Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
May 27, 2018, 11:55:32 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
Author Topic: IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family  (Read 600 times)
Soul Crusher
Getbig V
Posts: 18378

Doesnt lie about lifting.

« on: January 31, 2013, 02:55:07 PM »

IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family
 CNS News ^ | January 31, 2013 | Matt Cover

Posted on Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:43:47 PM

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 family of five 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 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).”
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Getbig V
Posts: 18378

Doesnt lie about lifting.

« Reply #1 on: February 01, 2013, 03:26:33 AM »

It is a well-known fact that nobody in Congress ever reads, or even skims, any law, and especially not the fine print, it passes until long after it has been enacted into law. It appears the same is just as true for the biggest pillar of support for the Obama administration: America's labor unions, whose liberal vote every election is instrumental to preserving the outflow side of America's welfare state. As it turns out, it was the same labor unions who enthusiastically supported the primary accomplishment of the Obama administration in the past 4 years, Obamacare, only to realize, long after it has become reality that, surprise, their healthcare plan costs are about to go up. And, as the WSJ colorfully summarizes, they are now "turning sour."

From WSJ:

Union leaders say many of the law's requirements will drive up the costs for their health-care plans and make unionized workers less competitive. Among other things, the law eliminates the caps on medical benefits and prescription drugs used as cost-containment measures in many health-care plans. It also allows children to stay on their parents' plans until they turn 26.
So what are the Unions' demands to offset what they only now realize will push their overall costs higher? What else: Moar!

To offset that, the nation's largest labor groups want their lower-paid members to be able to get federal insurance subsidies while remaining on their plans. In the law, these subsidies were designed only for low-income workers without employer coverage as a way to help them buy private insurance.
Top officers at the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the AFL-CIO and other large labor groups plan to keep pressing the Obama administration to expand the federal subsidies to these jointly run plans, warning that unionized employers may otherwise drop coverage.
But, but, they can't - that's the whole point, or didn't they read that part too? Doesn't matter - to them it is now unfair, nay "unacceptable":

"We are going back to the administration to say that this is not acceptable," said Ken Hall, general secretary-treasurer for the Teamsters, which has 1.6 million members and dependents in health-care plans. Other unions involved in the push include the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union and Unite Here, which represents service and other workers.
So now that even the unions have understood that Obamacare is one big tax, maybe it is time to reevaluate its arrival at a time when the already strapped US consumer sees taxes rising, and has their savings extinguished.

Employers and consumers across the country will see big changes under the health law, which goes into full effect next year. Insurers will no longer be able to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Most individuals will be taxed if they don't carry insurance, and employers with at least 50 workers will face a fine if they don't provide it. About 30 million Americans are expected to gain insurance under the law.
John Wilhelm, chairman of Unite Here Health, the insurance plan for 260,000 union workers at places including hotels, casinos and airports, recalls standing next to Barack Obama at a rally in Nevada when he was a 2008 presidential candidate.
"I heard him say, 'If you like your health plan, you can keep it,' " Mr. Wilhelm recalled. Mr. Wilhelm said he expects the administration will craft a solution so that employer health-care plans won't be hurt. "If I'm wrong, and the president does not intend to keep his word, I would have severe second thoughts about the law."
Wait, no, you mean that in order to get your vote a career politician... lied? Say it isn't true.

So what is an administration that has pandered to every demand for welfare increases ever, to do?

For the Obama administration, holding firm against union demands for subsidies risks alienating a key ally. Giving unions a break, however, would not only increase the cost of the law but likely open the door to nonunion employers in a similar situation who would demand the same perk.
Obama administration officials declined to answer questions about whether union-employer plans could qualify for subsidies under the law. A spokesman for the Treasury Department, which will administer the subsidies as tax credits, said: "These matters are the subject of pending regulations. We will continue to work with employers, workers, consumers and businesses to implement the health-care law."
Under the health law, households earning up to 400% of the poverty level—$92,200 for a family of four last year—will be eligible for tax credits to offset the cost of private insurance. The less a household earns the more generous the subsidy.
And while the political wranging is about to get heated, Unions suddenly find themselves facing a very existential problem:

The Sheet Metal Workers International Association helped push for passage of the health law. Mr. Beall said he still believes everyone should have health insurance, but worries the law is undermining the union's ability to offer coverage.
"If we're not offering our members insurance and pension, why would you want to be union?" he asked.
The International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150 of Countryside, Ill., which represents construction workers and insures about 65,000 people, is also examining whether some lower-earning workers would eventually be better off leaving the union-sponsored plan and instead getting federally subsidized insurance.
"I've told my members, as this evolves, your health care will not look like it does today," said James Sweeney, president and business manager of the local. "I have to cut it back."
What is most disturbing is that even the unions are starting to understand that there is really no such thing as a free lunch:

Central Blacktop Co., a Hodgkins, Ill., road builder that employs members of operating engineers Local 150, provides health benefits by paying $13.45 per hour that each member works, said Joseph Benson, the company's chief financial officer. That averages nearly $19,000 a year per worker.
"Ultimately any increase in expense to the fund is going to come from us down the line," he said.
It will, but not today. Today, the agenda is to just get more.

Your rating: None Average: 4.8 (31 votes)
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Getbig V
Posts: 18378

Doesnt lie about lifting.

« Reply #2 on: February 01, 2013, 05:45:35 AM »

IRS: Parents Must Pay Federal Fine for Uninsured Kids

January 31, 2013


By Matt Cover

Subscribe to RSS

Follow on Twitter

 1486 182


Holding a sign saying "We Love ObamaCare" supporters of health care reform rally in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, Tuesday, March 27, 2012. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

( – In new, final regulations issued Wednesday, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) said that parents must pay a federal fine under Obamacare if their children or dependent spouses are uninsured for any part of the year.
The regulations clarify provisions of Obamacare that seem to say that a parent will be held liable for Obamacare’s individual mandate penalty if they don’t have insurance coverage for their children.
In its final regulations, the IRS states that parents will be made to pay the penalty (called a "shared responsibility payment") if they can claim an uninsured child or spouse as a dependent, regardless of whether they actually claim them or not.
“The proposed regulations clarify that a taxpayer is liable for the shared responsibility payment imposed with respect to any individual for a month in a taxable year for which the taxpayer may claim a personal exemption deduction for the individual (that is, the dependent) for that taxable year,” the regulations state.
“Whether the taxpayer actually claims the individual as a dependent for the taxable year does not affect the taxpayer's liability for the shared responsibility payment for the individual.”
In other words, if a child goes without government-defined health insurance coverage for any month of the year, their parent must pay a fine to the government, regardless of whether they claim the child as a dependent or not.
The only thing that matters to the IRS is whether the parent could claim the uninsured child as a dependent.
The same rule applies to an uninsured spouse if the couple files a single tax return. If they file a joint return, both parents are liable for the fine.
The IRS calls this arrangement a “shared responsibility family,” and it includes adopted children.
Parents who give their children up for adoption or place them in foster care are not liable for the penalty once they give up their children. However, they are still liable for the penalty for the months before they gave up their children.
The regulations also state that even if the parent is exempt from the Obamacare penalty, they can still be fined for not having insurance for their children. Under the law, people who are on Medicaid or who have income below the federal poverty line are exempt from the individual mandate, for example.
Broadly, Obamacare says that the penalty for not having insurance is the lesser of the cheapest government-approved health insurance plan premium or the alternative, calculated penalty. The IRS regulations lay out how families can calculate this alternative penalty amount.
Uninsured adult family members use the full per-person cost of $695 per person when calculating their penalty, while uninsured children are penalized half of the adult cost – $347.50 per child. The amount of penalty parents may face will change every year after 2016, the IRS said, and parents will face a phased-in penalty between 2014 and 2016.
For 2014, parents could face a penalty of either $47.50 per child – under 18 – up to $285 total.
For 2015, the per-child penalty is $162.50 per child up to $975 total.
For 2016, the per-child penalty is $347.50 per child up to $2,085 total.
The per-person penalty is capped at $2,085 for 2016, but that cap will rise with inflation every year thereafter.
While the per-person penalty is capped each year, families can still owe more if their income is high enough because the law states that families must pay the greater of either the per-person penalty of 2.5 percent of their taxable income.
In the regulations, the IRS gives an example of just such a family. This family has five members – two parents and three children – and has a pre-tax income of $120,000. The IRS assumes that the minimum insurance premium for this family will be $20,000 per year in 2016, meaning that they will either pay the per-person cap of $2,085 or 2.5 percent of their taxable income.
In its example, the IRS assumes the family’s taxable income will be $96,000 -- $120,000 minus the filing threshold of $24,000 – meaning that their tax penalty will be $2,400 under Obamacare.
Because the $2,400 tax penalty is greater than the per-person cap of $2,085, the IRS says that this example family must pay $2,400 for not being able to afford the $20,000 yearly minimum insurance premium.
For families, this means that they will be faced with paying either a per-person penalty for not having government-approved health insurance or a penalty based on their income, whichever is higher.
The way the government’s formula works is that smaller-wealthier families will likely pay based on income – because their tax-based penalty will be higher than their per-person penalty, while larger, poorer families will likely pay the per-person penalty, because 2.5 percent of their taxable income will be lower than the $2,085 per-person cap in 2016.
This dichotomy means that there will effectively be one standard for wealthier families – the tax-based penalty – and another for poorer families – the per-person penalty.
For instance, a similar family of five making only $80,000 per year in 2016 will end up paying the per-person maximum of $2,085, because their tax-based penalty would only be $1,400, assuming the same filing threshold of $24,000 and the $20,000 insurance premium the IRS gives in its example.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Getbig V
Posts: 18378

Doesnt lie about lifting.

« Reply #3 on: February 01, 2013, 07:51:16 AM »

Hope and Fucking Change! 

Eat shit every leftist
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!