A recent Blue Mass Group diary has driven me to distraction for the last few days. I wasn’t worried about it being true veracity. Once you’ve smelled and stepped in bull$h*t, you tend to recognize it. But I was annoyed because I couldn’t readily dispel the (un)intended confusion it caused. I literally searched for a few hours looking for reliable information to support the statement “Starting in 2014, a new tax takes root and that is a 2% tax on every health insurance premium across the country.” That’s because it is a lie.
Like death panels, Obama’s African citizenship, and jackalope, the mythological health insurance premium tax does not exist. There are some taxes on insurance companies that the insurance lobby claims will be passed directly to the consumer. And one insurer, Blue Cross, Blue Shield of Alabama has been putting the purported cost of the taxes on its insurance bills, but the numbers are, in polite terms, dubious. In common parlance, they are lies. That’s what law professor Mark Hall implied in a recent NPR interview.
Insurers haven’t typically published taxes on their invoices, says Mark Hall, a law professor at Wake Forest University.
“One thing that bothers me is attributing any amount specifically to the ‘Affordable Care Act,’ ” he said via email. “There are also state premium taxes, and normal corporate and sales taxes, none of which are itemized the same way.”
He also questioned whether Alabama Blue Cross would have been able to calculate the amount so precisely.
Taxes, Hall points out, have been part of health plan costs for decades. And like all costs, businesses pass them on to consumers. To some extent. Other factors also contribute to the prices paid by consumers. These include, but are not limited to, the actual cost of the product, research and development, advertising & sales promotion, training and organization of the sales force, product distribution, after-sales service, the price of competing goods and services, consumers’ disposable income, consumer tastes and fashions, and yes, taxes. Of course, Alabama Blue Cross doesn’t itemize these costs or other taxes on their invoices.
So the 2% tax on every health insurance premium across the country? It’s a lie.And it’s a lie that Blue Mass Group, a blog that many of us support with diaries, comments, and subscriptions, a blog dedicated to reality-based commentary and the progressive cause, has passed along. Not only has it remained on the recent user posts, it has garnered 27 comments. By publishing it and commenting on it, Blue Mass Group has been complicit in the spreading of right-wing lie. We have turned it into another data point for search engines and made it part of the permanent record on the internet. It’s not just silence that is complicity.
danfromwaltham says
I don’t understand, the 2% tax is a lie b/c Professor Hall doesn’t understand how Blue Cross of Alabama was able to break out the Obamacare tax on a customers invoice.
This diarist claims there is no 2% tax on every health insurance policy, but then admits there are taxes being imposed on health insurance companies and likely to be passed down to the consumers, just like marketing, R&D, staffing, etc.
The question that Mark fails to answer is this:
Does Obamacare increase taxes on Insurance companies? If yes,
then how much revenue is expected to be generated over 10 years and will the cost be added to the premiums we pay?
It’s okay to seek solace with a Wake Forest professor who is likely imune to these taxes b/c Wale Forest may self-insure and being employed by a tax-exempt business, federal taxes are not a big deal anyways.
I submit Exibit A:
“A new technical analysis by Oliver Wyman estimates that the new health insurance tax in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) “will increase premiums in the insured market on average by 1.9% to 2.3% in 2014,” and by 2023 “will increase premiums 2.8% to 3.7%.”
“According to the Joint Committee on Taxation: “For those insurance premiums that are subject to the fee, we estimate that the premiums, including the tax liability, would be between 2.0 and 2.5 percent greater than they otherwise would be. You asked for an estimate of the dollar amount of price change associated with the fee on the premium for a family of four. While we have not separately estimated premiums by family size, we estimate that eliminating this fee could decrease the average family premium in 2016 by $350 to $400.” –
– See more at: http://www.ahipcoverage.com/2011/11/02/new-technical-analysis-of-impact-of-premium-tax/#sthash.ZMhPPM7v.dpuf
kbusch says
It’s a screed from an advocacy group.
How many times do we have to revisit the question of what constitutes a Harvard study?
kbusch says
we find a report from 2011.
2011!
So we cannot find any confirmation of this pending calamity that’s any more recent than 2011?
Maybe we can dig up some scary predictions of inflation, too.
kbusch says
If I go here, I learn that there are three fees or taxes associated with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Cigna calls it the PPACA.)
1. The Comparative Effectiveness Research Fee.
2. The Health Insurance Industry Fee
3. The Reinsurance Assessment.
The Comparative Effectiveness Research Fee starts at $2 per patient per year and future amounts are indexed to national health expenditures. Frankly, this kind of research is exactly what we need to keep health care costs down. Complaining about a $2 per person per year investment is deluded.
The irresponsibly sourced, lying diary, to which mark-bail refers, probably is talking about the Health Insurance Industry Fee. This fee is to fund the federal and state marketplaces and exchanges. It is paid by insurers and it is estimated to be about 2 – 2.5% of premiums in 2013 and to rise as high as 4%. Notice that it is allocated to insurers based on the prior year’s share of total earned premium. Essentially, the government is asking the insurers to fund the market for insurance. This does not seem even mildly unreasonable. Notice, too, that it is in proportion to the business actually won on that market. The insurance exchanges seem to offer a handful of benefits to insurance companies: (1) more business, (2) free advertising, (3) standardization of enrollment. In other words, the insurance exchanges lower costs for insurance companies. The government is simply and fairly capturing some of those savings to fund the exchanges.
Finally, the Reinsurance Assessment is aimed to “help lessen [the] impact of high-dollar claims in the individual market.” This again seems like a reasonable assessment: We are bringing people into the insurance market who used to be excluded. Some of those people must have really expensive conditions, and cannot expect them to be evenly distributed across the country. So some insurance companies should get protection from that extra burden.
geoffm33 says
“Health Insurance Industry Fee” == “Health Insurance Providers Fee”
…From here
The link to the proposed rule in the link above is dead, but this looks to be it here:
http://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/10672248/2013-04836-pi
danfromwaltham says
Also, this fee on the insurance companies is not tax deductible which raises the effective rate by 54%. If the insurance industry is telling us they will pass it down to the consumers, believe them!
Worse, this could trigger more businesses to self-ensure, thus avoiding the expensive mandates under Obamacare and higher premiums and this tax. If more businesses and workers are self-insured, the taxes on premiums will increase even higher. There is your trickle-down misery everyone.
I wish I could be like some others, and tell you things are rainbows and unicorns and we all will save $2500 in premiums.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/10/obamacare-s-health-insurance-tax-targets-consumers-and-small-businesses
kbusch says
I frankly don’t understand why the hell you’re here.
David, could you please, please, please ban this guy.
kirth says
Is this now the accepted level of discourse – to use the Heritage Foundation as a supposedly credible source of information? Please, spare us any more of this person.
David says
is basically a factory for right-wing talking points – which is nonetheless taken seriously among people who influence policy. So it’s not good enough to dismiss them out of hand. You have to be able to rebut what they say by pointing to more reliable sources and explaining why Heritage is wrong or misleading. That’s why it’s useful to keep people like Dan around. It sharpens your arguments – not only at BMG, but by extension with your conservative uncle, your libertarian co-worker, etc. Echo chambers are boring and basically useless, and that’s never been what we wanted here at BMG.
Alternatively, as I’ve emphasized many times before, the scroll bar on your browser works very well.
Christopher says
…is that ACA was originally a Heritage idea.
David says
They, and those who cite their work, should be reminded of that at every possible turn.
SomervilleTom says
It is much easier to delete misinformation than to “ban this guy”. The former is a quick edit. The latter is a tarpit that gets stickier and stickier.
I don’t see the value in preserving pieces like this that are, simply, lies.
thegreenmiles says
We have a committee of top users and only ban after lengthy discussion, at least one if not more warnings, and a final majority vote. The site is much better for it. (I moved back to MA from VA two years ago.)
jconway says
By inviting the insurance companies to the table and letting them write the law. They got nearly everything they wanted-including government fines for those that refuse to be their customers. Can’t beat that. And of course any flaws, problems, or hidden fees they invent they can just blame on “that nasty ole’ Obamacare”. Granted, I’ve seen Harry and Louise and know how bad these guys would’ve fought to kill reform. But in a stronger political climate we should transition away from this flawed model.
kbusch says
This thing just barely passed as it was. For some reason, a special Nebraska cut-out was required, too.
So it’s not at all clear to me that Obama “brought this on himself”. Health reform like this is the closest we’re going to get for a good long while. Maybe just maybe the public option might have been retained, but that’s as close as things were going to get.
Single payer, I’d guess, would also have had a bunch of snafus and political downsides. How was health insurance going to work for the last month that insurers were in business? How was a government-run healthcare system going to be staffed? How soon? How quickly?
I suspect that even transitioning to a better system (i.e., single payer) is going to have some political pain along the way.
markbernstein says
Single payer was never in the cards for ACA. We’ll get there someday, but only if we don’t let liars set us (!) to convincing America that life was better with millions more uninsured people and it’s all Obama’s fault.
ONE poster is perverting this forum. As Mark Ball observes and as I argued in a long diary a year ago, any competent troll knows that, if people try to ignore the troll, he need only broadcast the intolerable. Our friend is fairly competent.
Let’s trade him to RMG for a player to be named later. Let’s lobby David to find the box up in the attic where he packed the bell, book, and candle. Or let’s hide posts with three down votes from everyone who doesn’t opt in, and appoint a committee if Watchers to bell the cat.
jconway says
With a filibuster proof majority and poll after poll showing support he should’ve at least started at single payer and let the public option be the compromise. “They would’ve fought tooth and nail”-and tried 42 times to repeal it? Where have I heard that one before.
Obama’s single greatest strength is simultaneously his greatest flaw. Dubya was decisive and arrogant to a fault-Obama is deliberative to a fault. It’s like the transition team put together a centrist plan before the Congress and expected it to go through the sausage maker unscathed.
Even Wyden-Bennett would’ve been a better alternative and it had enough GOP co sponsors to pass. Was never on the table. I defended Obama at the time, got into bitter arguments with some of you on that, but Obama and I were wrong. If Dubya had the cajones to try and pass the marriage amendment and social security privatization it’d be nice if someone on our side did the same. His base rewarded him with full government control until 2006.
danfromwaltham says
It is very disconcerting that some on BMG want to filter information on this wonderful blog, in other words, hide the truth from the readers and put unnecessary pressure on David/Bob/Charlie to keep the curtain closed on Obamacare, rather than talking opening and honestly about it, as Petr has done, he deserves kudos and yes, trust him b/c he sounds as if he read the entire 2000 bill.
This topic is not easy, as Mark Bail admitted spending hours doing research and came up with a quote from a professor who is perplexed about the whole situation. I too, have spent some time trying to lock down this tax, which is real, and all indications are those who have insurance (exluding those who self-insure) will pay more as a result, no ifs’, ands’, or buts’.
Perhaps Dallas Morning News is a conservative site, IDN, but who cares? I can quote NY Times and MSNBC and the same Obamacare horn tooters lash out against the sources. I don’t believe in just reading emails from the RNC or DNC as viable news sources, along with the donation button they want you to click.
The link below debunks the assertions by those who call this tax “a lie” or “BS”. I will remind some here not to toss the “lie” word around so easily, as it brings up the recipient of “The Lie of the Year Award” for 2013 belongs to President Obama.
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/columnists/jim-landers/20130909-new-taxes-coming-in-health-insurance-premiums.ece
mikew says
I said to get rid of “Dan the Man” years ago, but after the equivacoting I saw with regards to EBIII’s outbursts, I’m not surprised he is still here.
JimC says
Oh, never mind.
mikew says
.
JimC says
n/t
mikew says
would have seized upon these so-called “facts” during at least one of their 42 attempts to repeal the ACA, but they didn’t, so it isn’t real – not that reality has ever been a barrier to them.
Now back to Green Eggs and Ham…
danfromwaltham says
What fertile mind came up with that logic?
mikew says
42 attempts and they still haven’t read the bill. But Dan, maybe you could change the oil in that brainpan of yours and point me to the exact sections of the bill wherein this malarkey is written. Let me help you out with a link to the act, a document you are probably unfamiliar with:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf
You just go at your own pace there, Dan.
danfromwaltham says
Insurance companies are lying, Heritage Foundation is lying, Blue Cross of Texas and Alabama are lying, other BMG’ers are lying since they too, acknowledged the tax exists, that your point?
Peter Porcupine says
Above, Kbusch linked to the CIGNA document explaining the charges. A reinsurance FEE, the effectiveness FEE, the industry FEE.
These are not taxes; they are fees. So nobody’s right when everybody’s wrong.
Hey – check out Accountable Care Organizations, the ACO of the ACA, the NSA of health insurance. (The administration has a thing for similar initials, just like OFA became OFA which became OFA).
That will make your head explode!
jconway says
Weren’t they the love child of the right at some point? I distinctly remember Nixon and Ehhrlicman praising KP on the tapes. Having (all to briefly) been a health care consultant-I can attest to the fact that ACOs are widely praised and admired within the industry-which was lot ACA friendly to say the least…
Peter Porcupine says
Maybe KP took care of some ED discreetly?
(JC – I know who KP is, but perhaps you’d like to enlighten the exurbs? I was a mere PC/LHD agent, rather than a CONSULTANT(!) but I would question why an insurance company would admire this type of research during the days of exclusion for pre-existing…and the potential for HIPPA abuse is real )
mikew says
Read the Act…
I do not like them
in a house.
I do not like them
with a mouse.
I do not like them
here or there.
I do not like them
anywhere.
I do not like green eggs and ham.
I do not like them, Dan-I-am
danfromwaltham says
Why read a bill sold by the 2013 Liar of the year recipient?
mikew says
.
danfromwaltham says
If we don’t speak till then, have a Happy New Year!
Mark L. Bail says
The assumption is that the cumulative behavior of individuals is equal to the accumulative behavior of the whole. If all individuals respond as a whole, then we would lose the troll. But because we’re individuals we will never respond as a complete whole. It’s a matter of probability masked by the mistaken belief that act individually to create a group. It’s not going to happen. It’s also the fallacy of composition.
Someone will inevitably respond. Mark Bernstein nails it. The troll only needs he need only broadcast something that someone finds intolerable and someone will inevitably respond.
So we all end up being complicit. On the thread in question, 4 of us donate to Blue Mass Group. I support Blue Mass Group at about $50 a year, part of which goes to fund the right-wing noise machine.
Peter Porcupine says
.
Mark L. Bail says
Didn’t say it was. As I’ve said before, I believe in a free market of ideas and speech in general. People’s contributions should be valued by their words, not their financial contributions. And their should be a base-line of value. Lies have no value–even when you try to change to legitimate subjects.
The Editors were told that we should contribute money if we wanted to see improvements to the site. Some of us did. I don’t know how many of us. There are probably people who contribute, but don’t post or comment. The improvements are not having to look at a pop-up and an improved comment rating system. The shortcomings are dealing with Dan. In a real society, there would be ways to deal with him on an individual basis (except perhaps at town meeting). On BMG, there isn’t. The BMG experience for many of us now sucks because of Dan. I can always stop subscribing to BMG. Like public radio, enough people will contribute. I now question why I should continue donating.
In my opinion, David should had pulled Dan’s post. There is a genuine taxation issue to be discussed, but it shouldn’t be buried in a lie. And in the ideal world, or the SoapBlox days, we would be able to down-rate a comment off a page. Personally, I would rather see Dan (dis)incentivized with comment ratings rather than banned outright. In a perfect world, his posts would be edited for veracity so any actual issues could be discussed.
Off-topic: Do you know anything about the running of Barnstable? I hear the town and schools share the same business manager?
Peter Porcupine says
You mean the town with 5 fire departments, 4 water departments, but only one police department?
Tom Lynch, former state rep. and head of the Barnstable Housing Authority, is town manager. I thought the Asst. town manager was business manager but that was vacant for a while until Lynch appointed the DPW head as assistant. The business manager for the schools is Mark Milne, and it wouldn’t surprise me if he were manager for the town as well. Greg Milne, former town councillor, was also managing something. They may be related.
Barnstable is the only town on Cape without a town meeting, preferring a town council that’s sort of Plan E – weak council chair, strong manager, blurred lines of command. But, since it’s a town instead of a city, they don’t have to pick a plan, and it is reflected in thier government infrastructure overall.
Mark L. Bail says
a combined school business manager-town accountant. It’s hell out here trying to find anyone qualified to be a town accountant. We advertise and we get people who were bookkeepers for car dealerships. Not necessarily bad experience, but not transferable to town accounting.
jconway says
And do they need to be a CPA/studied it in college? Let me know, I may have some candidates in mind.
Mark L. Bail says
but the person would need a strong background in municipal finance. It would NOT be an entry-level position. They would manage an $8+ million school budget. Being a CPA wouldn’t necessarily be helpful. People need to be trained in municipal finance. Private sector training and experience are not sufficient.
The Town Account is a part-time job, but again, private sector training and experience are not sufficient. The job pays about $20,000. In Granby, MA.
Here’s a partial job description for a town account:
If the people you know are young, encourage them to look into government service. There are some decent opportunities, but few pay a CPA’s salary.
jconway says
Well I have a potential opportunity in Boston I hope goes through, if I were to get it I would need to find the fiancee a job. Majored in Bio with a premed epidemiology specialty, but she’s been working as an accountant/administrator at a Hyde Park church (so a seven figure budget to say the least). But yeah, not the municipal stuff. And that’s not a great salary-though I understand times are tough. Thanks for responding though.
Mark L. Bail says
Glad to have you back in Massachusetts.
I remember those days fondly. My wife and I married when I was 25. We had 5 years before we had kids I was making $17,000, and my wife was making $21,000. I think minimum wage was was $6 something an hour. Even by 1989 standards, we weren’t making much money, but we had disposable income. Our rent was less than $500 a month. I worked at a bookstore and we could walk to South Hadley Center to shop, eat, and go to the movies.
Enjoy!
mikew says
But there seems to be a decided lack of will. The whole ignoring the troll doesn’t work either. One of 2 things result: either no one posts and therefore there is no dialog or people have a dialog that does not include the troll, thus giving the troll fodder for irresponsible and unrefuted commentary anyway.
Only two ways to go here folks: ban him or live with it.
JimC says
The premise of BMG is, commentary on politics for people who want to comment on politics, or read said comments. The notion that we’re all “complicit” if someone abuses the system is just incorrect. It’s like saying welfare is bad because a few people cheat.
To me the issue is quality of life. I can live with DFW posting here, but the dynamic changes if he’s working people up, and we expend all sorts of mental energy arguing over whether to ban him.
Live and let live, or ban and move on. Either way, we’re not complicit. There’s no other statewide blog to go to.
Mark L. Bail says
I think I refuted myself in my first comment on this thread.
It certainly is mainly a “quality of life” issue. We’ve had righties before who were not annoying. JohnD comes to mind. Gary comes to mind. Peter Porcupine was never annoying. Billxi was annoying and frequently downrated out of existence.
jconway says
Then for the love of God IGNORE HIM
It’s posts like these that only make the DFW experience way worse than it has to be. It’s people who bother engaging him or nitpicking him over every little detail. Accept that he can’t make rational arguments and move on. I only commented on the Huckabee post because I actually thought the substance of the quotes he posted were of interest to debate. can the right go economically populist? And kbusch moving it ensured the debate didn’t fall into the pedantic replies DFW is known for. When he uses your name or initials in a post, it’s bait, and ignore it. Or respond to it with witty abandon.
I feel like the EB3 example works. He has his fans, he was banned, behaved a bit better and posted less frequently, and came back and his fans are the ones who read and recommend him. If you see the author is DFW just don’t read. Don’t recommend and don’t comment. That keeps it dead.
He hasn’t said anything grossly offensive and there are far worse people we didn’t ban (seascraper comes to mind, or that sperm and egg guy).
Maybe giving him a time out is appropriate, but honestly DFTT doesn’t work if the people who believe that post that and keep making threads like this.
As for the subscription-there are shows I don’t like on NPR (Prairie Home Companion comes to mind) but you give to keep the whole enterprise going. I don’t like Jimbo Wales but like wikipedia. I don’t like Mark Zuckerberg but use Facebook. Etc.
Bob Neer says
Just ignore it. Posters and commenters who follow our rules are welcome, even when their views are unpopular.
mikew says
“Just when you are about to do something really worthwhile, the ‘nice’ people come along and screw it all up.”
sabutai says
There have been times trolls have taken up half the latest story roll. I wonder at what point ignoring the posts translates into ignoring the blog.
Fact is dfw and ebIII don’t follow the rules. Yet it doesn’t seem to matter.
kbusch says
if I were to write a series of factually reckless posts?
sabutai says
Just for kicks. Can you being by telling how the Republican Party has caused the crisis in Syria?
JimC says
With the caveat that I think Ernie does play nice when told to, sab has an excellent point. The burden of proof is on the editors at this point.
I understand (and can appreciate) the laissez faire approach, but something is amiss when so much of the community is making noise about something.
Mark L. Bail says
offending posts or comments, not the individual.
I don’t mind that people disagree with the point of view I presented, but I’m disappointed that people can’t seem to see things from that perspective. I don’t mean that they have to embrace it–there’s not a correct answer–but I don’t think it’s comprehended.
mikew says
How about inaccurate? Is inaccurate still OK too? Because I hear Lara Logan may be looking for some freelance work.
Mark L. Bail says
and I rest my case.
lodger says
Here.
John Tehan says
…and as such, it bears little resemblance to anything factual. The fact is, this fee is assessed on plans sold through the exchanges, in order to pay for the maintenance and upkeep of the infrastructure associated with the exchanges. If the exchanges weren’t there, it would cost the insurers WAY MORE than 2-4% of their premium dollars to create them.
geoffm33 says
…makes the fact that they are going to pass these costs off onto the consumer ridiculous. (True, but ridiculous). The insureds will pay to maintain the exchanges which give the insurers easy access to enrollees thus lessening their marketing lead generation costs.
danfromwaltham says
This tax/fee/revenue enhancer, whatever you want to call it, increases the premiums of everyone who purchases insurance policies. The only exemptions are those that self-insure, which typically are Fortune 500 companies and their workers, and unions, who typically self-insure.
geoffm33 says
The fee that excludes the sefl-funded plans/unions* is specifically designed to pay for the state and federal exchanges. If it, as you say, includes plans not purhcased through the exchange, that is even more free lead gen/marketing for the insurers. And thus, why I say it’s a shitty thing to pass along to the consumer.
Here is the full list of exclusions from the Health Insurance Industry Fee:
Excludes:
• Self-funded employer sponsored group health plans
• Non-profit corporations that receive more than 80 percent of their revenue from government sponsored poverty programs (Medicaid, CHIP) and that comply with certain restrictions on political activity
• VEBAs established by a union or collective bargaining agreement
• Medicare supplemental coverage that meets the requirements of section 1882(g)(1)
• Coverage for specific diseases or hospital indemnity coverage
• Accident only coverage
• ASO/Stop-loss
• Employee Assistance Plan (EAP), disease management programs and wellness programs that do not provide significant health insurance benefits
danfromwaltham says
But no, Obama has already promised a veto, according to the WSJ link provided by Lodger.
geoffm33 says
..it has to be paid for. How, do you propose, it should be paid for? Perhaps we can assess the insurers a fee or excise tax to pay for it. Shit, we are back at square one.
mikew says
free health care
danfromwaltham says
To pay for the Obamacare tax on health premiums. Those who get the subsidies aren’t really paying for it, those who work for Big Business or Big Unions don’t pay for it since most self-insure, just screw the little guy, right?
mikew says
at Extreme Dodge because your other argument is that they are paying the bill. I’m puzzled…
danfromwaltham says
They make too much money, according to Obamacare, which by the way, ain’t a lot of money. Thus they pay full freight for a policy many won’t use, like 50 something mechanic forced to have maternity coverage and the tax being filtered down to the customers, which Mark Bail disputes in this diary because…ummmm, not sure exactly.
mikew says
How do you know that Dan? I just plugged in a family of 4 (two adults, 2 kids) at $50,000/yr and living in Jackson, MI into the Kaiser Subsidy Calculator
http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/#state=mi&zip=49201&income-type=dollars&income=50%2C000&employer-coverage=0&people=4&alternate-plan-family=individual&adult-count=2&adults%5B0%5D%5Bage%5D=45&adults%5B0%5D%5Btobacco%5D=0&adults%5B1%5D%5Bage%5D=41&adults%5B1%5D%5Btobacco%5D=0&child-count=2&child-tobacco=0
And this is what came out:
The information below is about subsidized exchange coverage. Note that subsidies are only available for people purchasing coverage on their own in the exchange (not through an employer). Depending on your state’s eligibility criteria, you or some members of your family may qualify for Medicaid.
Household income in 2014:212% of poverty levelMaximum % of income you have to pay for the premium, if eligible for a subsidy:6.73% Health Insurance premium in 2014 (for a silver plan, before tax credit):$10,137 per year You could receive a government tax credit subsidy of up to:$6,772 per year
(which covers 67% of the overall premium) Amount you pay for the premium:$3,365 per year
(which equals 6.73% of your household income and covers 33% of the overall premium) .Additional Assistance
Then there is this from the Congressional Research Service:
http://www.ncsl.org/documents/health/hlthinspremcredits.pdf
So Dan, I’m still puzzled, who is getting the bill and have you read the Act?
mike_cote says
Wow, I just laughed so hard that root beer came out of my nose. Seriously, since when does DFW have a clue about what he is trashing? It’s not called a right wing noise machine for nothing.
Mark L. Bail says
My left nostril gives Diet Coke.
mike_cote says
It was like a carbonated sneeze.
danfromwaltham says
Plug in $64K for family of four, likely get a goose egg.
petr says
Mikew says above… which you didn’t read…
danfromwaltham says
Their employer eliminated the H/C policy b/c the one they had was terminated due to Obamacare mandates.
petr says
… find a real comfortable chair somewhere and ponder, deeply, that sentence. When you get exactly what’s wrong with it, come back, and we’ll discuss then…
mikew says
Shocking. What is interesting is the implication that this will make premiums more expensive to consumers than they were before PPACA took effect (or is it affect?)
Oh, and then comes the Big Scary: “The research arm of the National Federation of Independent Business calculates that the higher insurance costs will shrink hiring by 146,000 to 262,000 jobs over the next decade, with 59% of those losses hitting small business. They’ll also be further encouraged to dump coverage and send their workers to the mercies of the ObamaCare exchanges. The latter was probably a main liberal purpose from the start.”
It’s funny, ya know, because when you go to the “National Federation of Independent Business” http://www.nfib.com/about-nfib/ you discover that:
-60% of NFIB members have 5 or fewer employees.
-55% of NFIB members report gross sales of $350,000 or less.
Oh those crafty liberals and their merciless exchanges.
mikew says
“NFIB is committed to seeking legislative reforms that help small businesses. And, since 1986, our small business members have told us that increasing healthcare costs are their No. 1 problem. NFIB has worked tirelessly to offer solutions and encourage Congress to pursue reforms that will help lower healthcare costs and provide affordable options for small businesses.”
I was encouraged to read that the NFIB recgognized the problem of rising health care costs since as far back as 1986 until, well, this..
“NFIB opposed the Obama administration’s healthcare law because we believe it increases costs for small businesses. We remain committed to helping small-business owners plan and comply with this new law, but that doesn’t mean the fight is over. NFIB continues to advocate for legislative proposals like repealing the small-business health insurance tax and the employer mandate provision.”
But ObamaCare is not the solution. Funny, the NFIB does not tell what is the solution.
danfromwaltham says
That could be you, BMG reader. My God, it could just about anyone who gets up, goes to work. NBC News, yes, NBC News reported on a small business in Michigan who employes under 50 workers. The company had their old policy exterminated by the Obamacare mandates, and the end results, most of the workers face higher premiums, higher deductibles, in other words, they are screwed, glued, and tattooed. In fairness, some, a few workers who are on the low pay scale, did benefit.
For most workers “Their deductibles will go from $1,125 this year to $3,000 next year, and maximum out-of-pocket costs jump from $2,250 to $6,350. And for families, those numbers double: to a $6,000 deductible and $12,700 out-of-pocket maximum.” An insurance broker said “There are some people who do come out ahead, but I would say the overwhelming majority, they’re paying much higher rates and they have lower benefits”.
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/29/21893911-workers-at-auto-dealership-come-face-to-face-with-obamacare-trade-offs?lite
mikew says
Love the name of the dealership: Extreme Dodge! Throwing their employees to the “merciless exchanges” is an extreme dodge. In fact, this story you are so proud of is an extreme dodge. Thank God the NFIB is fighting tirelessly in your corner.
danfromwaltham says
They deserve to pay much more and to live with less, or get a second job? I am puzzled.
mikew says
the Job Creators at Extreme Dodge that one since they sent their employees to the death panels – I mean merciless exchanges – because you and I both think health care should be free.
mikew says
“Right-wing media picked up a misleading NBC News report that claimed President Obama knew millions of Americans would receive “cancellation” letters terminating their health insurance — a report NBC News later clarified by explaining many of the policies would be “replaced” and not canceled.
In an October 28 NBC News report, senior investigative reporter Lisa Myers claimed that “50 to 75 percent” of individual health insurance consumers “can expect to receive a ‘cancellation’ letter or the equivalent over the next year” because their existing policies do not meet Affordable Care Act standards. Right-wing media have used similar language to claim “thousands of people across the country receiving cancellation notices from their insurers.” In a New York Post column, National Review’s Rich Lowry claimed “hundreds of thousands of people in states around the country are now receiving notices that their insurance is getting canceled.” Fox News’ Charles Krauthammer described the issues with the discontinued policies as “almost a parody of the definition of a liberal.”
However, on the October 29 edition of MSNBC’s The Daily Rundown, host Chuck Todd challenged Myers’ description of policy letters sent to insurance consumers as policy replacements, not cancellation. Myers agreed:
TODD: NBC’s senior investigative correspondent, Lisa Myers, joins me now. OK, Lisa, so the White House is arguing that somehow what’s going on, number one, the letters that people are getting are not cancellation notices, that they’re notices to say your policy no longer meets standards, here’s a new policy, but for some people it’s coming with a premium hike. Is that right?
MYERS: That’s correct. Some of them actually use the word cancellation, others use the word termination or saying it’s being replaced. But in both cases what you have are individuals who are not able to keep the policies they had, even if they want to.
Myers was also forced to concede that insurance companies, not the Obama administration, determine whether an individual’s policy would be “grandfathered” in and not changed under ACA.”
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/29/right-wing-media-pick-up-health-insurance-cance/196650
Poor Lisa – maybe she and Lara can start a blog or something.
danfromwaltham says
If Media Matters says do, it must be true, amirite?
Your post confirms what Obama has apologized for already, that people lost their insurance b/c of Obamacare.
mikew says
lost their coverage – I’m sorry, had their coverage cancelled – because the job creators at Extreme Dodge didn’t provide policies that met the minimum guidelines.
BTW: who is it that you think is writing all these policies anyway? Do you think Hopey was up late last night writing the policies for Extreme Dodge employees?
Maybe it was all those little Mom and Pop job creators who tirelessly toil to do job creation at those little workshops known as Aetna, Humana, BC/BS, Blah-blah
jconway says
I got up this morning and they were 22 more posts here. You keep telling him to go to rehab but you keep throwing him drinks.
mikew says
Take it up with management 🙂
mike_cote says
You will never succeed in taking over this blog. As Picard said:
Mark L. Bail says
so he should know.
mike_cote says
Yes, he was Locutus, and that made him “Ahab” as well.
mikew says
TED
mikew says
Stewart was the narrator…oops
mike_cote says
whosmindingdemint says
ted the teddy bear with marky mark wahlberg
mike_cote says
n/t
whosmindingdemint says
.
whosmindingdemint says
My old handle came up only iPhone
Ha