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 Obamas 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
silverweb
(16,402 posts)[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)Ok, whatever you say.
[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]This article that uses projections from the CBO to frighten and smear.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)brentspeak
(18,290 posts)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)"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)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)right
winstars
(4,214 posts)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)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.
[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]You took the time to say much better what I was sputtering. Thanks.
FailureToCommunicate
(13,989 posts)A high proportion of thoughtful, gracious people.
silverweb
(16,402 posts)[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.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)"We will fix it later"
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)"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.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)And so what happens if a state opts out of the Medicaid expansion?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/05/what-happens-if-a-state-opts-out-of-medicaid-in-one-chart/
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)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)Anyone in the orange area above is stuck in a sort of no-mans land: Theyre both ineligible for tax subsidies but not covered under their states current Medicaid program.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)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)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)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)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)And, uh, what, precisely, will be the criteria to determine "who can afford" to purchase some nebulous private coverage and who can't?
Moosepoop
(1,917 posts)You can use this to do your own homework instead of asking others to do it for you.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)So my questions remain unanswered.
railsback
(1,881 posts)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)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.
Blue Idaho
(4,988 posts)Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)This isn't rocket science.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)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)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)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.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)That's what they were saying all along.