Thanks To The Affordable Care Act, The Cheapest Family Insurance Policy In America Will Cost $20,000

98589-Obamacare-Costs-by-Nate-Beeler-The-Columbus-Dispatch

There’s an old joke among conservatives about government health care programs. It goes something like, “If you think health care is expensive now just wait until it’s free.”

I can’t help thinking about that as I read what the “Affordable Care Act” is doing for the affordability of health insurance in America.

(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.

That gap between what a health insurance policy is going to cost in this coming era of Obamacare, and what the tax will be if you don’t buy a policy, could well be what does the law in. George Will referred to this problem in a column a couple of weeks ago.

The Supreme Court upheld the legality of the individual mandate based on the idea that the mandate’s penalty was a tax and not a penalty. But the Supreme Court noted in its ruling that the difference between a tax and a penalty is a matter of degree. As long as the tax for not buying health insurance stays low enough to not be considered punitive, it’s a tax. But if it’s raised, it becomes a penalty.

This is all a lot of nonsensical parsing, of course, but what it does mean is that if the federal government intends to raise the tax for not having health insurance the law is susceptible again to being overturned by the courts. But if they leave it as low as it is now, a lot of Americans are going to see the big difference between paying the tax and paying for cost-inflated health insurance and opt for the former.

And who could blame them?

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • http://nofreelunch.areavoices.com/ Kevin Flanagan

    Obamacare is affordable for whom?

    • t

      obama

    • ellinas1

      Everybody.
      Read the regulations yourself.
      http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/REG-148500-12%20FR.pdf

      Don’t let Port and CNS news make unsubstantiated claims.
      A family of four with an annual income of of $80,000 will pay $2,600.
      Why are you so gullible?
      You have a frigid brain……use the damn thing.

      • http://nofreelunch.areavoices.com/ Kevin Flanagan

        Who is going to supply all this new health care and what were they doing before the advent of Obamacare?

      • mickey_moussaoui

        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.

      • mickey_moussaoui

        elli,
        you think a family of 5 will get health insurance for $2,600?????
        HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAA
        OMG YOU ARE A GULLIBLE FOOL
        no wonder greece is in the shitter. you people are retarded
        $2600 a year for 5 people!!…har har hehehe oh man

        • ellinas1

          Mickey, read the regulations.

          • Geoff Bosse

            Ellinas, if the plan is so affordable why are the unions seeking subsidies to cover the costs of the premiums? Me thinks, the shadowbosses read more clearly than you (no offense), just saying.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Don’t worry… it’s only ellinas. You can offend him to your heart’s content.

          • ellinas1

            Did unions ask for temporary waivers because they need more time to comply, or did they ask for subsidies to cover the costs of the premiums?

            I know that they asked for waivers of a year to three years in order to comply. The Unions have the largest number of insured than any private business, and are self insured.
            Please post a link to the web page where unions are asking for subsidies to cover premiums.

          • Geoff Bosse

            Rob posted earlier this week. “Unions ask for tax payer bailout”. Still on this site.

          • ellinas1

            I don’t care what Rob posted.
            You have not answered my questions.
            Please do so we can continue our debate.

          • Geoff Bosse

            There is no need to debate this the question any longer as your mind is clouded with this grand notion that the Affordable Care Act will bring down the cost of premiums and care. All we can do now is wait and see. Save this post and we will re visit when the law is fully implemented. At that time you can say ” I told you so” or I can say that “I informed you thusly”. Talk to ya next year

          • ellinas1

            You are right. There is no need to debate the issue.
            There is a need to find the truth.

          • fargomg

            Ellinas1, Have you ever ran a business and had to pay for the health insuarnce that you take for granted? Or are you just another person around to collect a paycheck and ignorant to the fact that when your paycheck says you pay $100 for your health insurance you company that you work for picks up the other 1k in cost? Its called a bennifit, the company your work for pays your insurance. Or are you one of them fun union people who dont pay anything for your insurance?

          • ellinas1

            I am aware of everything you say.
            I am now retired.
            When I worked I paid $600 per month for a family of 5. My employer paid an approximately $1400.

    • whowon

      they did have to change the name, guess they figured with the current IRS info, affordable was a bad idea.

      • jl

        Liberals do that. “Global warming” became “climate change” became “severe weather events”. To be continued…….

  • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

    ObamaCare was never anything but a liberal ideological blue-sky wish list that was developed purely for purposes of governmental expansion and control of the people. That is its only relationship to reality. In terms of the actual development and delivery of health care it was pure smoke and mirrors. You ain’t seen nothing yet.

    • http://nofreelunch.areavoices.com/ Kevin Flanagan

      It’s a tool to redistribute income and wealth. So is that global warming scam.

      • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

        That too. Once Obama”Care” is understood for what it is, it is clear why Obama spent his first year on this to the virtual exclusion of everything else. It is the key element in his plans. I do not see how it could be clearer. In one blow it put him on the one-yard line facing a team of Republicans dressed in skirts.

    • ellinas1

      Read the regulations for yourself.
      http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/REG-148500-12%20FR.pdf

      Don’t let Port and the CNS news web site tell you tall tales.
      Should you read carefully, you will find that in 2016, for a family of four with an annual income of $80,000 the annual premium will be $2,600.
      The numbers quoted by Port and CNS are bogus.

      • Geoff

        You mean the annual penalty will be $2600. If their premium is 2600 you are in fact delusional. There is no way premiums for a family will ever be 2600. Hospitals would be bankrupt inside a year

        • ellinas1

          You better learn to read, and learn to comprehend what you read:
          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 2children)). Under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, the flat dollar amount is $2,085 (thelesser 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 mposed on H and J for 2016 is $2,400 (the lesser of $2,400 or $20,000).

          http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/REG-148500-12%20FR.pdf

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            As I have indicated, e, you have breaking news. Have your agent connect you with the news outlets so you can publicly refute the reported $20,000 figure. Do not waste your time bantering with bloggers, go for the gold!

          • ellinas1

            Read the regulations. Only 73 Pages. You can do it.
            Especially the last 15 pages.

            http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/REG-148500-12%20FR.pdf

          • mickey_moussaoui

            first of all, Robs article brings up a much higher income level than you quote. so riht there you disqualify yourself. secondly, these numbers are from obama’s IRS, the very people who will be in charge of collecting the NEW TAX that obama just gave us all.
            ya dope

          • Geoff Bosse

            You can interpret it any way you want, but do you truly believe $2600 per family annually is reality. The system will run out of money in the firs year. Someone has to fund it

          • fargomg

            It says right in the examples that the cost of a plan will be $20,000.
            They are trying to say that $2,600 would be the familys responsiblity. the other $17,400 would either have to be paid for by the company that you work for or by the taxpayers thru other tax’s. You are confusing the part that you will pay with the part that it acutally costs. Even right now as a small business we have to pay around 14k for a family’s insurance, so why would that going up 6k in 3 years be such a crazy statement, look how much it has gone up in the last 3 years.

          • mickey_moussaoui

            seriously, learn to sift the bs from the fact mr pedo

          • ME

            What part of: “The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000.” don’t you understand?

          • ellinas1

            The part where it says EXAMPLE.

          • noblindersome

            ellinas1 – you are breath of fresh air here ! Goodness someone actually in command of facts and able to stand toe to toe with those who think their limited ability to see the whole picture gives them equal footing with those of us who do.
            Imagine asking those here to look at , let alone study , the 73 pages you referred them to , yeah it sure is easier to go with a pov that fits on a bumpersticker , aint it!
            I was at a local cafe last night when this actual story came up and of course there were those who were all upset that this might happen to them! ” 20,000 it will cost my family !’ . When asked where they heard of this and what were the details they sheepishly admitted they were not sure , but it was ‘on the internet’!! Then someone mentioned that ‘Gieco’ commericial where a naive’ girl was meeting her boyfriend she met on the internet ! She so beleived he was the handsome ‘french model’ and this dork shows up muttering ‘ Bone Jooer’! The cafe crowd all laughed . Yeah she saw it on the internet , must be true right port!!!!
            hmmm that guy kinda looked like you rob -hmmmm!

          • ellinas1

            I don’t understand why they are refusing to read the link with the IRS regulations that both Port and CNS “news” are quoting in their opinion pieces, and provide a link to said web-site.
            No curiosity in their part?
            They remind me the sheeple that follow(ed) Jim Baker, Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Robertson, Joel Osteen and other assorted (tele)evangelists who’s sole purpose is to fleece their flock.
            Or they could be followers of “the end of the word is around the corner”
            type nuts like Harold Camping.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Lol…. you both are a breath of halitosis…

            You and the pederast will learn your folly when your insurance premiums skyrocket and/or the tax man comes calling….

            Silly deluded leftists still believe you shall get something for nothing.

            It will be paid for from “Obama’s Stash.”

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGDpYTots_M

            Your name is too long, you should just call yourself Jo.

          • donwalk

            So if you are claiming that it is only an example, could you please explain how and why it would benefit the IRS and/or Obamacare to use inflated figures?

        • ellinas1

          The $20,000 dollar premium quoted is fictional and for the purpose of simplifying the examples used.

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            “…for the purpose of simplifying the examples used”

            You’re joking, of course … You mean like “Let’s assume a frictionless pulley …” or “Let’s just say that $1.98 is $2.00 for purposes of calculation”? Like that?

          • ellinas1

            Read the damn regulations. Only 73 Pages. You can do it.

            http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/REG-148500-12%20FR.pdf

          • mickey_moussaoui

            read the CBS story where they interviewed the IRS: you can do it.

            http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-cheapest-obamacare-plan-will-be-20000-family

            elli, your material was from when obama was proposing obamacare. These recent stories are the REAL numbers. If you think insurance will be less you are a fool. Obama is ALL ABOUT TAXATION !!!

          • ellinas1

            Dear brotherman mickey.
            You ask me “to read the CBS story where they interviewed the IRS”
            Then you proceed and provide me a link to CNS news.
            Do you know that CBS and CNS are different entities?
            Is your above post an error or a lie?
            In any case the link you provided, is an opinion piece.
            No one in that article interviewed the IRS.

            I repeat: NO ONE IN THE LINK AND ARTICLE YOU PROVIDED INTERVIEWS THE IRS OR ANY OF IT’S AGENTS, ADMINISTRATORS OR SPOKESMAN.

      • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

        Interesting. The two or three dozen news outlets—besides CNS and Rob—reporting this are really going to be embarrassed. Are you sure that the estimated cost is based on regulations and not estimates based on other factors that will come into play later? You have thoroughly digested the implications of ObamaCare and can predict with certainty what the costs will be? I believe that you may be one of, perhaps, one people with that level of knowledge. But I am happy to know that people will be saving around $2500 on their insurance when ObamaCare fully kicks in just like Obama said and that you guarantee it—or don’t you? The costs of ObamaCare have been revised upward to about triple the original figure. But I suppose that won’t make any difference? Regulations? You base your beliefs on regulations!? Your $2,600 figure is preposterous on the face of it. (By the way, (I’ve got a bunch of authentic 200-year-old antique light bulbs for sale. Want some? I can meet you on the Yellow Brick Road by the Tin Man.)

        On the other hand, you might be right: You’ll get the level of health care the government thinks you should have and, coincidentally, it will cost about $2600.

        • ellinas1

          Interesting. You still have not read the regulations.
          Are you going to allow others tell how to think?

          • two_amber_lamps

            Ironic, apparently you wish us to allow you, the greekling pederast to tell us how to think… You’d better re-read the 73 pages since obviously your ill-contrived theory is in error.

          • ellinas1

            No facts from you.

            Just sniping, huh?

            You cowardly snip!

          • two_amber_lamps

            You cite 73 pages to prop up your lies, I give you the same 73 pages which obviously prove you’re full of greekling fecal matter.

            Page and paragraph pederast.

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            I no longer go to references recommended by liberals. When I used to do that, I invariably found out that the reference either says nothing to the point, clearly shows the opposite, or is the incoherent ramblings of a leftist fantasist.

          • two_amber_lamps

            He cites the IRS document, draws an incorrect conclusion, then offers the 73 pages as “proof” of his deranged theory. When pressed he refuses to cite page, etc. Obviously he’s hiding something else he’d be forthcoming to prove his point.

            Why won’t a child show you what’s in his hand? Because he’s obviously been caught in a lie.

            The pederast doesn’t operate at much the level above the children it preys on….

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            What reason is there to believe that “regulations” have anything like an accurate relationship to predicted costs?
            Why is the $20,000 figure so widely reported on?
            If you want me to “look at regulations” you have to give me a plausible reason to do so. I am not seeing your point in this at all. If you are attacking the IRS reported $20,000 cost just tell me how either the IRS or the reportage got it wrong. Simple enough without mucking about in speculations about regulations and what is in Obamacare, both of which have to be considered to be in flux.

          • RCND

            We can’t regulate away reality… in this case the poison pill of high costs Obama rammed down our throats

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            Frankly, I cannot tell WTF ellinas is talking about. Regulating costs by fiat? Price controls? He refuses to address the source and reportage of the $20,000 figure. We do know that (1) the estimated cost of Obamacare has just about tripled, (2) private health insurance costs are increasing, (3) businesses are making serious adjustments to accommodate increasing health insurance costs, (4) government projections have always been untrustworthy; now they are lies. He’s either jerking people’s chains or hopelessly naive.

          • two_amber_lamps

            I believe he’s conflating the cost of the bronze policy for a family of 5 (ie $20k) with the cost of paying the “shared responsibility payment”… which is in fact bureaucratese for paying what the SCOTUS labeled “the TAX” which we understand to be the FINE paid to the federal government for failing to procure insurance for oneself.

            Red herring argument since paying the “shared responsibility payment” (FINE) does nothing towards insuring the individual(s).

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            I admit a certain laziness. When claims are made such as ellinas makes, I ask myself: “OK—this has been reported by 2 or 3 dozen news sources, including Fox News. Now, if this $20,000 claim is not true there will soon be liberal economists jumping on the reportage with huge enthusiasm and glee—especially if Fox News can be skewered. They will not overlook this.” Secondly, e’s $2,600 insurance per family is absurd on the face of it and indicates serious delusion. To me this indicates that e is making extraordinary claims, and extraordinary claims generally require extraordinary, authoritative proof. I am not able to do this, nor is e qualified to do so. Therefore I wait until the MSM goes nuts and Google News hits me between the eyes with an exposé. Why bother to screw around with e on the issue at all?

          • two_amber_lamps

            Frankly, I don’t know why I bother either… other than he sickens me and I enjoy watching him contort trying to patch up his untenable position.

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            Yeah—sort of like watching a cartoon character hang in the air flailing arms and legs after the rotten tree limb he’s been sitting on has broken off and already hit the ground.

          • ellinas1

            Flamemeister: “He refuses to address the source and reportage of the $20,000 figure.:

            I have addressed it. You have refused to read for yourself the web page with the pertinent information. The same IRS web page where IRS published the regulations which Port and CNS news plucked the fictional $20,000 dollar figure.

            Source: http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/REG-148500-12%20FR.pdf
            CNS and by extension Port got their figures from the government (IRS) webpage, which now you call untrustworthy.

          • ellinas1

            Interesting. You still have not read the regulations.
            The $20,000 figure is plucked from examples, and is used for example only.
            I am not attacking the IRS. I am saying that the opinion mongers are reporting the wrong figures.

          • donwalk

            Reporting the figures that the IRS provides is “reporting the wrong” figures?
            Why would the IRS provide incorrect figures? It would not benefit them or Obamacare to use inflated figures. If anything, they would want to use deflated figures to increase support and enthusiasm for their boondoggle.
            The $20,000 figure came from the IRS.

      • whowon

        you are such a kool-aid drinker, old info is not flying.

        • ellinas1

          Cool aid is for idiots. I drink wine when I dine.

          • two_amber_lamps

            I drink wine when I dine….

            … on 10 year old boy a$$….

            There ya go, fixed that for ya pederast.

      • opinion8ed

        Wrong.. The 4 people would be 20,000. The maximum amount you are being forced to spend is 8% of your income. If the family made 80,000 they would pay up to 6400 per year.

        • ellinas1

          You are on the right track. A little more effort on your part will show that the 8% quoted is not what the example family will pay.
          I have to hand it to you though…..you did read what the others are refusing to read.

        • two_amber_lamps

          But if you DID pay the penalty… you still have no health insurance.

          The “shared responsibility payment” (ie the TAX) is the penalty levied against those who don’t procure an insurance policy for themselves or their families. You pay the “TAX” (which we understand to be the FINE), but you get no insurance coverage for your investment.

          Comparing paying a “tax” (with no benefit) to paying $20k for an insurance policy is an “apples and oranges” argument.

          Typical red herring BS from comrade Ellinasty.

      • Sue

        Shared Responsibility Payment for Not Maintaining Minimum Essential Coverage

        I checked your link. These are proposals. They will heard in May. You are citing this as if concrete. Please note the heading on the PROPOSALS in the link you have provided. “for NOT Maintaining Minimum Essential Coverage”.

      • Sue

        I really did attempt to see if you had a valid point. This proposal deals with the tax(fine).

      • noblindersome

        My goodness are you implying that port would actually engage in bogus news reporting ! SHOCKERS!!!
        tall tales like this were common in the 60’s too as the right claimed ‘medicare ‘ would destroy America. and in the 30’s they claimed social security would bring America to it’s knees! Try telling the average American today we need to dismantle those two mainstays of society . Didn’t the right actually use their defense of ss and medicare as campaign issues in their favor!
        The truth has never been port’s prime objective , only the narrative of his prejudice is pursued . Examples of this sort are very numerous – port and the right screamed the sky would fall as the enviros wanted to tax ‘ cow burps and flatulence’ because of the methane or whatever! The EPA was going to regulate farmers out of existence because they were to stop farmers from raising dust on roads! and the misinformation about ‘child labor on farms ‘ was another red herring that was NEVER a serious consideration by anybody except the ‘cry wolfers’ that WANTED that sort of nonesense to be true ! I oughta know , as a cattleman I never saw the cow burp thing as a threat , but port and his bunch sure made a lot poisonous hay with it!
        This Obama care thing needs to carefully studied too , but this horrid site aint the place to find clarity. Port’s excertations have more in common with that cow flatuence that was so hyped up years ago.

        • ellinas1

          Well said.

  • RCND

    Now there’s a really big surprise

    • ellinas1

      The surprise is that Port and CNS are reporting a lie.
      Read the regulations for yourself.
      http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/REG-148500-12%20FR.pdf

      A family of four with an annual income of of $80,000 will pay $2,600.
      Why are you so gullible? Why do you believe such propaganda?

      • $16179444

        you talking about others being gullible while supporting Obama …. now THAT is irony

        • ellinas1

          Is that all you have to say?
          Aren’t you going to read the regulations yourself?
          The document is only 73 pages.

          • two_amber_lamps

            (sigh) page and paragraph pederast… we have no patience for your
            games. Perhaps they work on 10 year old boys but we know you for the
            duplicitous greekling buggerist that you are.

      • sbark

        your talking about the “penalty, if they choose not to be insured at all…Problem is under ObamaCare, doubtful people without Ins. will even be able to walk into a ER and get free health care……as they are now able to do………..it will be rationed, especially after adding 20 million illegals onto it.
        ********
        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.

        • ellinas1

          Reread the regulations.
          The $20,000 quoted is a fictional example, to show how the premiums are calculated.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Oh yes, we’ve not played this game before have we Mr. Nasty! Elli calls the tune and we dance to it!! Lol!!

            Give us the page and paragraph pederast. It’s obvious what you’re doing is making others run down a blind alley looking for evidence to support YOUR lies. Do your own dirty work Comrade Deviant.

          • ellinas1

            http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/REG-148500-12%20FR.pdf
            There are only 73 pages in the following link which has the regulations.
            You’re a big girl, you can handle reading all of them.

          • two_amber_lamps

            (sigh) page and paragraph pederast… we have no patience for your games. Perhaps they work on 10 year old boys but we know you for the duplicitous greekling buggerist that you are.

          • ellinas1

            Little girl, you can’t read 73 pages?
            What good are you then?

          • two_amber_lamps

            Page and paragraph pederast… page and paragraph.

          • ellinas1

            73 little pages.
            Read them, little girl.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Page and paragraph little greekling pederast… to which of the 73 pages do you refer, because you obviously are in error.

        • ellinas1

          Example 3. Family with some members eligible for government sponsored coverage. (i) In 2016 Taxpayers U and V are married and file a joint return. U and V have two children, W and X. U and V are ineligible to enroll in minimum essential coverage other than coverage in the individual market for all months in 2016; however,
          W and X are eligible for coverage under CHIP for 2016 at an annual cost of $1,000 per child. The annual premium for U, V, W, and X’s applicable plan is $20,000. The adjusted annual premium for the second lowest cost silver plan that would cover U and V (the applicable benchmark plan (within the meaning of §1.36B-3(f)) is $12,500. U and V’s household income is $50,000, which is 217 percent of the Federal poverty line for a family size of 4 for the taxable year. W and X do not enroll in CHIP coverage.

          (ii) Under paragraph (e)(4)(ii)(C) of this section, the credit allowable under section 36B is determined pursuant to section 36B. With household income at 217 percent of the Federal poverty line, the applicable percentage is 6.89. Each month in 2016 is a
          coverage month (within the meaning of §1.36B-3(c)) for U and V, but no months in 2016 are coverage months for W and X because they are eligible for CHIP coverage. The maximum credit allowable under section 36B is the excess of the premium for the
          applicable benchmark plan over the product of the household income and the applicable percentage ($9,055). Therefore, under paragraph (e)(4)(ii)(A) of this section, the required contribution is $10,945. Under paragraph (e)(1) of this section, U, V, W, and X
          lack affordable coverage for 2016 because their required contribution ($10,945) exceeds 8 percent of their household income ($4,000).

      • mickey_moussaoui

        the CBO already put it well over $15,000 per family of 5

        • ellinas1

          Link please.

          • two_amber_lamps
          • ellinas1

            From your link.
            http://www.creators.com/opinion/terence-jeffrey/obamacare-slaps-15-000-annual-fee-on-middle-class-families.html

            Opinion>Terence Jeffrey>Obamacare Slaps 15 000 Annual Fee On Middle Class Families
            I don’t care about this man’s opinion.
            Facts please. Do you have facts?

          • two_amber_lamps

            When all you present is a baseless opinion with nothing to back it up save “read the study.” I told you already, we will not prove your misguided theories for you.

            Other media outlets have arrived at the same conclusion, but we’re supposed to take the word of an admitted greekling pederast who’s been shown time and again to possess a leftist if not NAMBLA inspired agenda.

            Lol… FAIL!

          • ellinas1

            Little girl, why do you lie?

            I never said read the study.
            I said read the regulations, and I provided a link to the IRS page where the regulations are posted.

            http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/REG-148500-12%20FR.pdf

            Happy new year Saul Harpy.

          • two_amber_lamps

            You are in error…. tell us page and paragraph where you derived your conclusion and perhaps we can help find your mistake in logic.

          • ellinas1

            Little girl, address my questions.
            Why do you lie?
            I never said read the study.
            I said read the regulations, and I provided a link to the IRS page where the regulations are posted.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Syphilitic greekling pederastic gayfag, your theory is in error…. tell us page and paragraph where you derived your
            conclusion and perhaps we can help find your mistake in logic.

          • ellinas1

            Happy New Year harpy!

          • two_amber_lamps

            Obviously you know you are in error. Otherwise you’d justify your position based on the page and paragraph in the IRS document you continually refer to.

            What are you hiding pederasts? That is besides the 10 year old boy you keep chained in your basement rump-us room?

          • whowon

            Do you read ANY news other then MSNBC? Being reported widely.

          • ellinas1

            Now why would you ask such a stupid question?
            Did you read the regulations for your self, or are you going to allow others tell you fairy tales?

            http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/REG-148500-12%20FR.pdf

          • mickey_moussaoui

            Im not your momma. look it up. here is what the IRS says:

            http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/REG-148500-12%20FR.pdf

            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.

            Elliporn,
            The CNS article is correct. You tried to change the figures by using a family that makes $40,000 less anual than the example given in the story.

            Read and comprehend yourself, clown

          • ellinas1

            It is an example. In this case Example 3.

  • whowon

    bye, bye ellinas1. You have been proven delusional.

    • two_amber_lamps

      (again)

    • mickey_moussaoui

      PROOF:

      http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroo

      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.

      • ellinas1

        Example 3.

  • mickey_moussaoui

    The misleading part of this headline is the word “cheapest”. What it doesn’t tell you is that it is the cheapest cost for a family of 5 household making $120,000 . You have to read the details to get the facts. In essence the story is correct. The IRS link confirms it.
    Ellianus is splitting hairs using a different income table. No matter how you spin it, obamacare will cost more and offer less. Plus IT’S A TAX !!!!

    • ellinas1

      How much are you paying now?

      • two_amber_lamps

        Why don’t you ask him how many 10 year old male children he has, you nosy pederast you!

        • ellinas1

          Happy New Year harpy.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Come git some… greekling b$%tch.

          • ellinas1

            You using a phrase uttered by my ancestors?
            The ones you show such contempt for?
            Happy New Year harpy!

          • two_amber_lamps

            Yes gayfag Greekling pederast… it’s called irony.
            Your ancestors had honor,
            you have none.

            So if you believe I’m a “little girl,”
            and by your own admission you molest underage children,
            by all means…. come and take “it”!
            Find the truth within your folly.

  • mickey_moussaoui

    ELLIANUS,
    I fall into the $120,000 + category, so you damn well better believe I will pay dearly for this shitty obamacare. That should make you happy. Now wait till obama attacks doctors and makes them work for less profit. then you may as well go to a veternarian for your health care because all we will have left are thirdworld witchdoctors from obama’s native kenya

    • two_amber_lamps

      As well you should 1%’er!

      Oh…. wait, $120k? Hmmmm, >$100k is NEXT weeks definition for the bourgeois/kulak (spit) class. So OK, you get a pass this week. But next week remind me to remind you to “PAY YOUR FAIR SHARE, EXPLOITER!!”

    • ellinas1

      How much do you pay now and what does it cover?
      Are you self employed or do you work for someone?
      Do you buy your own health insurance or does your employer provides your insurance and you have a monthly copay?
      In any case you and your family (if you have one), will be able to afford health coverage, and you will not pay “dearly” or otherwise.
      $1700 dollars per month for an old lecher/geezer such as yourself and assuming you have a wife and two children is not much for comprehensive health coverage.
      1700/5=340 per person per month.

      340×12=4080 per person per year is not an unreasonable amount to pay.

      • two_amber_lamps

        Oh… so $4080 x 5 people = hmmmmm….. oh yeah $20k a year!

        So after all your pedantic pederastic contortions you finally admit an insurance plan for 5 people shall cost a family of five $20k after spending all of yesterday trying to refute the fact.

        http://francisedevoe.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/5541.jpg

        • mickey_moussaoui

          “pedantic pederastic contortions”…well said

      • mickey_moussaoui

        I (used to) pay roughly $13,500 for excellent coverage
        for 5 adults due to the age 26 clause. I think health insurance is and has been a huge rip off, butt… Under obamacare I will pay $6,500 more and ultimately get less quality service. It doesn’t take a genius to see what damage obama has done to one of the finest health care systems in the world. Like everything else he phucks with it will become “lower” in quality and costs more. Obama didn’t do the majority of us any favors. This entire mess started because our community organizern’chief wanted to make life “fair” for his soul mate constituents. So because roughly 15 million people were living in the shadows now 350 million people must be penalized. Meanwhile the two faced pricks in Washington DC that follow this ahole around with their lips on his anus get to have a separate and high quality health insurance ‘package” that the rest of us will not be allowed to have due to obama.

        BTW, it’s not $4080 per person per year. It’s closer to $5000(or more) when you figure in the $120,000 income. The final cost hasn’t even been actualized yet. given the excessive spending habits of this administration I wouldn’t be surprised to see another grand added to the actual cost when it comes online in 2014. That’s no bargain. The average person doesn’t spend half that much on health care per year.

        • ellinas1

          Was the $13,500 for the excellent coverage the only premium or do you have an employer that pays some or most of the premium?

  • mickey_moussaoui

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2272166/Big-brother-log-drinking-habits-waist-size.html#axzz2JhXYhdJ3

    Here is where obamacare is headed:

    Big brother to log your drinking habits and waist size as GPs are forced to hand over confidential records

    Data includes weight, cholesterol, BMI, family health history and pulse rate

    Doctors will be forced to reveal alcohol consumption and smoking status

    Privacy campaigners described it as ‘biggest data grab in NHS history’

    Part of new Health Service programme called Everyone Counts

    Officials insisted data will be anonymous and deleted after analysis

    By Jack Doyle

    PUBLISHED:17:28 EST, 1 February 2013| UPDATED:03:54 EST, 2 February 2013
    AND BEST OF ALL, YOU GET TO PAY THROUGH THE NOSE FOR THIS NEW TAX INVASION OF PRIVACY

  • mickey_moussaoui

    The parasites are killing the host. We will be lucky to be as insignificant as Mexico in 20 years from now

  • Groetzinger

    Seems Congress should start paying for their own healthcare ins.and get off their entitlement program

  • chris

    Actually the idea of an individual mandate was a conservative idea. Everybody from Gingrich to Romney supported and executed it. That is, before Obama supported it, and now conservatives won’t touch it with a ten-foot poll. Ironically, Obama was opposed to an individual mandate a few years ago…that is, before he was for it:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/28/individual-health-care-insurance-mandate-has-long-checkered-past/

    And so the twisted tale of schizophrenic American politics continues…

Top