Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:22 PM
brentspeak (16,567 posts)
Tax penalty to hit nearly 6M uninsured peopleLast edited Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:30 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
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, 3963 views
| Author | Time | Post | |
| brentspeak | Sep 2012 | OP | |
| silverweb | Sep 2012 | #1 | |
| brentspeak | Sep 2012 | #2 | |
| silverweb | Sep 2012 | #5 | |
| Bradical79 | Sep 2012 | #11 | |
| brentspeak | Sep 2012 | #18 | |
| thetonka | Sep 2012 | #33 | |
| Bradical79 | Sep 2012 | #10 | |
| leftyohiolib | Sep 2012 | #3 | |
| winstars | Sep 2012 | #8 | |
| PSPS | Sep 2012 | #4 | |
| silverweb | Sep 2012 | #6 | |
| FailureToCommunicate | Sep 2012 | #20 | |
| silverweb | Sep 2012 | #28 | |
| Mnpaul | Sep 2012 | #7 | |
| Honeycombe8 | Sep 2012 | #9 | |
| brentspeak | Sep 2012 | #15 | |
| Honeycombe8 | Sep 2012 | #17 | |
| brentspeak | Sep 2012 | #19 | |
| Honeycombe8 | Sep 2012 | #24 | |
| Moosepoop | Sep 2012 | #22 | |
| brentspeak | Sep 2012 | #26 | |
| spedtr90 | Sep 2012 | #12 | |
| brentspeak | Sep 2012 | #16 | |
| Moosepoop | Sep 2012 | #23 | |
| brentspeak | Sep 2012 | #25 | |
| railsback | Sep 2012 | #13 | |
| GreydeeThos | Sep 2012 | #14 | |
| Blue Idaho | Sep 2012 | #21 | |
| Zoeisright | Sep 2012 | #27 | |
| davidn3600 | Sep 2012 | #30 | |
| jbgood1977 | Sep 2012 | #29 | |
| SILVER__FOX52 | Sep 2012 | #31 | |
| MrSlayer | Sep 2012 | #32 |
Response to brentspeak (Original post)
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:30 PM
silverweb (12,978 posts)
1. Pure scare tactics.
|
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. |
Response to silverweb (Reply #1)
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:32 PM
brentspeak (16,567 posts)
2. Let's get this straight: You say the CBO is "intending to frighten people and smear the President"??
|
Last edited Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:33 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2) Ok, whatever you say.
|
Response to brentspeak (Reply #2)
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:41 PM
silverweb (12,978 posts)
5. No.
|
Last edited Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:41 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) This article that uses projections from the CBO to frighten and smear.
|
Response to silverweb (Reply #5)
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:51 PM
Bradical79 (416 posts)
11. I agree about the headline, but not the content of the article.
Response to silverweb (Reply #5)
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 08:23 PM
brentspeak (16,567 posts)
18. Since it's the CBO analysts who have announced new, revised projections on this
|
And the article merely reports on this, you are, in fact, saying that it is the CBO who is doing the "frightening" and "smearing".
|
Response to silverweb (Reply #5)
Thu Sep 20, 2012, 09:25 PM
thetonka (246 posts)
33. In contrast to the CBO projections being used to frighten and smear in favor of Obama
|
(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. |
Response to silverweb (Reply #1)
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:49 PM
Bradical79 (416 posts)
10. That doesn't make sense
|
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.
|
Response to brentspeak (Original post)
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:35 PM
leftyohiolib (3,129 posts)
3. we cant cite the cbo when it backs our opinions then blow it off when it doesnt - save that for the
|
right
|
Response to leftyohiolib (Reply #3)
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:49 PM
winstars (1,214 posts)
8. Of course we can, just like when we watch Joey Scar on Mourning Schmoe so we can complain here on DU
|
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. |
Response to brentspeak (Original post)
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:37 PM
PSPS (4,196 posts)
4. Pure "agenda" piece
|
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. |
Response to PSPS (Reply #4)
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:42 PM
silverweb (12,978 posts)
6. Exactly.
|
You took the time to say much better what I was sputtering. Thanks.
|
Response to silverweb (Reply #6)
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 08:40 PM
FailureToCommunicate (4,399 posts)
20. Your comment is so representative of one of DU's great strengths...
|
A high proportion of thoughtful, gracious people.
|
Response to FailureToCommunicate (Reply #20)
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 11:46 PM
silverweb (12,978 posts)
28. You're too kind.
|
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. |
Response to brentspeak (Original post)
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:48 PM
Mnpaul (1,417 posts)
7. Not to worry
|
"We will fix it later"
|
Response to brentspeak (Original post)
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:49 PM
Honeycombe8 (18,006 posts)
9. I found the art. on abcnews.com. The law doesn't affect those who can't afford it.
|
Last edited Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:56 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) "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. |
Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #9)
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 08:15 PM
brentspeak (16,567 posts)
15. "Medicaid has been expanded under the reform act"
|
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/ |
Response to brentspeak (Reply #15)
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 08:19 PM
Honeycombe8 (18,006 posts)
17. The federal govt subsidizes, when a person can't get Medicaid.
|
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.
|
Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #17)
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 08:28 PM
brentspeak (16,567 posts)
19. Read the article and the graphs again, please
|
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. |
Response to brentspeak (Reply #19)
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 09:02 PM
Honeycombe8 (18,006 posts)
24. I admit I didn't pay much attention, because I knew already...
|
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.
|
Response to brentspeak (Reply #15)
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 08:55 PM
Moosepoop (1,486 posts)
22. Did you even read the article you posted?
|
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. |
Response to Moosepoop (Reply #22)
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 10:25 PM
brentspeak (16,567 posts)
26. Did you read my response?
|
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.
|
Response to brentspeak (Original post)
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 08:00 PM
spedtr90 (624 posts)
12. What promise is broken?
|
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. |
Response to spedtr90 (Reply #12)
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 08:19 PM
brentspeak (16,567 posts)
16. Roughly how many middle-class and low-income households will receive subsidies?
|
And, uh, what, precisely, will be the criteria to determine "who can afford" to purchase some nebulous private coverage and who can't?
|
Response to brentspeak (Reply #16)
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 09:00 PM
Moosepoop (1,486 posts)
23. Here you go.
|
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/index.html
You can use this to do your own homework instead of asking others to do it for you. |
Response to Moosepoop (Reply #23)
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 10:22 PM
brentspeak (16,567 posts)
25. Nope, the answers to my questions are not in the link you provided
|
Last edited Wed Sep 19, 2012, 10:23 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) So my questions remain unanswered.
|
Response to brentspeak (Original post)
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 08:03 PM
railsback (611 posts)
13. This is based on current conditions
|
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.
|
Response to brentspeak (Original post)
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 08:07 PM
GreydeeThos (97 posts)
14. President Obama is not raising the taxes for six million people
|
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. |
Response to brentspeak (Original post)
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 08:42 PM
Blue Idaho (1,096 posts)
21. Limits, limits, and more limits to tax penalty enforcement...
Response to brentspeak (Original post)
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 10:25 PM
Zoeisright (7,840 posts)
27. So buy insurance.
|
This isn't rocket science.
|
Response to Zoeisright (Reply #27)
Thu Sep 20, 2012, 12:23 AM
davidn3600 (1,274 posts)
30. They might not be able to afford it...
|
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. |
Response to brentspeak (Original post)
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 11:50 PM
jbgood1977 (91 posts)
29. So I'm unemployed (over a year and counting) living with my mother
|
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. |
Response to brentspeak (Original post)
Thu Sep 20, 2012, 12:31 AM
SILVER__FOX52 (535 posts)
31. This is simple fairness...........
|
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.
|
Response to brentspeak (Original post)
Thu Sep 20, 2012, 12:47 AM
MrSlayer (21,355 posts)
32. Right, around 2% of the population.
|
That's what they were saying all along.
|

