Thread: Do you support Obama Care ?

IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family
By Matt Cover January 31, 2013 - 2:45 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. http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/REG-148500-12%20FR.pdf

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)

.Home » News
IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family
January 31, 2013 - 2:45 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Matt Cover
Subscribe to Matt Cover RSS
Follow Matt Cover on Twitter 86.9K 6187
President Barack Obama hugs HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi after signing the Obamacare law on March 23, 2010. (White House photo/Pete Souza)
(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).”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-...e-20000-family

comments

It’ll be a ‘Train Wreck’ but it’ll be FREE!!!! /sarc.

Math is hard: DNC tweets about ‘free’ coverage with Obamacare; Citizens school
http://twitchy.com/2013/04/30/...

Do you even know what "free" means? RT "@TheDemocrats 54 million Americans now have free coverage for preventative services. #ObamaCare
(@mooshakins) April 30, 2013

54 million Americans now have free coverage for preventative services. #ObamaCare—

The Democrats (@TheDemocrats) April 30, 2013

Excuse us while we pick ourselves up from off the floor, where we have collapsed in a fit of giggles. Free.

...

"We have to pass the bill before we can see what's in it."

- Nancy Pelosi. Mar. 2010

"The healthcare bill is not a tax."

- Barack Hussein Obama. June. 2012

I thought this was a "tax" - not a "penalty" - according to John Roberts. Seems like we need to kick this back to SCOTUS to require Congress to amend all Obamacare documentation to refer to the penalty as a tax in order for the law to apply. Then let Congress vote on changing that terminology. I'm just a regular guy, but this seems pretty simple to me.

...

The keyword in this whole issue is 'OBEY' ...

"IRS set in law the rules for implementing the penalty Americans must pay if they fail to obey Obamacare's mandate to buy insurance."

Obamacare is inherently INVENTING crimes... How is this any different from a full Dictatorship? The biggest problem amongst the 400 million citizens is a belief that the American Republic still exists... it's been dead for over a hundred years... we have a 'right' to vote.. but for whom? puppets! take 2004 as an example: Bush v. Kerry... both members of Skull and Bones... both cronies from Yale... think Bush was different than Obama? His grandpa was a main player in supporting the beginnings of the Soviet Union... goes on and on... saying that the gov represents us is like saying the butcher represents his cattle... he gives them food and shelter, but in the end he drops the axe...

...

Obamacare is an income tax. IRS Agents (tax collectors) are going to TAKE by FORCE your money.

HERE'S A TEST for tax professionals, including IRS AGENTS, Where is ONE and ONLY legal definition of Exempt income codified in Income tax law?

ANSWER: 26 CFR 1.861-8T(d)(2)(ii) and 26 CFR 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)

According to US tax law, most Americans DON'T OWE ANY income tax. Of course, the perps will say Sec. 861 is frivolous, yet there it is, definition of Exempt income IS codified in Sec. 861.

Stop funding the gravy train of tyranny. Obey your written laws.

They were designed to protect you from the corrupt.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-...e-20000-family

Obamacare: The Kiss Of Death
Posted on June 4 2013 by Conservative Daily



Over the past few months we’ve joked that Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is the head cheerleader for Obamacare, despite her acknowledgement that the legislation is confusing, and “no one really anticipated” all the complexities involved.

It seems our label was correct, and we are considering sending Sebelius a set of pom-poms—with a list of possible attorneys, because she is skating dangerously close to breaking the law if she hasn’t in fact already done so.

The Washington Post reported that Sebelius was going “hat in hand” asking health industry officials to fund nonprofits promoting Obamacare. Do you think this might be a conflict of interest? With this administration…are you kidding? One of the organizations Sebelius is fundraising for is Enroll America, which is run by a former Obama administration and campaign worker. Enroll America’s website states: “Enroll America is a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization whose mission is to maximize the number of uninsured Americans who enroll in health coverage made available by the Affordable Care Act.”

Political analyst David Gergen warned, “there are Republicans who believe that Kathleen Sebelius as secretary of HHS going around asking for money from corporations to fund ObamaCare, when these are the very corporations that she's overseeing in a regulatory way, and that has all sorts of scandal implications.”

There are so many other scandals going on at 1600 Pennsylvania these days, the mainstream media can be partially forgiven for ignoring this one. But Congress needs to be told the American people are watching this incestuous behavior.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) has raised the issue of legality, warning that it would be a criminal violation if Sebelius were coordinating the private sector “to do something that Congress has refused to do." It is against federal law if she approached these industry groups asking for money as HHS Secretary and not a private citizen.

Obamacare is so bad they’re spending money on PR campaigns and sending officials out to recruit supporters, even though unions are revolting against it, doctors are leaving practice, hospitals are closing, research is showing premiums are rising and the law remains unpopular with the American people.

Even Democrats are bailing. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) has said the law’s implementation could be a “train wreck.” Democrats tried to stop an Obamacare medical device tax from hitting in January, saying it could devastate our already weak economy.

We continue to believe this is a great time to influence Congress to defund and repeal Obamacare, because avid supporters are jumping ship. Still, there is a party line problem. On May 16th, the House of Representatives voted 229-195 to repeal it, and only two Democrats joined them. We are willing to bet many more will come on board if the news continues to seep out about Obamacare’s problems, especially since next year is an election year. Labor unions are being particularly vocal about disliking it, and they are always willing to open their pockets to Democrats in need of campaign money. But, 2014 may be different if Democrats close their eyes and shut their ears to the deafening sounds of this tragedy.

http://www.conservative-daily.com/20...kiss-of-death/

comments

Obamacare is terrible for America. We are going to keep up pressure to defund and repeal, and we want to make sure the Obama-leaning IRS stays out of it. Members of Congress must be put on notice: Obamacare is terrible for America, we are committed to fighting it, and we will hold them accountable for their actions relating to it....

too much botox ??

Pelosi on Obamacare: Hey now, I never said premiums wouldn’t go up
By Doug Powers • June 8, 2013 08:44 AM

This certainly wasn’t the sales pitch before we were being asked to pass it to find out what’s in it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=VmBEQYMIWl4

I don’t remember saying that everybody in the country would have a lower premium,
because everybody in the country doesn’t have health insurance,
so how could it be lower.

Last summer on Meet the Press: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/48031526/n.../#.UbFf_-tAvsU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqONZ...layer_embedded

It’s — they’ll bring it up, and when they bring it up they will ask for repeal, repeal of all the things I said that help children, help young adults, help seniors, help men or women who may have prostate cancer, breast cancer, whatever it is, any precondition. And everybody will have lower rates, better quality care and better access. So that’s what they want to repeal, we’re happy to have that debate.

Well, not everybody. Tens of millions will still not have coverage even once Obamacare is in full swing, which is strange since the purported goal of the law was to cover the those very people.

There is also an “out” built into the Affordable Care Act in the event they find it unaffordable: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-who-they-are/

This analysis suggests that the uninsured under Obamacare will be heavily low-income, even though many of those people will have access to subsidized health insurance. Still, some might not find it affordable, and the health care law does allow for an exemption from the individual mandate for those who cannot find affordable coverage (defined as insurance that costs less than 9.5 percent of an individual’s income).

Possibly the biggest failure of Obamacare is that it doesn’t provide those who can’t afford the Affordable Care with a cheap mini-plan that would at least cover their treatment for an accidental irony overdose.


**Written by Doug Powers http://michellemalkin.com/2013/06/08...care-premiums/

comments

The real goal was NEVER to provide health care insurance to everyone. It was to allow the Federal government to control you and intrude into your personal life.

..

Another one of those cases where we were called 'conspiracy theorists' for saying this...doesn't seem to far fetched right now, does it? They knew we were right all along and needed to deflect attention from the facts used in the argument. They had to attack the messenger. It's so Alinsky.

..

So let's parse the entire new statement...

I don’t remember saying that everybody in the country would have a lower premium, because everybody in the country doesn’t have health insurance, so how could it be lower.

Ok, so the people who didn't have insurance will have to pay more since they are now paying something, which is more than nothing. Got it.

And the people who were paying something are now going to have to pay more to help cover the cost of the people with pre-existing conditions, as well as the people who can't afford it. So they'll have to pay more, too.

So what you really meant to say was that a small segment of the population will get to pay lower premiums, and everybody else will have to pay more.

Where does the "Affordable" part come in again?

'Sarah has been left to die': Parents of 10-year-old girl with cystic fibrosis in need of lung donation plead with public to help save their daughter

•Parents of Sarah Murnaghan ask for help from any family who is able to provide a life-saving lung for their daughter

•On the waiting list for 18 months, Sarah is too young to receive an adult lung through the donor network

Parents say Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius' decision not to override the policy is 'devastating'

By Lydia Warren and Anna Sanders
PUBLISHED: 22:43 EST, 2 June 2013



The Murnaghans issued the call-to-arms after unsuccessful efforts by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to help Sarah.

Though Sebelius asked for the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network to review the policy on lung allocation in a letter Friday, according to The Associated Press, she did not override it. "Secretary Sebelius' decision to not exercise her very clear authority under the law to intervene and mandate a variance that would help save Sarah's life is devastating,' Sarah's parents said in the statement according to the Daily News.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2VpSDI7nH

Remeber ... it's 'for the children' ....

Obamacare Forces Employee Hours to Be Cut at Indiana Schools
12:02 PM, Jun 10, 2013 • By DANIEL HALPER

Obamacare regulations are forcing employers to cut employee hours at Indiana schools, according to the Courier-Journal. http://www.courier-journal.com/artic...mers-cut-hours

“Schools across Indiana are cutting back the hours of teacher assistants, bus drivers, cafeteria workers and other aides to avoid having to offer them health insurance under the federal health care employer mandate that begins next year,”

•Lafayette School Corporation Has Had To Cut The Hours Of 150 Non-Certified Employees. “‘We cannot go out and raise the price of our product to assist us covering this. We would have to go the taxpayers and ask for some type of increase and I just don’t see that happening,’ said Les Huddle, superintendent of the Lafayette School Corporation, where more than 150 of the schools approximately 600 non-certified employees have had their hours reduced to meet the federal definition of part-time.”

(Maureen Groppe, “Indiana Schools’ Dilemma: Offer Health Insurance To Part-Timers Or Cut Hours,” Courier-Journal, 6/8/13)

•The Shelbyville Central School System Is Cutting Hours For Teacher Aides, Substitutes, Bus Drivers And Coaches.“The Shelbyville Central School System likewise is cutting back the hours of about 100 instructional aides as well as hours for some substitute teachers, bus drivers and coaches.”

(Maureen Groppe, “Indiana Schools’ Dilemma: Offer Health Insurance To Part-Timers Or Cut Hours,” Courier-Journal, 6/8/13)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ls_734139.html

AED Reclassification – When Near Perfect is Not Enough for the FDA
Posted June 10th, 2013 by rlazar

The FDA is proposing to reclassify AEDs as Class III medical devices. This change will require manufacturers to go through a much more time consuming and costly regulatory process before their AEDs can be sold.

Why? According to the agency’s proposed rule, the primary purpose of reclassification is to reduce the risk of illness or injury resulting from AED failures. Yet, a study relied upon by the agency finds that AEDs work as intended during rescue attempts greater than 99% of the time.

This is a clear example of the perfect as the enemy of the good (or even great) driving a regulatory action that will cost lives and money with very little public health benefit.

The FDA’s main stated concerns are high AED recall rates and the associated risk of device failure. The agency relies heavily on a 2006 study (1) co-authored by Jignesh Shah, MD, and William Maisel, MD, MPH, to support its reclassification rule. Interestingly, Dr. Maisel is now deputy director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

From my perspective, the fundamental issue the agency should be examining is whether AED failures occurred during rescue attempts and resulted in sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) patient deaths. AED failures alone, while they may need to be addressed, are insufficient to justify this rule if the failures are identified when the devices are in standby mode and corrected before they are used on patients.

With this question in mind, let’s look at the data. The American Heart Association calculates there are about 360,000 out-of-hospital SCA events in the U.S. every year (2). AEDs are used by bystanders trying to save SCA victims anywhere from 2.1% (3) to 3.7% (4) of the time. This tells us AEDs are used before EMS arrives between 7,560 and 13,320 times per year. However, national SCA survival rates are less than 8% largely because a defibrillator does not arrive in time. Without defibrillation, SCA victims have almost no chance of surviving.

The Maisel study says there were 370 adverse event reports involving a death over a 10 year period, but acknowledges “it is not possible to predict whether a given device malfunction directly led to a patient’s death.” Let’s accept for the sake of discussion that they did. (Interestingly, the FDA’s Executive Summary distributed at the January 25, 2011 Circulatory System Panel meeting convened to examine AED reclassification says only that “some” AED failures occurred during a rescue attempt but does not attempt to quantify how many.)

75,600 AED uses over 10 years (a 2.1% AED use rate), with 370 adverse events, translates into an AED failure rate of 0.49%, meaning AEDs worked as intended 99.51% of the time. 133,200 AED uses over 10 years (a 3.7% AED use rate), with 370 adverse events, translates into an AED failure rate of 0.28%, meaning AEDs worked as intended 99.72% of the time. The Maisel study suggests AEDs were used hundreds of thousands of times during the study period (I find no data supporting this statement), which would mean an even lower AED failure rate (e.g., 200,000 AED uses over 10 years would translate into an AED failure rate of just 0.19%). And, despite the identified AED recalls, the study notes that thousands of lives were saved. Seems to me it is hard to justify AED reclassification based on this data. (Some additional perspective: Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators (ICDs) have a failure rate as high as 1-2% (5)).

Another important issue relates to how many of these 370 adverse events could have been prevented by proper human intervention. It is likely the vast majority of issues would have been detected and corrected prior to attempted use if the AEDs were properly inspected and maintained. Researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham recently evaluated 5 years of data from Alabama communities involved in the National Institutes of Health Public Access Defibrillation (PAD) trial (6). They found over 50% of AEDs were not inspected in the prior 12 months, over 50% had expired electrodes, 25% had expired batteries, and 33% had unresolved maintenance alerts. In another study, 32 PAD sites were evaluated for compliance with AHA PAD site recommendations (7). None did.

These are people problems, not device problems that can be addressed through more FDA regulation. Clearly, efforts aimed at improving AED program performance over long periods of time will save more lives than AED reclassification.


One final point. Bystander AED use occurs during fewer than 4% of out-of-hospital SCA events. One reason for this is the lack of a sufficient number of AEDs available for use. Between 1.5 and 2.4 million AEDs are now found in public settings. Because AEDs have a limited coverage radius of no more than 300 feet, over 30 million AEDs are needed to meaningfully cover the urbanized U.S. Most AEDs currently in public settings were purchased and placed voluntarily by their owners. There are few mandates and no insurance reimbursement. Unlike other public safety initiatives (police, fire, EMS), early defibrillation is not supported by tax dollars (other than government deployed AEDs) though this activity benefits the community-at-large. Thus, every effort should be made to encourage rather than discourage private sector involvement.

The FDA’s reclassification rule will result in a longer time to market for new devices (138 days today versus 540 days under the more onerous regulatory pathway) and much higher regulatory compliance costs ($5,000 today versus more than $260,000 under the new regulatory regime) (8). This approach will slow innovation, drive up the costs of these life saving devices, and inhibit the rate of growth for AED deployment. This, in turn, will cost lives because the problem of having an insufficient number of public access AEDs will persist longer than if the rule is not adopted. All for a device that works as intended over 99% of the time.

The FDA certainly has a role to play in ensuring AED safety and quality. An alternative regulatory path can achieve this result while preserving the benefits of rapid public access defibrillation. Basically, continuing to regulate AEDs as they are today but with additional regulatory oversight. That is the better approach and the approach that will save more lives. After all, that is supposed to be the FDA’s primary mission.

Richard A. Lazar
President
Readiness Systems, LLC
[email protected]
www.readisys.com

Originally published May 15, 2013 at http://www.readisys.com/aed-reclassi...-not-enough-fo....
Richard A. Lazar's official public comment on the FDA's proposed order can be found at:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documen...13-N-0234-0004
REFERENCES
(1) Recalls and Safety Alerts Affecting Automated External Defibrillators
(http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....ticleid=203141)
(2) AHA Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics – 2013
(http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/...b013e31828124a...)
(3) Survival After Application of Automatic External Defibrillators Before Arrival of Emergency Medical Services
(www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20394876)
(4) Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Surveillance — Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (CARES), United States, October 1, 2005–December 31, 2010
(www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6008a1.htm)
(5) Patient Management: When ICD Leads Go Awry
(http://www.cardiovascularbusiness.co...patient-manage...)
(6) Public Access to Defibrillation: a Five-Year Follow-Up; Shannon Stephens, Grant Cobb, Henry Wang (not yet published)
(7) Community public access sites: Compliance with American Heart Association recommendations
(http://www.med.upenn.edu/myheartmap/...tyPADsites.pdf)
(8) AED manufacturers get regulatory jolt
(www.dotmed.com/news/story/20830?p_begin=4)