by Guest » Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:09 am
Healthcare Bill Exemption
In March of this year, President Barak Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, officially known as H.R. 3590, or Healthcare Reform. Part of this law will require that by 2014, most Americans must purchase government regulated health insurance. In fact, Section 1501 of the act adds a new chapter to the IRS code that mandates all “applicable” individuals to either obtain health insurance that meets the bill’s “minimum essential coverage” standards. If they do not, they will be required to pay a penalty.
This really is a good article and filled with info that can really help
In March of this year, President Barak Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, officially known as H.R. 3590, or Healthcare Reform. Part of this law will require that by 2014, most Americans must purchase government regulated health insurance. In fact, Section 1501 of the act adds a new chapter to the IRS code that mandates all “applicable” individuals to either obtain health insurance that meets the bill’s “minimum essential coverage” standards. If they do not, they will be required to pay a penalty.
This really is a good article and filled with info that can really help
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 05:36 am Post Subject:
What would really help is to vote in a new group of politicians who are willing to throw out Obamacare and work together with the commercial insurance industry do it the right way.
Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 07:16 am Post Subject:
But the big issue is how to bring about synergy with the commercial insurance companies because their self interests would hinder them from adding those features which may affect their earnings.
I think both government insurance and commercial insurance have their own space. lower income groups can opt for government insurance and higher ones can go for commercial insurance.
Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 02:31 am Post Subject:
Except for the fact that there is no "government insurance" that goodyphilips refers to for anyone to turn to.
Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 07:18 am Post Subject:
Hi Max,
You never fail to catch me on wrong foot.I think this time i am better prepared look at this link:
http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/Health/HealthInsurance.shtml
though i know i will get back as good from you as i gave since your knowledge and expertise in insurance is unbeatable.
Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 03:02 pm Post Subject:
And what would you like me to look at specifically?
The link to the California Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board, for example (a state-run program being run by a state that has one foot in the bankruptcy grave and the other one being stepped on by the labor unions demanding higher wages, higher pensions, and greater health benefits at no cost to the employees), indicates that a 50-year old person in San Francisco would pay $575/mo for their coverage. A husband and wife would pay $1,150, and no telling what their 26 year old child will pay (but probably about half that). There is a $1500 deductible and $2500 maximum out of pocket expense per person. Total cost for the family of three, about $1430/month.
Assuming the spouse does not work, and the wage-earner is making the average weekly wage of $1,579 in San Francisco County, then, before taxes, healthcare spending in that household = about 21% of income. But San Francisco is also the most expensive county in which to live in California, and the person earning that $82,100 income will be paying, in 2011, assuming no change to the sunsetting EGTRRA, roughly $22,000 in federal income tax, assuming only the standard deduction and no 401(k) contributions. Plus another $5,000-$7,000 in state income tax. So now, that $1430 represents about 31% of after tax income, not counting Social Security and Medicare. Add that 7.65% to the equation, and Obamacare = about 35% of after tax income. Take away another $3500 for a mortgage and property taxes and, let's say $800 for food, and another $300 for utilities and . . . oops, not enough left to pay for everyone's Obamacare.
I'm not entirely sure that's what was going through the mind of Mr & Mrs Unhealthy 50-Year-Old when they heard that Obama and Congress was going to make sure they had affordable health insurance available.
In Texas, where the plan is a "federal" one, the deductible is $2500, maximum out of pocket is $5950, and the premium for a 55 year old (or older, to age 65, when Medicare reigns) is $688. The 26 year old would pay $344. So the sick family with husband, wife, and one 26 year old child, would be paying $1720 per month for their insurance. So the numbers are even worse than they are for someone in San Francisco.
So, yessir, Obamacare is going to magically solve the problem for the people with preexisting conditions alright! And 30,000,000 more people will be waiting in line for a doctor's appointment in another 10 years, probably still going to the Emergency Room instead, where the cost of care is five to ten times higher than it is in the doctor's office or urgent care clinic, but the hospital gets the same 20 cents on the dollar from Medicare and Medicaid that the doctor does for the same procedure. We should probably expect more hospital emergency rooms to shut down courtesy of Obamacare, too. (And I have no idea why any young person in America would want to become a doctor anymore. There's perhaps more money and better benefits being a trash collector in San Francisco, where they earn more than $100,000 per year + benefits.)
Or did you want me to look at the business about healthcare reform "extending" the death of the Medicare Trust Fund from 2017 to 2029? It still does nothing to fund, let alone even begin to discuss, the $70-plus TRILLION shortfall by 2080 the Trustees identified and have been telling Congress about since 2006. Congress keeps asking for updates, and the numbers keep getting worse, so they stick their heads a little deeper in the sand where things appear to be warm, quiet, and OK.
Or did you want me to read the ridiculous letter HHS Secretary Sebelius wrote to AHIP which includes, among other tidbits of BS, the following:
Any premium increases will be moderated by out-of-pocket savings resulting from the law. These savings include a reduction in the "hidden tax" on insured Americans that subsidizes care for the uninsured. By making sure insurance covers people who are most at risk, there will be less uncompensated care, and, as a result, the amount of cost shifting to those who have coverage today will be reduced by up to $1 billion in 2013. By making sure that high-risk individuals have insurance and emphasizing health care that prevents illnesses from becoming serious, long-term health problems, the law will also reduce the cost of avoidable hospitalizations. Prioritizing prevention without cost sharing could also result in significant savings: from lowering people's out-of-pocket spending to lowering costs due to conditions like obesity, and to increasing worker productivity - today, increased sickness and lack of coverage security reduce economic output by $260 billion per year.
Not only did she fail to mention that the government pays even less to hospitals and doctors than insurance companies do, she conveniently left out the fact that contributions to HSAs and FSAs will be reduced by 50%, Congress' own little "hidden tax" on people trying to cover some of their medical expenses with pretax dollars, raising that family's taxes by $600-$1000 or more per year. Far more than $1,000,000 in actual new taxes compared to the ethereal savings conjured up in the mind of the Council of Economic Advisers, none of whom is an insurance actuary, who have predicted that spending nearly $1,000,000,000,000 over the next ten years in NEW SPENDING, will save $140,000,000,000 in existing spending. No one has yet to demonstrate that this = savings. It still means more outgo than income.
And what about the plan Congress is working on to raise payroll taxes to deal with the Medicare trust fund problem? Doubling the contribution rate by 2019 from 6.2% to 12.4% and increasing the maximum contribution limit to 90% of salary, with no cap. That'll cause employers to hire millions of new workers, won't it? If it does, then expect consumer prices to increase by more than that over the same amount of time. That should result in annual inflation rates in the 5%-6% range, double what it is today. How's that for a "hidden tax."
Sorry . . . the government has it all wrong! Not only do we need a private, for-profit health insurance industry (which Obamacare is intended to dismantle and destroy), but we also need health care plans for those who are otherwise uninsurable. The two are not the same, and they need to be coordinated.
We cannot expect the commercial insurance companies to bear all of the burden of persons with preexisting conditions AND provide all insureds with UNLIMITED LIFETIME COVERAGE that Obamacare demands. They will look at the economics and say, "The hell with this. If the government wants to run the show, fine, we're history." And our commercial health insurance industry will evaporate.
And America, as we know it today, right along along with them.
Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 03:42 pm Post Subject:
your knowledge and expertise in insurance is unbeatable.
Your compliment is acknowledged, but my knowledge is not "unbeatable". It is, perhaps, a bit more informed. But that's only because I have a particular interest in the topic.
Until I really started looking at the numbers behind Social Security and Medicare by reading the Trustee's Annual Reports (and that wasn't all that many years ago), I had a sense that things were headed in the wrong direction, as many in America do today. But until I actually read and understood the numbers, I had no idea it was as bad as it is.
In 2006, the Trustees revealed a $14,000,000,000,000 (trillion) shortfall in Social Security funding (mostly retirement benefits), and a $73,000,000,000,000 shortfall in Medicare funding (mostly due to an expanding aging population, and based on continued increases in spending adjusted for inflation). Congress received those numbers and essentially said, "Oh, it can't be that bad." They still say the same thing today.
When they start comparing the workings of a new system of healthcare to Medicare, I know all hope is lost. When some tried to create a path for 55-64 year-olds to enter the Medicare system, sounder heads prevailed and pulled that proposition from the legislation. It would have demolished the entire system in less than 10 years. But those big mouths, led by Harry Reid, need to be silenced before they have a chance to resurrect their idea and sneak it in through some other piece of legislation.
Check it out for yourself. Read the Social Security Trustees' Annual Report for 2009 and see what the numbers look like. They're worse than those in 2006. Then read the crap about "strengthening Social Security and Medicare" spewing from the mouths of Congressmen and women in the Congressional Record. There is not enough money in America to cover the bill.
There might be enough tea in China, however.
Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 09:24 pm Post Subject: health insurance
really nice effort and by this forum one can easily get to know the rules as well as regulations related to health insurance
Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:21 pm Post Subject:
Give me a break. "ObamaCare (please don't call it that)" is a joke, pure and simple. It is filled with fat and will bankrupt this country's citizenry. I started perusing the 'net and found some interesting stuff:
According to opencongress.org, 73% of Americans oppose the legislation, but Congress and our Fearless Leader DON'T CARE WHAT THE ELECTORATE WANT!!:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3590/show
Here's a fun little piece that's part of the legislation, courtesy of www.knifetricks.com:
The bill seeks to impose a 5% tax on elective plastic surgery, to be paid by the patient and to be collected and remitted by the doctor. H.R. 3590, Section 9017 (proposing new Internal Revenue Code section 5000B). This adds another weapon to the marketing arsenals of non-U.S. hospitals seeking to attract medical tourists.
Killer- keep people out of U.S. hospitals and instead send them to other countries to get their plastic surgery.
Here's more on the Medicare part of things:
Higher-income expats have to pay ½% more. U.S. taxpayers earning more than $200,000 individually or $250,000 jointly will have to pay an additional one-half of one percent of their income as Medicare taxes. H.R. 3590, Section 9015(a), (b) (proposing new Internal Revenue Code section 3101(b)). Consequently, the Medicare tax for these higher-income expats will increase from 2.9% to 3.4%. Medicare tax must be paid by U.S. citizens regardless of where they reside. And there is no cap on Medicare tax, so expats have to pay it on all wage income.
Again courtesy of knifetricks.com
Want more? How about this one? IRS Fun goodies:
Fines and taxes. If you are an “applicable individual” and you are not covered by health insurance, a fine of about $63 a month can be imposed. H.R. 3590, Section 1501(b) (proposing new Internal Revenue Code section 5000A(c)). Since this would be an I.R.S. fine, failure to pay the fine could expose the person to the I.R.S.’s many civil penalties. See Letter from Joint Committee on Taxation dated Nov. 5, 2009. Criminal penalties could not, however, be imposed for failure to pay the penalty. H.R. 3590, Section 1501(b) (proposing new Internal Revenue Code section 5000A(g)(2)(A)).
So, what is an "applicable individual?" Let's find out, shall we?
The definition of applicable individual only excludes those with religious objection, individuals not lawfully present in the United States, or incarcerated individuals. This definition can be found on page 128 of HR 3590.
So, to escape potential fines, everyone needs to either (1) create some religious objection (that'll be a fun one), (2) not be lawfully present in the U.S. (illegal immigration???) or be in jail. Then no fines!
More fun stuff if you want it... I got a million of them!
InsTeacher 8)
Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 01:02 am Post Subject:
The 5% elective cosmetic surgery tax was cosmetically removed from the final legislation. But the cosmetic tanning tax of 10% was left in. Only spray on tans are exempt (as are "therapeutic lightwave treatments").
Although I find it offensive, personally, I like referring to it as Obamacare. It will be his only legacy as a one-term president, and may even remind the voters of the future who it was that is largely responsible for their plight.
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:36 am Post Subject: dNfZppUSNc
YouÂ’re a real deep thinker. Tahkns for sharing.
Add your comment