WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly 6 million Americans — most of them in the middle class — will face a tax penalty for not carrying medical coverage once President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul law is fully in place, congressional budget analysts said Wednesday.
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 significantly higher than a previous projection by the same office in 2010, shortly after the law passed.
… 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.
Average penalty: about $1,200 in 2016.
When they get dumped onto the individual private insurance market after their employers decide it’s too expensive to provide health care coverage, a lot more people will end up having to pay the penalty because they cannot afford the insurance (families with their own health insurance plans paid $414 per month on average in 2011). In fact, the penalty would be less than the average annual deductible of $2,935 for individuals and $3,879 for families.
Remember, in 2008 candidate Obama campaigned AGAINST the individual mandate, ridiculing it by saying, “if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house.” And he campaigned FOR the public option, which the ACA does not have (or any other effective cost controls).
#1 by brewski on September 19, 2012 - 5:49 pm
Tax on the Middle Class!
He LIED!
Where is Cliff now?
#2 by Richard Warnick on September 19, 2012 - 6:03 pm
Or you could say that the health care “reform” that candidate Obama described in 2008 was not what ultimately passed Congress and got signed into law.
#3 by brewski on September 19, 2012 - 6:10 pm
In other words…he LIED!
#4 by Larry Bergan on September 19, 2012 - 10:43 pm
brewski/noname:
Settle the crap down, dude!
He LIED!, He LIED!, He LIED!, He LIED!
Let’s see here, where did you hear that before: ENDLESSLY! You were old enough, or you wouldn’t be bringing this up.
We have a new sex scandal now and it involves Mitt Romney’s fund raising at places that sponsor sex orgies; maybe even bad language.
Let me reiterate: Democrats have to go under oath, Republicans NEVER do.
But keep beating the drum. We all have our miserable jobs.
#5 by brewski on September 20, 2012 - 5:40 am
Obama LIED!
#6 by cav on September 20, 2012 - 9:00 am
Is it: Pick up some insurance, or the costs will be extracted from your ‘entitlements’ by the IRS?
Establishing a massive dollar pool for the use of the health-care industry is a bottom line if we’re to reduce those costs.
Make your choices, folks.
#7 by cav on September 20, 2012 - 9:05 am
Ten Huge Issues Being Ignored In The Presidential Campaign
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/09/19/857971/ten-huge-issues-being-ignored-in-the-presidential-campaign/
#8 by Richard Warnick on September 20, 2012 - 9:31 am
Obama over-delivered on his promise, he signed into law an extension of all the Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich.
#9 by Richard Warnick on September 20, 2012 - 9:35 am
cav–
TP didn’t mention the climate crisis (and neither do the major party candidates). The amount of ice in the Arctic Ocean shrank to an all-time low this year.
#10 by brewski on September 20, 2012 - 9:54 am
TP didn’t mention the 60,000,000 left uninsured by Obamacare.
TP didn’t mention the 6,000,000 mostly middle class people who will pay a new tax under Obamacare.
TP didn’t mention the excise tax on pacemakers, blood glucose meters and all other devices
TP didn’t mention having the #69 tax code in the world.
#11 by Richard Warnick on September 20, 2012 - 10:20 am
brewski–
There are only 50 million Americans without health insurance now. Are you saying that the ACA is going to increase that number? Where do you get that?
#12 by brewski on September 20, 2012 - 11:01 am
Sorry, you are correct. I was reading the table wrong. It is 60 million before ACA and 30 million after ACA by 2022. So 30 million will still be uninsured even with the passing of the the health care non-reform. I stand corrected.
#13 by Richard Warnick on September 20, 2012 - 11:24 am
What table are you reading?
#14 by brewski on September 20, 2012 - 3:23 pm
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43472-07-24-2012-CoverageEstimates.pdf
Table 3
Which is page 20 of 21
#15 by brewski on September 20, 2012 - 3:36 pm
As a general observation, it is generally better to read source documents such as these CBO reports, or OECD reports or other reports from professional staff. Whenever I read some headline from someone else referring to a source, I skip the story and go to the source. So if TMP says “CBO report proves Republicans eat babies” I know to go to the CBO study to find out what they really mean. Usually there is some half nugget that people like TPM pull out which was not the point of the report at all, and more often than not misinterprets what the report actually says.
So yes, Obamacare will leave 30 million uninsured and impose new taxes on millions of people in the middle class.
Speaking of which, one of my best friends is very very middle class, has no insurance at all and is married and has 3 young kids. So yesterday one of his kids broke his arm. They rush to the doctor, it gets taken care of, the kid got the best treatment regardless of not having any insurance, and no Medicaid or anything else either. So at the end of it all the hospital sits down with him about payment. They are used to this. They do this every day. They immediately offered him a huge discount off the “list” price. He will pay out of his own pocket. These people are not wealthy at all. Lives on a street which is semi-barrio. Was a fatal shooting there not too long ago. Anyway, yes, it is a sucky system and yes something like Canada would be a lot better. But it is inaccurate to say that people without insurance don’t get care when they need it.
#16 by Richard Warnick on September 20, 2012 - 4:01 pm
I do go to original sources whenever I can, and I routinely link to them so that others can refer to them.
Did you happen to notice the footnote below the table that says the estimated 30 million uninsured in the year 2022 includes “unauthorized immigrants as well as people who are eligible for, but not enrolled in, Medicaid”?
On page 14, the report explains the Medicaid problem: “The more limited Medicaid expansions that are projected to result from the Supreme Court’s decision will probably lead to a gap in access to coverage for some people below the federal poverty level.” Translation: governors and legislatures in the red states are going to screw the uninsured.
It’s kind of funny that the right-wing websites are jumping for joy about this CBO report, because it simply reflects likely consequences of the Republican YOYO (you’re on your own) approach to health care at the state level.
Thanks for your anecdote. I have been in the individual private health insurance market myself. Not a fun place to be, and I did the logical thing and elected to go without the overpriced insurance. It is indeed a lot cheaper just to pay cash.
You run a risk that way, but even if you pay for insurance there is no guarantee that you will be covered, or that they won’t drop you if you’re no longer profitable. 78 percent of the medical bankruptcies in America are people who had insurance.
#17 by brewski on September 20, 2012 - 7:19 pm
You spend a lot of time and effort to use paid partisan hacks as “sources”. Oooooohhhhhh, what did Rachel Maddow say today that quotes some TPC “study” which ends up being factually wrong about what companies pay how much in taxes. Jokers quoting jokers and you repeat it.
#18 by anon on September 20, 2012 - 9:20 pm
Rachel MAdcow supported every left of Freddy Mercury cause that comes down the pike..she is a great bitch to trot out if you are a quasi intellectual lefty with penchant for sucking lefty establishment strap on.
I think the entirety of 6 months of her show on MSNBC equals a week of Limbaugh listeners, probably even worse than that for her and the network.
#19 by cav on September 21, 2012 - 8:36 am
B…But Willard would have become one of the moochers if he’d found an off-shore account or sufficiently well connected / versed accountant to get him into the 0% bracket. Instead he sobs – or will sob, at least till the skull and cross-boned make him their offer of membership in the one cult weirder than The Church. There’s a competition going on.
#20 by Richard Warnick on September 21, 2012 - 8:51 am
brewski–
Here we go again. When have Maddow and/or Tax Policy Center been wrong on the facts?
Glenn–
MSNBC’s bias is pro-establishment Democratic Party, not progressive. Ask Keith Olbermann and Cenk Uygur.
#21 by anon on September 21, 2012 - 10:43 am
Watch everyone in the paint close their bank accounts..this fiasco goes on and on…
#22 by brewski on September 21, 2012 - 10:59 am
Many times. Already proven.
#23 by Richard Warnick on September 21, 2012 - 11:51 am
You can’t give even one example.
#24 by brewski on September 21, 2012 - 11:56 am
Already did dozens of times. Not my fault if you can’t remember them.
#25 by brewski on September 21, 2012 - 12:49 pm
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/rachel-maddow/statements/byruling/false/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/rachel-maddow/statements/byruling/barely-true/
I know you worship Maddow since she parrots to you what you have already concluded without actually knowing anything. So I am sorry to burst your bubble. She LIES.
#26 by Richard Warnick on September 21, 2012 - 1:23 pm
Politifact got it wrong. The Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau wrote a confusing memo that tried to disguise a budget deficit as a surplus. But Rachel Maddow reported accurately that Wisconsin had a net $137 million shortfall.
Politifact also seized on three snarky remarks where Rachel was using hyperbole for humorous effect, and decided to fact-check?
If only they would hold right-wing media to such strict standards. I looked up Gretchen Carlson, and they only fact-checked her once.
#27 by brewski on September 21, 2012 - 2:02 pm
How’s that Kool Aid tasting?
“The state is not on track to end this fiscal year with “a slight surplus.” It is facing a $137 million deficit this fiscal year and a $3.6 billion deficit in the next two-year budget cycle.”
Annenberg
ww.factcheck.org/2011/03/wisconsins-baffling-budget-battle/
#28 by Richard Warnick on September 21, 2012 - 2:23 pm
The truth is Scott Walker engineered a crisis out of a routine budget shortfall, and used it as an excuse to ram through tax cuts for the rich and budget cuts for everyone else according to the GOP playbook.
Rachel Maddow called him on it, and understandably the right-wingers are angry. Politifact got it wrong.
#29 by brewski on September 21, 2012 - 2:38 pm
And all the other ones?
#30 by Richard Warnick on September 21, 2012 - 2:52 pm
You mean the three snarky comments that Politifact decided to take seriously?
What if Politifact ever turned on the Faux News Channel?
#31 by brewski on September 21, 2012 - 3:04 pm
If we eliminated all of Maddow’s snarky comments then there wouldn’t be anything left. That’s all she does when she isn’t lying.
Those other three statements are declarative statements which are either true or not. They are not.
So 0 – 4 with one apology for being a liar.
So now you are comparing Maddow to Fox? I Agree, they are the same, except Fox has more liberals than MSNBC has conservatives.
#32 by anon on September 21, 2012 - 3:04 pm
Something had to get done, the State of Wisconsin cannot print up money and turn it into debt like the feds
Did you that public employee unions in socialist countries have no right to collective bargaining? Just in case you did not know
#33 by Richard Warnick on September 22, 2012 - 11:38 am
Glenn–
So, your position is that all people who work for a living ought to suffer the same as the worst-treated workers in the world? That’s crazy. Why don’t we raise the standard for all?
#34 by Richard Warnick on September 22, 2012 - 11:45 am
brewski–
Jon Stewart stated what everyone knows:
Politifact, ever-anxious to please right-wingers, fact-checked Stewart using irrelevant information.
#35 by brewski on September 22, 2012 - 1:07 pm
I have no idea what Jon Stewart or Fox News has to do with Maddow being a pathological liar.
#36 by Richard Warnick on September 22, 2012 - 4:41 pm
The point is, MSNBC viewers are well-informed because we get accurate information. If Rachel Maddow or another host gets something wrong, they always issue a correction. Faux News Channel is wrong all the time, on purpose.
#37 by Jonesy on September 22, 2012 - 4:57 pm
None of those people are suffering, they are just not getting what they want due to the over spending and lack of means of their State government and due to that there is nothing for it but no raises and possible layoffs Point is n places as egalitarian as Germany, public employees have no right to collectively bargain, part of the deal with the job choice, job security, lower pay, decent pension, no collective bargaining, period
#38 by brewski on September 22, 2012 - 6:25 pm
The point is that Rachel Maddow and others lie and you won’t admit it. They tell you the lies you want to hear since it makes you feel better. It is all about you and your uninformed uneducated prejudiced conclusions which they parrot back to you and bathe you in your own delusional conceit. You asked me to show you just one lie and I gace you several and since then you have dodged and ducked. That is the point. You are not well informed. You are astonishingly uninformed and misinformed.
#39 by cav on September 22, 2012 - 7:10 pm
Bowing to brew=bubbley, never was there an ‘expert’- so correct, so frequently – well, in fact ALWAYS. And such a projector. Why he projects like Todd-A-O at the Cine-Max.
A real thing of beauty.
#40 by brewski on September 22, 2012 - 9:00 pm
Huh?
#41 by Richard Warnick on September 23, 2012 - 8:53 am
Ha.
#42 by brewski on January 7, 2013 - 8:25 am
The Affordable Care Act has contributed to the rise in premiums, especially in the individual market. One thing the Affordable Care Act did right away was make health insurance benefit packages more robust. It required insurance companies to cover preventive care at no cost, for example, and allowed parents to keep their kids on their plans up to age 26.
Those changes are not, however, free for insurance companies. Insurers have to factor in those young adults and the provision of preventive services into the overall premium cost for their policies. Consulting firm Aon Hewitt says that, in the large employer market, where benefit packages were pretty robust, this was a really small change. But in the individual market, where coverage tended to be skimpier, adding in those additional benefits caused insurance premiums to increase by just under 5 percent.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/06/five-facts-about-obamacare-and-health-premiums/
#43 by cav on January 7, 2013 - 10:11 am
If there’s any bounce at the bottom of the Fictional Cliff, will it be high enough to touch the Debt Ceiling, or will we have to amplify the effort by having Moodys step in and do what they do. It’s gonna cost extra it we do that.
Dim Leftist
#44 by cav on January 7, 2013 - 10:20 am
Krugman’s now calling for the $1 trillion platinum coin
#45 by brewski on January 7, 2013 - 3:45 pm
They’ll need that in circulation so people can pay their insurance premiums:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-12/aetna-ceo-sees-obama-health-law-doubling-some-premiums.html
#46 by cav on January 7, 2013 - 3:46 pm
This chart:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/07/this-is-what-would-happen-if-we-breach-the-debt-ceiling/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein
is like the maps showing where the Next Big Super-Storm is going to come crashing ashore. Only this storm is the Debt-Ceiling!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!OMG..eleventy!
#47 by cav on January 7, 2013 - 3:51 pm
Since the coin would be minted to “commemorate” an event, I suggest putting an elephant circle jerk on .one side, with the face of Ronald Reagan on the other, and instead of the words “In God We Trust”, “Don’t Look Down!”
One coin oughta do, but I’d back it up while the Mint is striking.
#48 by brewski on January 7, 2013 - 4:56 pm
Ezra uses several words incorrectly. This is the problem when you have poli majors who have never held a real job trying to write about topics they know nothing about.
Obama voted against increasing the debt ceiling. Put his face on it with the motto “Do as I say, not as I do”.
#49 by Richard Warnick on January 7, 2013 - 5:38 pm
If I were a Republican leader, I might give some thought to strengthening the country that pays my salary. What’s the upside to a debt-ceiling shutdown or a government shutdown?
#50 by brewski on January 7, 2013 - 5:55 pm
Ask Obama and Reid when they voted for a shutdown.
#51 by Ronald D. Hunt on January 8, 2013 - 12:22 am
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/07/wendys-obamacare_n_2425066.html
lol, the silliness some people are going to, for the purpose of evading taxes.
of course that Wendy’s franchise is going to be in for one hell of a shock come tax day when they find out that the employer mandate is calculated based on FTE for part time workers……
http://www.irs.gov/irb/2011-21_IRB/ar07.html#d0e155
“C. Full-Time Equivalents for Determining Applicable Large Employer Status
In determining whether an employer is an applicable large employer for the current calendar year, § 4980H provides that the employer is required to calculate the number of FTEs it employed during the preceding calendar year and count each such FTE as one FT employee for that year. All employees (including seasonal employees) who were not full-time employees for any month in the preceding calendar year are included in calculating the employer’s FTEs for that month. The number of FTEs for each calendar month in the preceding calendar year would be determined using the following steps:
(1) Calculate the aggregate number of hours of service (but not more than 120 hours of service for any employee) for all employees who were not full-time employees for that month.
(2) Divide the total hours of service in step (1) by 120. This is the number of FTEs for the calendar month.
In determining the number of FTEs for each calendar month, fractions would be taken into account. For example, if in a calendar month employees who are not full-time employees work 1,260 hours, there would be 10.5 FTEs for that month. However, after adding the 12 monthly full-time employee and FTE totals, and dividing by 12 (the amount in Section IV.E, step (4) below), all fractions would be disregarded. For example, 49.9 FT employees for the preceding calendar year would be rounded down to 49 FT employees (and thus the employer would not be an applicable large employer in the current calendar year).”
#52 by brewski on January 8, 2013 - 8:43 am
This was predicted by the CBO. Per the CBO, fewer people will have employer provided health insurance than without it. Nice job Obama.
So even with the FTE calculation, employers will figure out how to make sure they stay at 49 FTEs and not 50. They will fire people. They will cut hours. They will not invest in expansion. It will cost millions of jobs. Nice job Obama.
#53 by brewski on January 8, 2013 - 9:30 am
RDH,
You are correct that even part time employees count as an FTE for the purpose of calculating whether or not an employer is a “large employer”.
However, even large employers are not required to provide health insurance to their part time employees who fall under the hours worked threshold. So there is still plenty of incentive for all employers to cut worker hours.
#54 by cav on January 8, 2013 - 10:16 am
I don’t get the incentive to keep employee numbers below 50. What kicks in at that number that won’t be made up by the embiggening of the enterprise?
#55 by Ronald D. Hunt on January 8, 2013 - 10:59 am
At exactly employee 51, the employer payroll tax goes up $2049 dollars on that employee and each employee after that number.
They still pay the tax penalty brewski, as those individuals are allowed into the exchange, they will still end up insured.
After then due these hour cuts and convert people to part time, they have to be really careful to not assign more then 30 hours per person on average, or the FTE will charge them more taxes then the person simply being declared full time and give 40 hours.
It is very common practice in retail for example, to give people 13 weeks of 36hours then 1 week of 18 hours ad infinitum repeat. State and Federal law already encourage gaming of the hour amounts, so the businesses that actually benefit from it already do it.
I predict that the Obamacare change given the low bar for the FTE calc(30hours per week) will result in more full time positions being made available.
That FTE calc is an awesome thing, I bet walmart hates it!
#56 by brewski on January 8, 2013 - 12:05 pm
You are close but not 100% correct.
The requirement has 2 parts:
1. Are you a “large employer”
2. Are you (each employee) a full time employee
If you are No to 1 then there is no mandate and no tax.
If you are Yes to 1 and No on 2, then there is also no penalty and no tax.
The number of hour threshold for 2 is not the same number for other purposes, so this law will encourage employers to not meet the test 1 above and also 2 above for each employee.
How do you get to the conclusion that “I predict that the Obamacare change given the low bar for the FTE calc(30hours per week) will result in more full time positions being made available.”
I don’t see the logic there.
#57 by Ronald D. Hunt on January 8, 2013 - 4:51 pm
The first 50 employees are exempt for all businesses.
Replace 3 full time workers with 6 part time workers doing 25hours a week each, and you go from an FTE of 3 to an FTE of 5.
Because it is set at 30 hours for the FTE calc and not 40, their is a 10hour difference benefit to actual full time employees.
If very many businesses attempt this move to part time nonsense, they will exhaust the supply of part time workers rapidly, and invariably end up working their part time workers over 30 hours per week.
When part time workers go over 30 hours per week, the part time workers will actually have a higher FTE then full time workers who no matter the number of hours always count as 1. It is actually easier to stay under the magic 50 number with full time workers then it is with part time workers.
Many businesses already attempt to exploit the part time “full timers” bit. If real hours are dropped to in fact really being part time, then increased part timer higher will have to fill the labor gap.
A large upswing in demand for part time workers, will not necessary mean those positions can all be filled, Even in this recession a 20% increase in demand for part time workers would lead to shortages of workers willing to work part time.
And again remember any “part time” worker going over 30 hours has a higher FTE then a full time worker.
All these businesses trying to game their way out of paying for a healthy workforce. I would have thought conservatives would be all for this, all of the low wage workers that will have some amount of coverage and take a fair bit of strain off of state Medicaid costs.
#58 by Richard Warnick on January 8, 2013 - 5:30 pm
What I don’t get is restaurant chains who want unhealthy employees. Those would be the ones to avoid, don’t you think?