Because that is not what potential means. The potential to help everyone does not mean WILL help everyone and NO ONE will be harmed.

Someone can both be harmed by a part of it and helped by another. It's not an all or nothing game.

I can see why you would like to pretend it is. Because that is the only way your argument makes any sense now (Mainly because it is wrong and was based on lies). The lie that I suggested it was health care (I didn't). The lie that I was calling it universal healthcare (I wasn't). The lie that I said everyone WILL be helped by it (I never said that). The lie that if someone was negatived impacted by it that they cannot also have a potential benefit from it).

Your argument is based on lies. The whole way through. And the rare moments where you were not trying to lie you were just calling names.

Quoting AMBG825:

 I have not ignored it. I've addressed it directly. Any potential was lost the minute someone was harmed. The only way for it to "potentially" benefit "everyone" is if no one has been penalized by this bill. You can not have a "potential to benefit everyone" when there have already been people harmed by the same action.

 

You cannot potentially save someone's life if they are already dead. The potential to save their life was lost the minute the person died. Any potential this bill had of benefitting "everyone" was lost the minute people were harmed by the bill.

 

po·ten·tial

[puh-ten-shuhl] Show IPA

adjective
1.
possible, as opposed to actual: the potential uses of nuclear energy.
2.
capable of being or becoming: a potential danger to safety.
3.
Grammar . expressing possibility
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 






 

PurdueMom
by Sherri on Feb. 7, 2013 at 9:47 AM

You need to look at the bigger picture.  When it's said the ACA will benefit 'all' of us, it's meant that the ACA will help all of us as a nation, not necessarily as individuals.

You are still confused and hung up upon your 1% estimate.  According to the link below cited by YOU, a CBO report estimates that by 2022, 33 million Americans will be insured "who would otherwise be uninsured" - which is closer to 10% of the population.  Now, before you might say that 10% is still not that great a number, you have to at least acknowledge that there a many things within the ACA that will benefit those of us who already are insured as well.

Despite rising costs, the CBO is still claiming that the ACA will reduce our deficit.  The ACA is not perfect, but changes can and will be made as problems arise.  Most economists agree that the biggest long-term deficit problem is rising healthcare costs coupled with aging baby boomers.  If not the ACA, what would you suggest to fix this problem?

(Sorry it took me so long to respond - I've been working too much.  blech) 
 

Quoting AMBG825:

 No. I'm not confused.

 

You are absolutely wrong. Obamacare does not benefit ALL of us. My issue has been with that one little, 3 letter word. All. It does NOT benefit ALL americans. It benefits SOME Americans but not all. It doesn't even benefit MOST Americans. But it does not benefit ALL americans.

 

On what planet is 1% equivalent to "all"? 

Quoting PurdueMom:

I understand what you are saying now.  However, you are still wrong. 

You are confusing your numbers.  It is estimated that 4 million Americans will choose to pay the penalty and remain uninsured - not the other way around.

The ACA will benefit us all - it has already benefited millions of Americans already.  It always costs money to start something this huge, but eventually health care costs will go down and we will all benefit.


Quoting AMBG825:

 You are correct you are not understanding. It is only 1% of americans that do not have coverage because they can't afford it. The rest of those 33 million can afford coverage but choose not to so were left out of the equation.

 

If you can currently afford coverage but choose not to buy coverage, you will not benefit from Obamacare. If only 4 million americans do not have coverage because they cannot afford it, they are the ones who will benefit. Not those who can afford but choose not to.

 

4 million divided by 313 million x 100 = 1.2%

 

the other 99% are not getting any benefit from Obamacare. The rest of the country, minus those 4 million, are paying higher premiums and new taxes to the tune of $1.6 trillion. So you have $1.6 trillion to help 1.2% afford healthcare. Do you really think 4 million people are going to spend $1.6 trilion on healthcare?

Quoting PurdueMom:

I'm sorry, but I'm struggling with understanding your point.   If 1% of Americans choose not to have coverage, why does that mean the other 99% do not benefit from the ACA?   What do you mean by 29 million Americans would not have benefited?

Quoting AMBG825:

 Yes and from there it is basic math. Per the Kaiser foundation all but 4 million of those 33 million americans do not have insurance by choice. It isn't because they can't afford it. It'be because they choose not to have coverage. So that brings that 33 million down to 4 because the other 29 million americans wouldn't have benefited.

 

As of 2010 there were 313 million people living in the United States. 4 million divided by 313 million is .012. Multiply that by 100 to get the percentage and you have 1.2%

 

Basic math.

Quoting PurdueMom:

We are discussing two different points here, obviously.  Below, you stated Obama said the ACA benefits only 1% of us.  Your statement is wrong.

According to your link below, the CBO says by 2022 the ACA will extend coverage to 33 million Americans who would be otherwise uninsured.  I'm not arguing that point.  I'm saying Obama has never said only 1% of Americans will benefit from the ACA.  We will all benefit from the ACA, even those who are currently insured.

Quoting AMBG825:

You have never heard him use the number "33 million Americans will benefit?" Never. I highly doubt that. I don't believe that for a single minute because it's been his primary point to get the bill passed.

 

http://www.boomerstakestock.com/2012/money-management/insurance/obamacare-cost-benefit-analysis/

 

I find it very hard to believe that you have not heard that in any commentary on the subject.

 

The rest was broken down from there. Take a look at what the Kaiser foundation says about the uninsured.

Quoting PurdueMom:

I'm butting in here because I'm disagreeing that Obama said the ACA only benefits 1% of us.  Can you provide a source for your information?

The ACA is already helping many of us by eliminating insurance's ability to deny coverage for children with pre-existing conditions, allows adults up to the age of 26 to remain on their parents' insurance plans, and requires insurance companies to use 80% of their premiums for actual health care and not for profits.  When the ACA goes into full effect in 2014, it will end discrimination of insurance companies to all American's with pre-existing conditions, will prohibit annual and lifetime caps, and increase access to birth control.  There are other things within the ACA that benefit all of us, not just 1%.

The ACA is not perfect, by far... but it's a start and can be tweeked as we go along.  

Quoting AMBG825:

How did I misquote you? Yi u said the ACA benefits all of us. Obama says it only benefits 1% of us. I asked you how you went from 1% to 100%? Yiu then backpedaled and said it was insurance which most of us, particularly the obamacare supporters have been quick to piint out it is not an insurance policy. It is a simple question. How is 1% the same as 100%? 

 


 


 


 


Sherri

KittyLicking.gif picture by wer4pu
PurdueMom
by Sherri on Feb. 7, 2013 at 11:11 AM

The 3 sites below all use the same source.  So let's look at each point:

Individual Mandate excise tax penalty.  The claim is that the individual mandate will be a burden on young seniors caught between retirement and Medicare eligibility.  This is no more a burden on a young senior as it is on any citizen not eligible for Medicare.  If I decide to retire at the age of 57, it's most likely because I can financially.  If I cannot afford health insurance, I'll most likely continue to work until I either can afford it or I qualify for Medicare.  I don't understand how the mandate is anymore a burden to seniors citizens than it is to the average citizen.

Cadillac Plan exicise tax.  This is not a direct tax on an individual.  It's assessed on insurers and self-insured employers.  There are thresholds for individual and family plans, and excess of these thresholds are taxed at 40%.  Plus, these thresholds are adjusted upwards for retired individuals age 55 and older who are not eligible for Medicare.

Dividends tax hike.  This only applies to individuals and couples who make more than $200,000/$250,000.   For senior citizens with that ample of an annual income, the tax hike will not be a financial burden.

Medical device exise tax.   I can see an issue with this tax.  This most likely will raise the prices of medical devices, mainly because the corporations are profit-minded entities whose only concerns are the almighty dollar.  However, with the ACA more people will have insurance and so their sales will only go up.  Plus, a medical device manufacturer can deduct this excise tax from their income taxes AND there is a 2% tax credit given for research and development.  So maybe these corporations will grow hearts, accept the trade-offs, and NOT raise their prices.  We'll see.

Reduce allowable medical itemized deductions.  Yes, this will hurt seniors as the most citizens using this deduction are aged 55 and older.  Hopefully, these costs are off-set by the other positives in the ACA to seniors in way of health screenings provided without co-pays and a free annual wellness exam.  Finding and treating a problem before it becomes an expensive medical expense will save seniors a lot of money.

Like I have said before, the ACA is not perfect nor is it what I wanted, but it's what we got.  We all have to work together to bring health costs down, and we all have to make sacrifices to get to that end. 

 


Quoting Naturewoman4:

Here's the website where I found the 5 Tax Increases that will mostly hurt the Seniors.  **when the pg. comes up look for the title then click that**

http://atr.org/obamacares-five-tax-increases-a6779

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2860987/posts

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/18/the-five-tax-hikes-in-obamacare-that-most-hurt-seniors

 

 


Quoting PurdueMom:

Do you mind providing a link to the Kaiser Foundation site that states 36 million will take the penalty?   And the post that shows the ACA will hurt seniors?  I would like to read them.

Believe it or not, most Americans want insurance coverage.  There will be those who refuse coverage, and they're reasons are varied.  Not  much we can do about them until we get single-payer insurance for all.


Quoting Naturewoman4:

Ok, I get what you're saying & hope it's true.  I cannot dispute what is said on here, because I read one thing....then another thing...I don't know what is true or false.  Just a few questions.  If say 4M Americans go on Medicaid, & the other "36M" will take the penalty, I don't see how that will help much.  They will still use ER for their Primary Care.  Some won't pay, Gov. will not reimpurse the Hospitals/Dr's so the cost is passed on do those that DO pay for their Ins.  I believe I read that on the Kaiser Foundation site. 

The penalties aren't high enough, a lot of those 36M will opt to take the penalty.  Then what?  I also did a post on the 5 Taxes due to the ACA, that is going to hurt the Seniors the most.   




Sherri

KittyLicking.gif picture by wer4pu
Naturewoman4
by Platinum Member on Feb. 7, 2013 at 11:41 AM

From "Hot Air":  Surprise:  HealthCare & Ins. cost still on the up & up.  Spending Healthcare rose 4.6% in 2011.  Up $4,500/per person on average under Obama.  **click the title of the article when page comes up**

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/25/surprise-and-insurance-costs-still-on-the-up-and-up/

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cbo-obamacare-will-leave-30-million-uninsured

 


Quoting PurdueMom:

The 3 sites below all use the same source.  So let's look at each point:

Individual Mandate excise tax penalty.  The claim is that the individual mandate will be a burden on young seniors caught between retirement and Medicare eligibility.  This is no more a burden on a young senior as it is on any citizen not eligible for Medicare.  If I decide to retire at the age of 57, it's most likely because I can financially.  If I cannot afford health insurance, I'll most likely continue to work until I either can afford it or I qualify for Medicare.  I don't understand how the mandate is anymore a burden to seniors citizens than it is to the average citizen.

Cadillac Plan exicise tax.  This is not a direct tax on an individual.  It's assessed on insurers and self-insured employers.  There are thresholds for individual and family plans, and excess of these thresholds are taxed at 40%.  Plus, these thresholds are adjusted upwards for retired individuals age 55 and older who are not eligible for Medicare.

Dividends tax hike.  This only applies to individuals and couples who make more than $200,000/$250,000.   For senior citizens with that ample of an annual income, the tax hike will not be a financial burden.

Medical device exise tax.   I can see an issue with this tax.  This most likely will raise the prices of medical devices, mainly because the corporations are profit-minded entities whose only concerns are the almighty dollar.  However, with the ACA more people will have insurance and so their sales will only go up.  Plus, a medical device manufacturer can deduct this excise tax from their income taxes AND there is a 2% tax credit given for research and development.  So maybe these corporations will grow hearts, accept the trade-offs, and NOT raise their prices.  We'll see.

Reduce allowable medical itemized deductions.  Yes, this will hurt seniors as the most citizens using this deduction are aged 55 and older.  Hopefully, these costs are off-set by the other positives in the ACA to seniors in way of health screenings provided without co-pays and a free annual wellness exam.  Finding and treating a problem before it becomes an expensive medical expense will save seniors a lot of money.

Like I have said before, the ACA is not perfect nor is it what I wanted, but it's what we got.  We all have to work together to bring health costs down, and we all have to make sacrifices to get to that end. 

 


Quoting Naturewoman4:

Here's the website where I found the 5 Tax Increases that will mostly hurt the Seniors.  **when the pg. comes up look for the title then click that**

http://atr.org/obamacares-five-tax-increases-a6779

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2860987/posts

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/18/the-five-tax-hikes-in-obamacare-that-most-hurt-seniors

 

 

 

Quoting PurdueMom:

Do you mind providing a link to the Kaiser Foundation site that states 36 million will take the penalty?   And the post that shows the ACA will hurt seniors?  I would like to read them.

Believe it or not, most Americans want insurance coverage.  There will be those who refuse coverage, and they're reasons are varied.  Not  much we can do about them until we get single-payer insurance for all.


Quoting Naturewoman4:

Ok, I get what you're saying & hope it's true.  I cannot dispute what is said on here, because I read one thing....then another thing...I don't know what is true or false.  Just a few questions.  If say 4M Americans go on Medicaid, & the other "36M" will take the penalty, I don't see how that will help much.  They will still use ER for their Primary Care.  Some won't pay, Gov. will not reimpurse the Hospitals/Dr's so the cost is passed on do those that DO pay for their Ins.  I believe I read that on the Kaiser Foundation site. 

The penalties aren't high enough, a lot of those 36M will opt to take the penalty.  Then what?  I also did a post on the 5 Taxes due to the ACA, that is going to hurt the Seniors the most.   

 

 



 

PurdueMom
by Sherri on Feb. 7, 2013 at 12:03 PM

Hot Air is a conservative website with conservative bias..... plus your link would not open.  

What CNS (also a conservative website with conservative bias) fails to mention is that the CBO report cited was issued to examine what would happen if Republican-led states rejected the Medicaid expansion component of the ACA.  So, your link only proves without cooperation of states to  create exchanges and accept the Medicaid expansion, more people will be without insurance... and that will only hurt our economy, deficit, and debt. 

Quoting Naturewoman4:

From "Hot Air":  Surprise:  HealthCare & Ins. cost still on the up & up.  Spending Healthcare rose 4.6% in 2011.  Up $4,500/per person on average under Obama.  **click the title of the article when page comes up**

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/25/surprise-and-insurance-costs-still-on-the-up-and-up/

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cbo-obamacare-will-leave-30-million-uninsured

 


Quoting PurdueMom:

The 3 sites below all use the same source.  So let's look at each point:

Individual Mandate excise tax penalty.  The claim is that the individual mandate will be a burden on young seniors caught between retirement and Medicare eligibility.  This is no more a burden on a young senior as it is on any citizen not eligible for Medicare.  If I decide to retire at the age of 57, it's most likely because I can financially.  If I cannot afford health insurance, I'll most likely continue to work until I either can afford it or I qualify for Medicare.  I don't understand how the mandate is anymore a burden to seniors citizens than it is to the average citizen.

Cadillac Plan exicise tax.  This is not a direct tax on an individual.  It's assessed on insurers and self-insured employers.  There are thresholds for individual and family plans, and excess of these thresholds are taxed at 40%.  Plus, these thresholds are adjusted upwards for retired individuals age 55 and older who are not eligible for Medicare.

Dividends tax hike.  This only applies to individuals and couples who make more than $200,000/$250,000.   For senior citizens with that ample of an annual income, the tax hike will not be a financial burden.

Medical device exise tax.   I can see an issue with this tax.  This most likely will raise the prices of medical devices, mainly because the corporations are profit-minded entities whose only concerns are the almighty dollar.  However, with the ACA more people will have insurance and so their sales will only go up.  Plus, a medical device manufacturer can deduct this excise tax from their income taxes AND there is a 2% tax credit given for research and development.  So maybe these corporations will grow hearts, accept the trade-offs, and NOT raise their prices.  We'll see.

Reduce allowable medical itemized deductions.  Yes, this will hurt seniors as the most citizens using this deduction are aged 55 and older.  Hopefully, these costs are off-set by the other positives in the ACA to seniors in way of health screenings provided without co-pays and a free annual wellness exam.  Finding and treating a problem before it becomes an expensive medical expense will save seniors a lot of money.

Like I have said before, the ACA is not perfect nor is it what I wanted, but it's what we got.  We all have to work together to bring health costs down, and we all have to make sacrifices to get to that end. 

 


Quoting Naturewoman4:

Here's the website where I found the 5 Tax Increases that will mostly hurt the Seniors.  **when the pg. comes up look for the title then click that**

http://atr.org/obamacares-five-tax-increases-a6779

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2860987/posts

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/18/the-five-tax-hikes-in-obamacare-that-most-hurt-seniors

 

 


Quoting PurdueMom:

Do you mind providing a link to the Kaiser Foundation site that states 36 million will take the penalty?   And the post that shows the ACA will hurt seniors?  I would like to read them.

Believe it or not, most Americans want insurance coverage.  There will be those who refuse coverage, and they're reasons are varied.  Not  much we can do about them until we get single-payer insurance for all.


Quoting Naturewoman4:

Ok, I get what you're saying & hope it's true.  I cannot dispute what is said on here, because I read one thing....then another thing...I don't know what is true or false.  Just a few questions.  If say 4M Americans go on Medicaid, & the other "36M" will take the penalty, I don't see how that will help much.  They will still use ER for their Primary Care.  Some won't pay, Gov. will not reimpurse the Hospitals/Dr's so the cost is passed on do those that DO pay for their Ins.  I believe I read that on the Kaiser Foundation site. 

The penalties aren't high enough, a lot of those 36M will opt to take the penalty.  Then what?  I also did a post on the 5 Taxes due to the ACA, that is going to hurt the Seniors the most.   







Sherri

KittyLicking.gif picture by wer4pu
icn_mom
by Member on Feb. 7, 2013 at 12:08 PM

Ok. leave it to me to sound dumb, BUT: what if you cannot afford to pay out of pocket 20,000 a year for insurance?!!!! what if your total income for the year is that?!!! so you get fined? this seems insane!

NWP
by guerrilla girl on Feb. 7, 2013 at 12:18 PM

You should know that this is not true.

Quoting icn_mom:

Ok. leave it to me to sound dumb, BUT: what if you cannot afford to pay out of pocket 20,000 a year for insurance?!!!! what if your total income for the year is that?!!! so you get fined? this seems insane!


North West Passage

icn_mom
by Member on Feb. 7, 2013 at 5:37 PM

 


Quoting NWP:

You should know that this is not true.

Quoting icn_mom:

Ok. leave it to me to sound dumb, BUT: what if you cannot afford to pay out of pocket 20,000 a year for insurance?!!!! what if your total income for the year is that?!!! so you get fined? this seems insane!


I would hope not, but I would not put it past this goverment to screw the working class.

 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)