Obamacare Stands/Insurance Mandate, er, Tax Upheld

PrintSmith wrote: Yes, the same young people who will, as a result of the community rating portion of the law, be paying the same amount for their insurance as someone who is 50 years old, overweight, and suffering from Type-1 diabetes pays for their insurance, or rather, I should note that it will be their parents and not themselves footing that extra cost of insuring them for the majority of the time they are 20-something and that they will only be responsible for the community rated cost for about 40% of the time.

Only if the younger people buy the same coverage as the 50 year old overweight diabetic. There are and will be much lower cost plans that provide only catastrophic coverage suitable for lower risk individuals while the 50 year old diabetic will no doubt have a more comprehensive policy. This is the type of misinformation that would not occur if people would actually study at least the highlights of the ACA.

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Actually the insurance companies will be paying for a portion of the costs of the ACA including the subsidies. They agreed to pay an annual fee ($60 billion), along with pharma ($27 billion), medical device manufacturers ($20 billion) in exchange for the increase in customers. the remainder of the costs of the subsidies and the other costs of the ACA will be paid for by a combination of taxes and savings. The taxes will primarily be extending (removing the cap) on Medicare taxes beyond incomes of $200,000, excise taxes on the cadillac plans, decreasing tax loopholes, etc. while reducing the amounts spent on Medicare and other programs.

And just where do you think that the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies and the medical device manufacturers are going to be getting those extra billions of dollars to contribute their "fair share" of the ACA costs Dog? You think it is going to come from their profits or from the pockets of those that they insure, or manufacture medical/drugs for consumption? If a doctor has to pay an additional $10K for his ultrasound machine, do you think he's going to eat that extra cost or pass it along in a higher cost to get an ultrasound? Higher cost to get the ultrasound means what - a higher insurance premium, right? A higher insurance premium which both the healthy, fit, 28 year young adult and the obese, diabetic 55 year old will share in equal measure because ACA also requires community ratings, right?

The insurance, pharma and medical device companies obviously believe that the increase in customers will more than offset the fees. Don't you think adding a large pool of customers who are at a lower risk will pay for this? Also, the health exchanges will encourage competition to keep premiums lower, or don't you believe in the free market? And it is ridiculous to think that a healthy 28 year old will pay for the same coverage as an obese diabetic 55 year old. The community ratings apply to same coverage. There will be numerous lower cost policies that would better fit the needs of a healthy 28 year old than the policy that an obese diabetic 55 year old would have.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Only if the younger people buy the same coverage as the 50 year old overweight diabetic. There are and will be much lower cost plans that provide only catastrophic coverage suitable for lower risk individuals while the 50 year old diabetic will no doubt have a more comprehensive policy. This is the type of misinformation that would not occur if people would actually study at least the highlights of the ACA.

I couldn't remember if the 20 something catastrophic coverage option survived in the final bill, it was in some of the congress' plans debated, not all. If so, that is good, and it should be available for all ages too.

There is still a 3:1 ratio for age 65-20 that is going to hit the 20-40 group harder.

Isn't this how insurance always works? Those who are safe drivers basically help pay for those who have frequent accidents. Sure there may be higher premiums for the accident prone, but the rest of us still subsidize them to some extent. Health insurance only works if there is a large pool of people ...and the larger the pool, and the more young healthy people who are included, theoretically premiums should go down. The insurance companies were jacking up premiums long before Obamacare went into effect. BC/BS was raising my premium on an individual policy 15-20%/year. Now they have to use a set percentage of premiums on healthcare costs. I read recently that several companies will be issuing rebates to customers because they failed to meet that requirement.

Bottom line for me on the ACA is that more people will be covered and less people will be denied coverage. That's good.

Martin Ent Inc wrote: Our government and many on the rolls believe in recieving the fish and not learning how to catch them.
So that analogy holds no water in the liberal world.

LOL, you question why I paint with such a broad brush?

archer wrote: Isn't this how insurance always works? Those who are safe drivers basically help pay for those who have frequent accidents. Sure there may be higher premiums for the accident prone, but the rest of us still subsidize them to some extent. Health insurance only works if there is a large pool of people ...and the larger the pool, and the more young healthy people who are included, theoretically premiums should go down. The insurance companies were jacking up premiums long before Obamacare went into effect. BC/BS was raising my premium on an individual policy 15-20%/year. Now they have to use a set percentage of premiums on healthcare costs. I read recently that several companies will be issuing rebates to customers because they failed to meet that requirement.

Bottom line for me on the ACA is that more people will be covered and less people will be denied coverage. That's good.

Depends on the state and if "community rating" is required by state law. Drivers with accidents/points and repeated claims pay more in most states I think. They can also deny you a policy for those reasons, I am pretty sure.

Insurance rates for 18 yo's on these crotch rocket motorcycles are sky-high and unavailable for many as they should be.

One point that many either don't know or understand is that the ACA encourages states to develop alternative plans if they don't like the ACA. The ACA allows states to opt out of the ACA if they come up with their own plan that meets certain thresholds. So if Wisconsin comes up with a plan that better suits it's citizens than does the ACA, then it can opt out and implement their plan as long as thresholds are met. those thresholds are that the state plan would cover as many people as the ACA would in that state at a similar cost.

Something the Dog Said wrote: One point that many either don't know or understand is that the ACA encourages states to develop alternative plans if they don't like the ACA. The ACA allows states to opt out of the ACA if they come up with their own plan that meets certain thresholds. So if Wisconsin comes up with a plan that better suits it's citizens than does the ACA, then it can opt out and implement their plan as long as thresholds are met. those thresholds are that the state plan would cover as many people as the ACA would in that state at a similar cost.

What you DO UNDERSTAND is that the ACA is going to cost citizens out of their pockets. One way or another. You understand this but you are purposefully ignoring the taxes... here are the taxes that either has already been instigated and the taxes that will take effect in the future...

Taxes that took effect in 2010:

1. Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Min$/immediate): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,961-1,971

2. Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” (Tax hike of $4.5 billion). This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 108-113

3. “Black liquor” tax hike (Tax hike of $23.6 billion). This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 105

4. Tax on Innovator Drug Companies ($22.2 bil/Jan 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,971-1,980

5. Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike ($0.4 bil/Jan 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,004

6. Tax on Indoor Tanning Services ($2.7 billion/July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,397-2,399

Taxes that took effect in 2011:

7. Medicine Cabinet Tax ($5 bil/Jan 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957-1,959

8. HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike ($1.4 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,959

Tax that took effect in 2012:

9. Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Min$/Jan 2012): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957

Taxes that take effect in 2013:

10. Surtax on Investment Income ($123 billion/Jan. 2013): Creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income: Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 87-93

*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations. It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income. It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans. The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens.

11. Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax ($86.8 bil/Jan 2013): Current law and changes:



First $200,000
($250,000 Married)
Employer/Employee

All Remaining Wages
Employer/Employee

Current Law

1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed

1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed

Obamacare Tax Hike

1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed

1.45%/2.35%
3.8% self-employed


Bill: PPACA, Reconciliation Act; Page: 2000-2003; 87-93

12. Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers ($20 bil/Jan 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax. Exempts items retailing for <$100. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,980-1,986

13. Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI ($15.2 bil/Jan 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994-1,995

14. Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax” ($13 bil/Jan 2013): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited). Indexed to inflation after 2013. There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,389

15. Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D ($4.5 bil/Jan 2013) Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994

16. $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives ($0.6 bil/Jan 2013). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,995-2,000

Taxes that take effect in 2014:

17. Individual Mandate Excise Tax (Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following



1 Adult

2 Adults

3+ Adults

2014

1% AGI/$95

1% AGI/$190

1% AGI/$285

2015

2% AGI/$325

2% AGI/$650

2% AGI/$975

2016 +

2.5% AGI/$695

2.5% AGI/$1390

2.5% AGI/$2085


Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS). Bill: PPACA; Page: 317-337

18. Employer Mandate Tax (Jan 2014): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees. Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer). Bill: PPACA; Page: 345-346

Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion/10 years

19. Tax on Health Insurers ($60.1 bil/Jan 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. Phases in gradually until 2018. Fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,986-1,993

Taxes that take effect in 2018:

20. Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans ($32 bil/Jan 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). Higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions. CPI +1 percentage point indexed. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,941-1,956

http://www.atr.org/tax-hikes-obamacare- ... rule-a6996

PDF
http://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/ ... 20Date.pdf

Explain these away!!!

Well, if the right wing blogs are saying this, it MUST be true!

I guess they're copying and pasting from your link, "Americans For Tax Relief" run by Grover Norquist, described by the Wall Street Journal as the "the V.I. Lenin of the anti-tax movement."

Entitlement Whore wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: One point that many either don't know or understand is that the ACA encourages states to develop alternative plans if they don't like the ACA. The ACA allows states to opt out of the ACA if they come up with their own plan that meets certain thresholds. So if Wisconsin comes up with a plan that better suits it's citizens than does the ACA, then it can opt out and implement their plan as long as thresholds are met. those thresholds are that the state plan would cover as many people as the ACA would in that state at a similar cost.

What you DO UNDERSTAND is that the ACA is going to cost citizens out of their pockets. One way or another. You understand this but you are purposefully ignoring the taxes... here are the taxes that either has already been instigated and the taxes that will take effect in the future...

Taxes that took effect in 2010:

1. Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Min$/immediate): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,961-1,971

2. Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” (Tax hike of $4.5 billion). This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 108-113

3. “Black liquor” tax hike (Tax hike of $23.6 billion). This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 105

4. Tax on Innovator Drug Companies ($22.2 bil/Jan 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,971-1,980

5. Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike ($0.4 bil/Jan 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,004

6. Tax on Indoor Tanning Services ($2.7 billion/July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,397-2,399

Taxes that took effect in 2011:

7. Medicine Cabinet Tax ($5 bil/Jan 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957-1,959

8. HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike ($1.4 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,959

Tax that took effect in 2012:

9. Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Min$/Jan 2012): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957

Taxes that take effect in 2013:

10. Surtax on Investment Income ($123 billion/Jan. 2013): Creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income: Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 87-93

*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations. It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income. It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans. The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens.

11. Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax ($86.8 bil/Jan 2013): Current law and changes:



First $200,000
($250,000 Married)
Employer/Employee

All Remaining Wages
Employer/Employee

Current Law

1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed

1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed

Obamacare Tax Hike

1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed

1.45%/2.35%
3.8% self-employed


Bill: PPACA, Reconciliation Act; Page: 2000-2003; 87-93

12. Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers ($20 bil/Jan 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax. Exempts items retailing for <$100. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,980-1,986

13. Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI ($15.2 bil/Jan 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994-1,995

14. Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax” ($13 bil/Jan 2013): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited). Indexed to inflation after 2013. There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,389

15. Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D ($4.5 bil/Jan 2013) Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994

16. $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives ($0.6 bil/Jan 2013). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,995-2,000

Taxes that take effect in 2014:

17. Individual Mandate Excise Tax (Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following



1 Adult

2 Adults

3+ Adults

2014

1% AGI/$95

1% AGI/$190

1% AGI/$285

2015

2% AGI/$325

2% AGI/$650

2% AGI/$975

2016 +

2.5% AGI/$695

2.5% AGI/$1390

2.5% AGI/$2085


Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS). Bill: PPACA; Page: 317-337

18. Employer Mandate Tax (Jan 2014): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees. Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer). Bill: PPACA; Page: 345-346

Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion/10 years

19. Tax on Health Insurers ($60.1 bil/Jan 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. Phases in gradually until 2018. Fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,986-1,993

Taxes that take effect in 2018:

20. Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans ($32 bil/Jan 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). Higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions. CPI +1 percentage point indexed. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,941-1,956

http://www.atr.org/tax-hikes-obamacare- ... rule-a6996

PDF
http://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/ ... 20Date.pdf

Explain these away!!!

I am glad that you took my lesson in research to heart. See how much information that you can find with those simple tips. Congrats! Now we can continue to work on your reading comprehension skills. Would it help if I double spaced or used a different font? In regard to your latest demand, please see my reply to pineinthegrass. Of course there are taxes applied to fund the ACA. That was in the original bill all along. However, overall the cost to individuals as a whole will be less than if ACA was not enacted. The overall cost of health care will be much less than if ACA was not enacted, and the average individual will be paying less overall than without ACA.