WASHINGTON — Nearly 6 million Americans — significantly more than first estimated— will face a tax penalty under President Barack Obama’s health overhaul for not getting insurance, congressional analysts said Wednesday. Most would be in the middle class.
The new estimate amounts to an inconvenient fact for the administration, a reminder of what critics see as broken promises.
The numbers from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are 50 percent higher than a previous projection by the same office in 2010, shortly after the law passed. The earlier estimate found 4 million people would be affected in 2016, when the penalty is fully in effect.
That’s still only a sliver of the population, given that more than 150 million people currently are covered by employer plans. Nonetheless, in his first campaign for the White House, Obama pledged not to raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 a year and couples making less than $250,000.
And the budget office analysis found that nearly 80 percent of those who’ll face the penalty would be making up to or less than five times the federal poverty level. Currently that would work out to $55,850 or less for an individual and $115,250 or less for a family of four.
Average penalty: about $1,200 in 2016.
“The bad news and broken promises from Obamacare just keep piling up,” said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, who wants to repeal the law.
Starting in 2014, virtually every legal resident of the U.S. will be required to carry health insurance or face a tax penalty, with exemptions for financial hardship, religious objections and certain other circumstances. Most people will not have to worry about the requirement since they already have coverage through employers, government programs like Medicare or by buying their own policies.
A spokeswoman for the Obama administration said 98 percent of Americans will not be affected by the tax penalty — and suggested that those who will be should face up to their civic responsibilities.
“This (analysis) doesn’t change the basic fact that the individual responsibility policy will only affect people who can afford health care but choose not to buy it,” said Erin Shields Britt of the Health and Human Services Department. “We’re no longer going to subsidize the care of those who can afford to buy insurance but make a choice not to buy it.”
The budget office said most of the increase in its estimate is due to changes in underlying projections about the economy, incorporating the effects of new federal legislation, as well as higher unemployment and lower wages.
The Supreme Court upheld Obama’s law as constitutional in a 5-4 decision this summer, finding that the insurance mandate and the tax penalty enforcing it fall within the power of Congress to impose taxes. The penalty will be collected by the IRS, just like taxes.
The budget office said the penalty will raise $6.9 billion in 2016.
The new law will also provide government aid to help middle-class and low-income households afford coverage, the financial carrot that balances out the penalty.
Nonetheless, some people might still decide to remain uninsured because they object to government mandates or because they feel they would come out ahead financially even if they have to pay the penalty.Health insurance is expensive, with employer-provided family coverage averaging nearly $15,800 a year for a family and $4,300 for a single plan. Indeed, insurance industry experts say the federal penalty may be too low.
The Supreme Court also allowed individual states to opt out of a major Medicaid expansion under the law. The Obama administration says it will exempt low-income people in states that opt out from having to comply with the insurance requirement.
Many Republicans still regard the insurance mandate as unconstitutional and rue the day the Supreme Court upheld it.
However, the idea for an individual insurance requirement comes from Republican health care plans in the 1990s.
It’s also a central element of the 2006 Massachusetts health care law signed by then-GOP Gov. Mitt Romney, now running against Obama and promising to repeal the federal law.
Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said Wednesday the new report is more evidence that Obama’s law is a “costly disaster.”
“Even more of the middle-class families who President Obama promised would see no tax increase will in fact see a massive tax increase thanks to Obamacare,” she said.
Romney says insurance mandates should be up to each state. The approach seems to have worked well in Massachusetts, with virtually all residents covered and dwindling numbers opting to pay the penalty instead.
If you can’t afford health insurance, you get a subsidy. If you can afford health insurance and you don’t buy it, you’re a freeloader and should be taxed.
Agree. Step up to your civic obligation. You don’t plan to get hit by a bus crossing the street, but when it happens, your savings will be quickly depleted. The rest of the taxpayers will be footing your bill.
What if you can afford health insurance, but would rather just pay for your health care costs when you go to the doctor? You know, the way the health care used to work before governments got involved in order to redistribute.
Then you’re going to be taxed. It’s real simple. I’d rather not pay taxes, but I do. By the way, every tax redistributes wealth.
Better start saving yesterday for a half-million dollar bill for eventual cancer care or brain surgery… and don’t forget to include post-surgery rehabilitation costs.
Look up the Act for Sick and Disabled Seamen!
Thomas Jefferson and John Admas Supported!
How far back do you want to go?
The Flintstones era?
Yes, this law is all about personal responsibility. Should be right up the Republican’s alley. They’re the ones who thought of it. Such a farce to scream when Obama does it.
Actually, it’s the exact opposite. It’s about those of you in the 47% (the moochers) who would rather force someone else to pay your bills and debts.
Again. If you can afford health insurance and refuse buy it, under the new law your taxed as a moocher. It’s called not subsidizing someone who can pay but refuses to do so. Conservatives would be championing this law, like they did 20 years ago, if only they had passed it. You can also try not paying your taxes since it’s all redistribution and see where that gets you.
And that 47% is composed of alot of different people. The working poor, seniors on SS and Medicare, and deployed military. Keep harping on that 47% and watch your candidate lose.
Well put.
And how is it exactly that you know who I am? You know nothing about me. If you are a Republican (and I assume you are), how do you explain that the individual mandate came out of the Republican Heritage Foundation, was picked up and used by Romney in MA? Was it such a bad idea when it was a Republican idea?
Most of us probably weren’t following Massachusetts politics at the time that the individual mandate passed. What I can tell you is that callers on the Howie Carr show were mostly opposed, and they still are.
I also question why the individual mandate, if it was in fact the “Republican idea,” was never seriously considered when the Republicans controlled Congress and the White House.
In 1989, Stuart M. Butler, Heritage’s Director of Domestic Policy Strategies, wrote the second chapter of a position paper with the title “A National Health System for America.” (Heritage has a PDF version of this document you can download ). It contained an individual mandate requirement. It surfaced again during the 1994 healthcare bill fight.
Still spreading myths about the 47%? Note that many still pay payroll tax and have other withholding that is offset by deductions.
That 47 % that dont pay Taxes are the result of Decades of Rebublicans buying Votes with Tax Reductions!
Look up American For Tax Reform, Grover Norquist and 95 % of Republicans Who signed his pledge to get Votes!
This WHOLE Deficit problem is the DIRECT result of “Republican Bribery” !
The Whole Gang of Miscreants should be brought up on Conspiracy charges as having comitting treasonous Crimes against the United States!
Pledge broken.
By only 50% more.
The tax increase these familes see is of their own making since they refuse to get insurance that they can afford anyway. They want to get taxed just to make a political statement, fine, go ahead and do it. But don’t go claiming that the Gov’t taxed you when you did it to yourself.
Congratulations to the Associated Press for this scattered shower of journalism.
The truth in this article (and it barely scratches the surface) was reported elsewhere long ago but those reports were called “lies and distortions” by the con artists who passed the scam known as “Obamacare.”
The original info indicated some 4 million could be affected. The recent study shows more like 6 million. Looks like the possibility was known from the beginning, contratry to your rant. Of course, the number will decrease if people opt to get insurance. As the article says, the penalty may be too low since it looks like too good a deal.
What the article doesn’t say is what the penalty is with RomneyCare in Mass. since it seems to be working (fancy that, it works so why repeal ObamaCare?).
Enjoy your role as an Obama apologist. It can’t be easy trying to justify an unconstitutional mess like Obamacare.
A tax by any other name is called the unafforable healthcare act…
“We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it”…..Nancy Pelosi on Obamacare…..Crazy..
Pelosi made that statement as part of a long speech to the Legislative Conference for the National Association of Counties in March 2010. At that time, people outside of government were trying to debate aspects of a bill that had not yet been finalized. Some were making false claims that the bill involved “death panels” and other nonsense (it does NOT).
Pelosi was explaining to that conference of counties (NOT to the Senate or House of Representatives) that there was no use their trying to analyze that had not yet been completely written. Until the Senate produced an actual piece of legislation that could be matched up and debated against what was passed by the House, she explained, no one truly knew what would be voted on.
She was explaining that the legislation has to EXIST before what was in it can rationally be discussed.
The setting of her comment was irrelevant and was and is nothing but an insult to the American citizen “outside of government” (your words) and anyone in Gov’t despite their respective political party affiliation…..No one, even those closest to this fissco like Pelosi, understood nor could explain half of this 2700 page bill…..it was being questioned by citizen and many of the elected and the willingness and rush to passage was nothing but disregard for the concerns of the American citizen….She also used the phrases “fog of controversy” and “trust us”…..It seems, like with this article, that the more we learn the less we like….Crazy…..
The “fog of controversy” was created by Republicans, who kept creating urban legends about “death panels” and the like to manipylate pyblic opinion by lies.
As for the length of the bill, it’s fascinating that Republicans made that one of their talking points. Bills in the hundreds or thousands of pages are common on the federal level. Politicians have crews of advisors who sort things out and summarize them.
Five of the top 10 longest bills in the past decade or so were written by Republicans. In fact, the House health care bill is a mere 68 words shorter than a transportation measure introduced in ’05 by Alaska Republican Rep. Don Young.
Here’s the top 10 in recent years. Notice that half were written by Republicans:1. 314,900 words, “Affordable Health Care for American Act,” 2009, Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.)
2. 314,832 words, “Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users,” 2005, Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska)
3. 314,573 words, “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” 2009, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.)
4. 296,111 words, “Consolidated Appropriations Act,” 2005, Rep. James Kolbe (R-Ariz.)
5. 276,849 words, “Consolidated Appropriations Act,” 2008 Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.)
6. 274,559 words, “No Child Left Behind Act,” 2001, Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio)
7. 258,205 words, “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008,” Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.)
8. 250,286 words, “Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008,” Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.)
9. 246,984 words, “Consolidated Appropriations Resolution,” 2003, Rep. Bill Young (R-Fla.)
10. 226,492 words, “Energy Policy Act,” 2005, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas)
You easily go off on tangents that have no relevance to the subject…..the length of the bill was not the issue, the issue was then and still is the numerous unexplained parts and unanswered questions which obviously still remain as in the articles revealing of these grossly underestimated numbers….as the article states an “inconvenient fact”……
You wrote, “… this 2700 page bill”, clearly referencing its length as a point against it. I responded to that.
If you haven’t managed to read up on the bill, then please go ahead and do so. Information is plentiful.
Here’s a summary to start you off: http://www.upworthy.com/heres-what-obamacare-actually-does-for-you?c=dc1
I referenced the 2700 pages but you seemed to miss my main reference point to the “unexplained” and unknown regarding the bill itself….thanks for the link but I have had no problems finding my own sources to “read up on”……..btw, after 3 posts maybe now you can comment to the point of the article which is 6 million taxpayers of the middle class will be penalized monies out of their hard earned dollars because of Obamacare…..inconvenient fact….
You’re not making sense.
On the one hand, you state that you are fully able to read up on the law; also, you now have the link I provided that explains its core facts.
On the other hand, you keep referring to “unexplained” and “unknown” without providing any specific questions you might have, or stating what efforts you’ve made to find out what the law’s provisions are, and to locate explanations about them.
In regard to the one point you just did make, if you read other comments or simply pause to reflect, you’ll realize that it’s only scofflaws who will be penalized–people who can afford to pay for insurance but choose NOT to, either from a delusional belief that they’re invulnerable to serious illness and accidents or from a determination to let other folks foot the bill when they do incur huge medical expenses.
I for one don’t mind a bit the notion that people who choose to break the law will have to pay a fine.
The Obama administration says that buying health insurance is someone’s civic responsibility. Absolutely ridiculous. Democrats have portrayed people who choose not to buy insurance as freeloaders and cheats, simply because they choose not to participate in a corrupt system. Some people may choose to plan for their own health care needs and pay out of pocket for the services they require. Others just might not be interested in seeking care should they develop a life threatening condition. The Democrats like to talk about “choice” and the private nature of health care decisions, but that only applies when you wish to end the life of a child or seek a doctors assistance in ending your own.
Good luck paying out of pocket for cardiac surgery; cancer treatment; treatment of a traumatic brain injury, and the like. You should read up on the term “medical bankruptcy.” It affects millions of Americans already, including many who pay huge premiums to the for-profit insurance corporations for policies that cover very little.
As for the notion that a significant number of Americans are “not interested in seeking care should they develop a life threatening condition,” I have two points:
1) Individuals who have that for a personal philosophy might discover that they’ve changed their mind during a heart attack or similar event; and
2) If they tumble off the roof while cleaning the gutters or their car slides into a phone pole on an icy day, they might be unconscious when the ambulance arrives and thus unable to moan, “No, leave me right here–no ambulance, no painkillers, no X-rays, no surgery. Let me lie here until I’m dead!”
Good luck getting treatment for cancer, cardiac surgery or treatment for a brain injury under Obamacare. If you don’t mind waiting for a few months, they’ll fix you right up. That is if you are deemed worthy of treatment in the first place. It’ll be swell!
You’re describing myths and urban legends–anti-ACA lies & propaganda by the for-profit health insurance corporations. Corporations that will deny you and your kids health insurance if you have (shame on you!) a pre-existing condition.
Here’s what a Republican woman had to say about Canada’s system (which is often portrayed as horrible by pro-corporate interests):
“When I moved to Canada in 2008, I was a die-hard conservative Republican. So when I found out that we were going to be covered by Canada’s Universal Health Care, I was somewhat disgusted…”
After several years of excellent care for herself and her family, “I started to feel differently about Universal government mandated and regulated Health care. I realized how many times my family had avoided hospital care because of our lack of coverage. When I mentioned to Canadians that I had been in a car accident as a teen and hadn’t gone into the hospital, they were shocked! [In Canada]… the back issue I had since the accident would have been helped by prescribed chiropractic care which would have been at no cost to me. When I asked for prayers for my little brother who had been burned in a camping accident, they were all puzzled why the story did not include immediately rushing him to the hospital. When they asked me to clarify and I explained that many people in the States are not insured and they try to put off medical care unless absolutely needed, they literally could not comprehend such a thing.
“I started to wonder why I had been so opposed to government mandated Universal Health care. Here in Canada, everyone was covered. If they worked full-time, if they worked part-time, or if they were homeless and lived on the street, they were all entitled to the same level of care if they had a medical need. People actually went in for routine check-ups and caught many of their illnesses early, before they were too advanced to treat. People were free to quit a job they hated, or even start their own business without fear of losing their medical coverage.
“In fact, the only real complaint I heard about the universal health care from the Canadians themselves, was that sometimes there could be a wait time before a particular medical service could be provided. But even that didn’t seem to be that bad to me, in the States most people had to wait for medical care, or even be denied based on their coverage. The only people guaranteed immediate and full service in the USA, were those with the best (and most expensive) health coverage or wads of cash they could blow. In Canada, the wait times were usually short, and applied to everyone regardless of wealth.
“”…In the end, I don’t see Universal health care as an evil thing anymore. Comparing the two systems, which one better values the life of each person? Which system is truly more family friendly?”
And that’s why so many Canadians come to the United States for health care. Our current health care system isn’t perfect but many of my Canadian relatives come here because they can’t be seen in a timely manner in their own country. That’s reality.
About 30 million Americans have been doing without health insurance because they can’t afford to pay for it. It’s putting it mildly to say our current health care system “isn’t perfect”!
At least your Canadian relatives have access to healthcare–unlike those millions of Americans. They don’t like a wait for non-emergency treatment; that’s a shame, but nowhere near as serious as Americans being denied insurance simply because they were born with or developed a medical condition (“pre-existing”).
Your Canadian family members don’t risk going bankrupt over paying medical bills, like Americans do. According to CNN, in 2009, “an estimated 1.5 million Americans will declare bankruptcy. Many people may chalk up that misfortune to overspending or a lavish lifestyle, but a new study suggests that more than 60 percent of people who go bankrupt are actually capsized by medical bills.
“Bankruptcies due to medical bills increased by nearly 50 percent in a six-year period, from 46 percent in 2001 to 62 percent in 2007, and most of those who filed for bankruptcy were middle-class, well-educated homeowners, according to a report that will be published in the August issue of The American Journal of Medicine.”
” those who will be should face up to their civic responsibilities.” People used to have the right to choose. Most middle class people don’t stiff the doc (before you assume, note I work with practices nationwide and see their books), it is the poor who usually already have insurance. This law is not one I would ever back and I don’t care how much koolaid those who agree with it hand out, I won’t drink it.
Now all you good little O’Sham-a dems go and find a reason to dispute that amount like nice little Imam lovers.