First off, If you are reading this, see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBRjl117oac
Ray Stevens, of “The Streak” and other comedy classics takes on Obamacare.
***********
New Info on the Secret, Back-room, deal known as ObamaCare.
Remember this: ‘Under my plan,” candidate Barack Obama said on Sept. 12, 2008, while campaigning in Dover, N.H., “no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”
Well, he was lying. Just like “transparency” and “post-partisan”.
Read My Lips, No New Taxes! Whoops, sorry wrong President.
A shocker, I know. But there it is. Or rather, here it is…
If you don’t get your health insurance from an employer, DON”T GET MARRIED!
EVER!
And if you lose your job, and have to go on the government dole, BECAUSE IT’S MANDATORY,you’ll get hit even harder. Even if the benefits don’t kick in until 2014.
The built-in “marriage penalty” in both House and Senate healthcare bills has received scant attention. But for scores of low-income and middle-income couples, it could mean a hike of $2,000 or more in annual insurance premiums the moment they say “I do.”
The disparity comes about in part because subsidies for purchasing health insurance under the plan from congressional Democrats are pegged to federal poverty guidelines. That has the effect of limiting subsidies for married couples with a combined income, compared to if the individuals are single.
People who get their health insurance through an employer wouldn’t be affected. Only people that buy subsidized insurance through new exchanges set up by the legislation stand to be impacted. About 17 million people would receive such subsidies in 2016 under the House plan, the Congressional Budget Office estimates.
The bills cap the annual amount people making less than 400% of the federal poverty level must pay for health insurance premiums, ranging from 1.5% of income for the poorest to 11% at the top end, under the House plan.
For an unmarried couple with income of $25,000 each, combined premiums would be capped at $3,076 per year, under the House bill. If the couple gets married, with a combined income of $50,000, their annual premium cap jumps to $5,160 — a “penalty” of $2,084. Those figures were included in a memo prepared by House Republican staff.
The disparity is slightly smaller in the Senate version of health-care legislation, chiefly because premium subsidies in the House bill are more targeted towards low-wage earners.
Under the Senate bill, a couple with $50,000 combined income would pay $3,450 in annual premiums if unmarried, and $5,100 if married — a difference of $1,650.
Republicans say the effect on married couples whose combined income makes them ineligible for subsidies is even greater — up to $5,000 or more — but that is more difficult to measure because it includes assumptions about the price of insurance policies.
Democratic staff who helped to write the bill confirmed the existence of the penalty, but said it cannot be remedied without creating other inequities.
Other Inequities??? WTF!!!
For instance, they said making the subsidies neutral towards marriage would lead to a married couple with only one bread-winner getting a more generous subsidy than a single parent at the same income-level.
“The Finance Committee, along with other committees in the Senate, took pains to craft the most equitable overall structure possible, and that’s what we have here,” said a Democratic Senate Finance Committee aide.(WSJ)
Oh, I see. More Liberal “fairness”. Gee, I feel so much better now…
“You might like to have it be progressive, equitable and marriage-neutral. But you have to decide what your goals are, because you can’t accomplish all three,” said Stacy Dickert-Conlin, an economics professor at Michigan State University.
How about not at all.
Oh, sorry, that’s against THE AGENDA.
THE AGENDA UBER ALLES!
Or then there’s : The “soak the rich” Plans…ah, not so much…
The administration wants to put it on the backs of the middle class in the form of a 40% excise tax on the value of health insurance coverage that exceeds $8,500 a year for individuals or $23,000 for families.
Those who think they’ll be exempt from the tax because their health care insurance isn’t one that Obama would define as a “super, gold-plated Cadillac” plan are kidding themselves. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, director of the Congressional Budget Office under George W. Bush, says 95% of Americans who are covered by plans that fit into the Cadillac category make less than $250,000 a year.
Even groups on the left get it. As Jim Kessler, vice president for policy for the progressive Third Way think tank, puts it: “A lot of those folks that have Cadillac plans have Chevy wages.”
Also don’t believe the claim that the tax will be on the insurance companies only. Sure, insurers will write the checks to Washington. But they’ll forward their costs to the customers, adding to a tax burden that’s already too punitive — and going to get worse.
“Passing the tax on to workers would result in an effective tax rate that is even higher than the specified 40%,” Curtis S. Dubay wrote in October in a Heritage Foundation WebMemo. “When the insurance companies embed the cost of the excise tax in premiums, the prices of plans will rise. A higher price means the excise tax would be higher, too.”
This would happen when the tax on a $10,000 individual plan adds $600 (40% of the $1,500 beyond the $8,500 threshold) to the cost, leaving a new premium of $10,600. The new cost will then be subject to the tax, boosting the premium another $840 (40% of the $2,100 over the $8,500 threshold). By now, that $10,000 plan is costing $11,440 a year.
“This cascading effect,” explains Dubay, “could raise the effective rate for the excise tax to 67% according to one estimate — considerably higher than the 40% specified in the bill.”
The problems don’t stop there. The growing premiums will drive many private employers that provide coverage for their workers to downgrade to cheaper insurance plans, which defeats the effort to improve health care.
A Liberal Democrat “soak the rich” scheme that blows up in their face and does the exact opposite. Nah, that never happened before…
(see Alternative Minimum Tax)
Most Americans don’t know what their insurance plans are worth. They’re happy to let their employers pay the premiums for them and believe that the money isn’t coming out of their pockets.
Very true.
Very Very true.
I heard a woman say, “Well, I just got out of the hospital. It cost $150,000. And I paid nothing. It was wonderful”
She was complaining about a $42 State Mandated charge in her car insurance. Because “I’m poor you know”.
Or the couple from Winnepeg, Manitoba, Canada on FOX last night, “I had my hip replaced for free. And my sister died of cancer but she never paid anything. And the taxes are very reasonable…”
This is the Canadian model the Democrats say they aren’t using. The one where if the government denies your medical procedure it’s illegal to pay for it yourself!!
UGH!
To quote a now politically incorrect comedian, “America, whatta country!”
“These are plans,” says the St. Pete newspaper, “that generally have very low co-pays and lots of extras.”
Sound familiar? Then either be prepared to pay more, or be stuck with a brass-plated, Yugo plan that’s more affordable. And while learning to settle for less, don’t forget: This grand reform effort coming out of Washington is supposed to improve our health care.(IBD)
And that doesn’t even cover the Energy Taxes coming down the pike.
