IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family: (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. Source
How come Ted Nugent is alive, and NOT in jail? He promised us he'd be dead or in jail this time of year. What a liar
The way the Internal Revenue Service structures the examples in its Treasury Regulations gives us an insight into the thinking of Service personnel. Take it seriously.
Now for a lowest income family over the Medicaid line that would be 2%-3% of the premium or $400 to $800 a year, for those at the top most subsidized levels $1900 a year that would be in the around $95,000 for a family of five. And out of pocket costs are supported to from 70 to 85% covered by the government in those ranges highest at the lowest income. Seems fair for around 75% of Americans if you include the Medicaid expansion most states will likely have no choice but to opt in to the deal is just to good for them to say no to easily. I don't see the issue for many in the support subsidy group your better off getting insurance in an exchange than not the tax penalty is higher than the costs to pay the premiums. For those over the highest supported income bracket your just stuck but your that well off you can afford the tax penalty, right? Just don't get sick if you don't get insurance from some source.
The problem is that many folks will pay the penalty and defeat the purpose of Obamacare...to insure most Americans. Obamacare will prove to be a costly mistake.
Even if buying the exchange policy is cheaper? I did the math right and out of pocket costs are also helped with from the low end to a fairly good income level which is around 75% of citizens if its cheaper and the out of pocket costs are helped with both are factors right why would they opt out it would make not household financial sense assuming there is no coverage through ones employer. And with the majority benefiting it seems to me the momentum is for the support of the law once people are on it and there is no stopping the law kicking in before the next round of elections, after several months of coverage and reduced bill co-pays you will see support for repeal drop I would think. And states likely will expand Medicaid option as it is the deal is to good to pass up.
I guess you are aware that CNS is "The RIGHT News, RIGHT now" CONSERVATIVE opinions and analysis center, right? No way there could be a bias, there, right? Well, what this article doesn't say is this: By 2016, the $20,000 average health care plan for a family of 5 will probably be a REAL DEAL! A very good one in fact, especially if the increase in health care doesn't slow even more than it has over the last year! Because, let's face it. In 2012, the AVERAGE COST of a private insurance health care package for a family of FOUR (not five), is ALREADY over $20,000! So. . .add an average of 6.5% increase per year for 4years, and you get very close to a $26,000 average cost! Amazing how the RIGHT media can spin things out of context and that there are always enough gullible people to take the bait without even looking for accuracy of information or "out of context" reporting!
Is that news to you? Increases in private health care insurance have been happening for the last 20 years or more. . .and those annual increases have been GREATER historically than the annual increases that took place in the last 2 years. So. . .what has changed. . . except, obviously, a SLOWER rate of increase?
Just like in the other thread, it would appear no one bothered to read the whole article. The last paragraph at that wonderfully accurate news source. "(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).
I'm sure we'll ALL regret the stupidity of people who have fought so hard to keep the public option out of the running! And I am pretty sure that, the fact that ACA is not perfect (a work in progress, as all new policies) will eventually lead us to one form of public option or another. So. .I'm not worried!
What you have detected is called schadenfreude. I've sort of moved past the idea of Uncle Sam. It's important to continually monitor one's views to ensure they are consistent with objective reality. That means one can't lie to one's self if one is to avoid error. You're fine except for the progressive zealotry. Your online persona makes it seem like you're channeling Carrie Nation.
Carrie Nation, huh? That's kind of funny! Nope. . .I'm not as big and powerful as her, and I don't like any arms. . .not even hatchets! I certainly have no intention to preach anything, whether religion or politics. And I do enjoy a glass of wine (or two) and even a Grand Marnier once in awhile! I do admit that I can get quite passionate about issues that I care about, and that I do not like bullies or idiots. And I assume that some could call my commitment to the causes I care about "zealotry," although it certainly is not my intention. But, enough of me. What I met to say is that I do respect this comment: "It's important to continually monitor one's views to ensure they are consistent with objective reality. That means one can't lie to one's self if one is to avoid error." You probably do not want to even consider this. . .but we may not be that different after all! Except for the hint of sadism you are confessing to!
