‘The math is harsh: The federal penalty for having no health insurance is set to jump to $695, and the Obama administration is being urged to highlight that cold fact to help drive its new pitch for health law sign-ups.
That means the 2016 sign-up season starting Nov. 1 could see penalties become a bigger focus to motivate millions of people who have remained eligible for coverage, but uninsured. They're said to be more skeptical about the value of health insurance.
Until now, health overhaul supporters have stressed the benefits of getting covered: taxpayer subsidies that pay roughly 70 percent of the monthly premium, financial protection against sudden illness or an accident, and access to regular preventive and follow-up medical care.
But in 2016, the penalty for being uninsured will rise to the greater of either — $695 or 2.5 percent of taxable income — for someone who goes without coverage for a full 12 months. This year the comparable numbers are $325 or 2 percent of income. While the increase isn't good news, it does create a marketing opportunity.
The numbers are pretty clear. With subsidized customers now putting in an average of about $100 a month of their own money, a consumer would be able to get six months or more of coverage for $695, instead of owing that amount to the IRS as a tax penalty. Backers of the law are urging the administration to hammer that home.
"Given that the penalty is larger, it does make sense to bring it up more frequently," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a liberal advocacy group. "It's an increasing factor in people's decisions about whether or not to get enrolled."‘ - Penalty For Being Uninsured Will Jump, insurancenewsnet.com, 10/19/2015
Link to the entire article appears below:
https://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/2015/10/19/bigger-bite-for-health-law-penalty-on-uninsured.html
“As millions of Americans scramble to file their tax returns, many are shocked by the full cost of ObamaCare’s individual mandate.
“Those who failed to obtain minimum essential health insurance coverage last year will have had to send the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) a check for $1,130, on average,” Doug Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, testified today before a congressional hearing.
An estimated 6.3 million people will be required to pay a penalty this year because they didn’t buy qualifying health insurance in 2014, Holtz-Eakin testified. Another 30 million people didn’t buy the mandated coverage either but won’t have to pay the penalty because of the myriad exemptions the Obama administration is allowing, with or without legal justification.
Holtz-Eakin, now president of the American Action Forum, based his calculations on the number of people who will pay the penalty and the average value of the penalty, using demographic information from the American Community Survey and enrollment statistics from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
“In reality, the individual mandate has been less of a mandate and more of a suggestion,” he told the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Kevin Brady, R-TX.” - Average Fine For Noncompliance With ObamaCare Is $1130, Expert Testifies, Forbes, 04/14/2015
Link to the entire article appears below:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gracemarieturner/2015/04/14/average-fine-for-noncompliance-with-obamacare-is-1130-expert-testifies/?mc_cid=653e60c898&mc_eid=2b1a7a9dca
"If ObamaCare subsidies on federal exchanges survive their brush with the Supreme Court, it may be because the law is even more coercive without them.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who saved the individual mandate by calling it a tax in 2012, has been seen as the swing vote who will determine whether ObamaCare remains viable in states without their own exchanges. But a second potential swing vote emerged during Wednesday's oral arguments in the
If ObamaCare subsidies on federal exchanges survive their brush with the Supreme Court, it may be because the law is even more coercive without them.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who saved the individual mandate by calling it a tax in 2012, has been seen as the swing vote who will determine whether ObamaCare remains viable in states without their own exchanges. But a second potential swing vote emerged during Wednesday's oral arguments in the King v. Burwell case challenging the legality of tax subsidies issued to 34 states via the federally run Healthcare.gov.
Justice Anthony Kennedy told plaintiffs attorney Michael Carvin: "If your argument is accepted, the states are being told, 'Either create your own exchange, or we'll send your insurance market into a death spiral.'"
Because of other ObamaCare regulatory mandates — requiring insurers to take all comers and offer a rate without regard to one's health — exchanges could be unworkable without subsidies. That's because the population willing to pay the full cost of the policies would most likely be in disproportionately poor health — which could send premiums soaring.”
“In the view of the conservative challengers, spearheaded by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, "the plain language of the statute dictates the result."
That reading reflects the desire of the 2010 Congress that passed the law to provide a strong incentive for states to set up their own exchanges, Carvin argued.
He also took issue with Kennedy's suggestion that the law is less coercive with the subsidies than without, noting that the subsidies trigger the employer mandate penalties.” - ObamaCare Subsidies Ruling May Hinge On 'Coercion', IBD, 03/04/2015
Link to the entire article appears below:
http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/030415-742049-supreme-court-obamacare-king-v-burwell-case-oral-arguments.htm
‘"I can't afford to go out and buy insurance while trying to start a business," said Willmus, of Colorado Springs, Colo. "Obamacare will allow me to be more comfortable at risking what I own." ’
‘Craig Mason, 59, said he has felt tied to his job as an engineer at a large defense contractor because he and his wife needed health insurance. A diabetic, he couldn't get affordable coverage on the individual market.
Now, however, he's thinking of leaving his employer in a few years to focus more on his side job, repairing and building guitars and other string instruments. He also wants to spend more time with his three grandchildren.
"I want to try something different," said Mason, a Germantown, Md., resident. "I don't want to be tied to a large corporation. The Affordable Care Act may be just the vehicle to bridge the gap until I'm eligible for Medicare." ’ - I'm quitting my job. Thanks Obamacare! yahoo.com, 02/25/2014
Apparently Ms. Willmus and Mr. Mason attribute their good fortune to Obamacare or The Affordable Care Act. Ostensibly the entity by the name Obamacare or Affordable Care Act is an exogenous entity that bestows low cost health insurance by its own means. Yes, the proverbial pixie dust generator!
Ms. Willmus and Mr. Mason have forgotten that other taxpayers are the means. That exogenous taxpayers are coercively made to cause the good fortune of a recipient class which Ms. Willmus and Mr. Mason have chosen to join. How very nice indeed!
Link to the Yahoo article appears below:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/im-quitting-job-thanks-obamacare-120600325.html
In the main, when people discuss Milton Friedman's fourth category of spending they do so in a mistaken vacuum. How so? They forget to point out HOW other people's money came to be. Stated alternatively, other people spending other people's money on other people, the discussion thereof, many, many times leaves out Friedman's first point: coercion.
Hence one ends with an isolated discussion of how Friedman's fourth category of spending points out the careless way or ineffective/inefficiency produced by other people [politico] spending other people's money [taxpayer] on other people [recipient class]. True enough. However the isolated discussion decouples the coercion and only discusses the single phenomena without discussing [coupling] the ability of such a spending phenomena to emerge.
Think about it, how many times have you heard the discussion, in isolation, of other people spending other people's money on other people??
Meanwhile, twenty six discussions later a separate subject is discussed regarding coercion of forcibly appropriating other people's money. Moreover, the discussion of coercion many times appears in isolation from Friedman's total discussion.
Nay, nay! One must discuss both subjects as coercion must occur first and only then can one arrive at other people spending other people's money on other people.
Problem solved! Please go to 11:00 to 11:34 of the Youtube video below and hear Friedman himself discuss the two phenomena in tandem.
