Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:22 PM Sep 2012

Tax penalty to hit nearly 6M uninsured people

Source: AP

WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly 6 million Americans — significantly more than first estimated— will face a tax penalty under President Barack Obama’s health overhaul for not getting insurance, congressional analysts said Wednesday. Most would be in the middle class.

The new estimate amounts to an inconvenient fact for the administration, a reminder of what critics see as broken promises.

The numbers from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are 50 percent higher than a previous projection by the same office in 2010, shortly after the law passed. The earlier estimate found 4 million people would be affected in 2016, when the penalty is fully in effect.

snip

And the budget office analysis found that nearly 80 percent of those who'll face the penalty would be making up to or less than five times the federal poverty level. Currently that would work out to $55,850 or less for an individual and $115,250 or less for a family of four.


Read more: http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/2012/09/19/tax-penalty-hit-nearly-uninsured-people/JrlYiIjfWZokoN6eDflczK/story.html

33 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Tax penalty to hit nearly 6M uninsured people (Original Post) brentspeak Sep 2012 OP
Pure scare tactics. silverweb Sep 2012 #1
Let's get this straight: You say the CBO is "intending to frighten people and smear the President"?? brentspeak Sep 2012 #2
No. silverweb Sep 2012 #5
I agree about the headline, but not the content of the article. Bradical79 Sep 2012 #11
Since it's the CBO analysts who have announced new, revised projections on this brentspeak Sep 2012 #18
In contrast to the CBO projections being used to frighten and smear in favor of Obama thetonka Sep 2012 #33
That doesn't make sense Bradical79 Sep 2012 #10
we cant cite the cbo when it backs our opinions then blow it off when it doesnt - save that for the leftyohiolib Sep 2012 #3
Of course we can, just like when we watch Joey Scar on Mourning Schmoe so we can complain here on DU winstars Sep 2012 #8
Pure "agenda" piece PSPS Sep 2012 #4
Exactly. silverweb Sep 2012 #6
Your comment is so representative of one of DU's great strengths... FailureToCommunicate Sep 2012 #20
You're too kind. silverweb Sep 2012 #28
Not to worry Mnpaul Sep 2012 #7
I found the art. on abcnews.com. The law doesn't affect those who can't afford it. Honeycombe8 Sep 2012 #9
"Medicaid has been expanded under the reform act" brentspeak Sep 2012 #15
The federal govt subsidizes, when a person can't get Medicaid. Honeycombe8 Sep 2012 #17
Read the article and the graphs again, please brentspeak Sep 2012 #19
I admit I didn't pay much attention, because I knew already... Honeycombe8 Sep 2012 #24
Did you even read the article you posted? Moosepoop Sep 2012 #22
Did you read my response? brentspeak Sep 2012 #26
What promise is broken? spedtr90 Sep 2012 #12
Roughly how many middle-class and low-income households will receive subsidies? brentspeak Sep 2012 #16
Here you go. Moosepoop Sep 2012 #23
Nope, the answers to my questions are not in the link you provided brentspeak Sep 2012 #25
This is based on current conditions railsback Sep 2012 #13
President Obama is not raising the taxes for six million people GreydeeThos Sep 2012 #14
Limits, limits, and more limits to tax penalty enforcement... Blue Idaho Sep 2012 #21
So buy insurance. Zoeisright Sep 2012 #27
They might not be able to afford it... davidn3600 Sep 2012 #30
So I'm unemployed (over a year and counting) living with my mother jbgood1977 Sep 2012 #29
This is simple fairness........... SILVER__FOX52 Sep 2012 #31
Right, around 2% of the population. MrSlayer Sep 2012 #32

silverweb

(16,402 posts)
1. Pure scare tactics.
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:30 PM
Sep 2012

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Projected numbers for 2016 -- presumably when, if the President wins a 2nd term, improvement in the economy will have been continued and more people are employed, receiving insurance from their employers.

This is a bullshit article, intended to frighten people and smear the President.

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
2. Let's get this straight: You say the CBO is "intending to frighten people and smear the President"??
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:32 PM
Sep 2012

Ok, whatever you say.

silverweb

(16,402 posts)
5. No.
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:41 PM
Sep 2012

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]This article that uses projections from the CBO to frighten and smear.

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
18. Since it's the CBO analysts who have announced new, revised projections on this
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 08:23 PM
Sep 2012

And the article merely reports on this, you are, in fact, saying that it is the CBO who is doing the "frightening" and "smearing".

thetonka

(265 posts)
33. In contrast to the CBO projections being used to frighten and smear in favor of Obama
Thu Sep 20, 2012, 09:25 PM
Sep 2012


(CBS News) The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is out with a new estimate of the costs of repealing the Affordable Care Act, the national health care legislation signed into law in 2010. According to the CBO, if Mitt Romney and his fellow Republicans are successful in repealing the law, it would increase the federal budget deficit by an estimated $109 billion between 2013 and 2022.

"Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period," the CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation said.

H.R. 6079 is the "Repeal of Obamacare Act," which was passed by the GOP-led House on July 11. The vote marked the 33rd time the House has voted to repeal all or part of the law, and the first since the Supreme Court ruled it Constitutional in June.

The CBO also released a new estimate of the cost of the health care law's Medicaid expansion component in light of the Supreme Court's ruling that states have the right to opt out. It estimated the decision would reduce the cost of insurance coverage provisions of the law by $84 billion.

 

Bradical79

(4,490 posts)
10. That doesn't make sense
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:49 PM
Sep 2012

If the people affected are making up to $50,000/year that means they are employed somehow. The unemployed are not affected by this tax because they would receive an exemption due to financial hardship, right? I don't see how improved employment numbers lower the 6,000,000 person estimate. Anyway, I don't see the article as an anti-Obama hit piece. It provides statements from both sides, points out that it is based on Republican legislation, talks about financial incentives for lower and middle income families to balance out the penalty, most of those being penalized doing it out of choice and so on. I thought the article was pretty fair.

 

leftyohiolib

(5,917 posts)
3. we cant cite the cbo when it backs our opinions then blow it off when it doesnt - save that for the
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:35 PM
Sep 2012

right

winstars

(4,214 posts)
8. Of course we can, just like when we watch Joey Scar on Mourning Schmoe so we can complain here on DU
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:49 PM
Sep 2012

on at least one or three threads DAILY about how much a Smuck (to put it politely) he is to us.

LOL

But see, its really catchy, this kill the messenger stuff we are exposed to on Faux and Ras and all the bad info places so much each day that we automatically are leery any and all sources. But the CBO is not one of those and this news is a drag, so I suppose I must believe them...

Ezra obviously is my go to guy on questions like these, I will see what his take on it is somewhere very soon, I'm sure.

PSPS

(13,516 posts)
4. Pure "agenda" piece
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:37 PM
Sep 2012

First, those who can't afford insurance will be given a subsidy so they can get it. The others, commonly and accurately referred to as "freeloaders," will have to start paying their freight. That's the way real insurance works: pooled risk. Everyone in the pool has to pay the premium.

Here's an idea: Increase taxes and enroll everyone in Medicare. The increase in taxes would be less than private insurance premiums, so everyone would save money. Of course, since the private insurance racket is really just a money laundering scheme to generate "campaign contributions," it won't happen anytime soon.

silverweb

(16,402 posts)
6. Exactly.
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:42 PM
Sep 2012

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]You took the time to say much better what I was sputtering. Thanks.

FailureToCommunicate

(13,989 posts)
20. Your comment is so representative of one of DU's great strengths...
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 08:40 PM
Sep 2012

A high proportion of thoughtful, gracious people.

silverweb

(16,402 posts)
28. You're too kind.
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 11:46 PM
Sep 2012

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Obviously, I didn't do so well in my first post. lol

You're right about the high proportion of thoughtful, gracious people here, though, which is one of the reasons I love this place.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
9. I found the art. on abcnews.com. The law doesn't affect those who can't afford it.
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:49 PM
Sep 2012

"This (analysis) doesn't change the basic fact that the individual responsibility policy will only affect people who can afford health care but choose not to buy it," said Erin Shields Britt of the Health and Human Services Department. "We're no longer going to subsidize the care of those who can afford to buy insurance but make a choice not to buy it."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/tax-penalty-hit-6m-uninsured-people-17273937

Medicaid has been expanded under the reform act. Medicaid will pay for health care for the poor. Those who don't qualify for Medicaid but can't afford to buy insurance, will get their premiums subsidized by the govt.

THAT'S A GOOD DEAL. The govt is going to let some Americans, who are currently uninsured, get insurance. They'll be able to go for annual exams, get prescriptions filled, and other medical care.

I am totally in favor of this. This is a good thing. I didn't always feel this way. I had to be convinced. Also, this is partly how we pay for the high insurance costs for those who have pre-existing conditions but now can get ins., and those who can't get health care because they've hit the ins. company's cap. A win-win all around.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
17. The federal govt subsidizes, when a person can't get Medicaid.
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 08:19 PM
Sep 2012

What you are describing is where the bar/cutoff is. But it's the same thing: When a person can't get Medicaid, the fed. steps in.

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
19. Read the article and the graphs again, please
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 08:28 PM
Sep 2012

Anyone in the orange area above is stuck in a sort of no-man’s land: They’re both ineligible for tax subsidies but not covered under their state’s current Medicaid program.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
24. I admit I didn't pay much attention, because I knew already...
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 09:02 PM
Sep 2012

that no one would be made worse by the reform. Those who qualify for Medicaid, get that. I didn't realize there was that gap when a state opts out. But their position stays the same as it is now. No difference. The penalty applies only to those over the "qualifies for subsidy" line.

Moosepoop

(1,917 posts)
22. Did you even read the article you posted?
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 08:55 PM
Sep 2012

Beyond the first four paragraphs, that is? The answer to your question is right there in the your article -- those who would have been eligible for Medicaid but live in
states that have opted out will be exempted from the penalty.

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
26. Did you read my response?
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 10:25 PM
Sep 2012

My response didn't refer to the penalty; I was responding to the (erroneous) claim that those who won't be covered under Medicaid will receive a government subsidy to purchase health insurance.

spedtr90

(719 posts)
12. What promise is broken?
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 08:00 PM
Sep 2012

CBO's projected numbers are not the issue. Those numbers are twisted into a pretzel by saying these people will be paying a tax. That is only true if they choose to not purchase insurance. Nothing new here.

"This (analysis) doesn't change the basic fact that the individual responsibility policy will only affect people who can afford health care but choose not to buy it," said Erin Shields Britt of the Health and Human Services Department. "We're no longer going to subsidize the care of those who can afford to buy insurance but make a choice not to buy it."

The law provides government aid to help middle-class and low-income households afford coverage.

Freedom to choose. Help for those who choose insurance and cannot afford it.

Bogus headline.

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
16. Roughly how many middle-class and low-income households will receive subsidies?
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 08:19 PM
Sep 2012

And, uh, what, precisely, will be the criteria to determine "who can afford" to purchase some nebulous private coverage and who can't?

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
25. Nope, the answers to my questions are not in the link you provided
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 10:22 PM
Sep 2012

So my questions remain unanswered.

 

railsback

(1,881 posts)
13. This is based on current conditions
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 08:03 PM
Sep 2012

The article states that when the law goes into affect, most will be subsidized to purchase insurance. Kind of a pointless article, unless the intent was to rattle some cages for attention, since its pretty much guaranteed that most factored into these numbers will gladly get insurance they were previously unable to afford.

GreydeeThos

(958 posts)
14. President Obama is not raising the taxes for six million people
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 08:07 PM
Sep 2012

The reason so many people are looking at a potential tax increase is because the do nothing Republicans in Congress have stifled every Democratic piece of legislation to boost the economy. Had the President's proposals to spur economic growth been implemented in Congress, there would be quite a few more people employed in places of business that provide health insurance.

It is just plain wrong to blame the President when the true root cause of the problem is the Republicans.

 

davidn3600

(6,342 posts)
30. They might not be able to afford it...
Thu Sep 20, 2012, 12:23 AM
Sep 2012

taking the penalty would be cheaper. And in the end they are still uninsured.

Im sorry but nothing other than a single payer system is going to work. If they were not going to do that then they should not have bothered doing anything at all.

 

jbgood1977

(91 posts)
29. So I'm unemployed (over a year and counting) living with my mother
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 11:50 PM
Sep 2012

Dad died last year and she needs help and now I'm going to be charged by my government???

It sux to be taxed just for being alive.

SILVER__FOX52

(535 posts)
31. This is simple fairness...........
Thu Sep 20, 2012, 12:31 AM
Sep 2012

The penalty tops out at a small amount. This "penalty" or what ever you want to call it, has got to exist to be equitable.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Tax penalty to hit nearly...