IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family

[NYcarbineer]

LOL. I knew this thread had to be idiocy, based on who authored it, the poster who has yet to utter an intelligent word here.

Do you know where the $20,000 figure comes from?

It is a purely hypothetical number, used by the IRS in hypothetical EXAMPLES, for information and explanation purposes, of how the cost would be calculated for someone not having insurance.

You will find it linked on this page:

Affordable Care Act Tax Provisions

under the Individual Shared Responsibility Provision, on the link 'proposed regulations'.

The author of this thread is just one rightwing idiot from the rightwing idiot factory.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Hmmmmmm. I smell a nutter trap.

Through my wife's employer. Rates have increased 12-15% per year for several years......but that will change. And....both of our preexisting conditions will be included for coverage next year. Big savings. Thanks, President Obama.

Trap, why would you think it is a trap?
union job per chance? That's the only way I see you can get away with 6 grand a year unless you are also not including the portion being paid by the employer. Or you are in your early 20's. Or it is crappy coverage.
And if it is through your employer pre-existing is usually covered after so many months on the plan and with some there is no waiting as long as you join during open enrollment.

Why would I include the portion paid by her employer? Are you some kind of weirdo?

WE PAY 6k per year. Is that hard to understand?

Preexisting conditions are not covered. Where are you from?

She is non-union.

The coverage is excellent.

You might want to start looking at the employer co-pay for those premiums. The government surely is. There's a proposal afoot that would tax those premiums as part of your income.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Trap, why would you think it is a trap?
union job per chance? That's the only way I see you can get away with 6 grand a year unless you are also not including the portion being paid by the employer. Or you are in your early 20's. Or it is crappy coverage.
And if it is through your employer pre-existing is usually covered after so many months on the plan and with some there is no waiting as long as you join during open enrollment.

Why would I include the portion paid by her employer? Are you some kind of weirdo?

WE PAY 6k per year. Is that hard to understand?

Preexisting conditions are not covered. Where are you from?

She is non-union.

The coverage is excellent.

You might want to start looking at the employer co-pay for those premiums. The government surely is. There's a proposal afoot that would tax those premiums as part of your income.

A proposal afoot? Really? What proposal? Proposed by whom?

Nutter, I want UNIVERSAL SINGLE PAYER health care that relieves employers from the burden of offering, maintaining and paying for the health care that their employees need.

I am a pro business liberal.

 

[eflatminor]

LOL. I knew this thread had to be idiocy, based on who authored it, the poster who has yet to utter an intelligent word here.

Pot, kettle, I see you've met...

Do you know where the $20,000 figure comes from?

It is a purely hypothetical number, used by the IRS in hypothetical EXAMPLES, for information and explanation purposes, of how the cost would be calculated for someone not having insurance.

Of course, the IRS would not want to use examples they feel represent realistic numbers. No, they would go out of their way to inflate such examples...just cuz.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Why would I include the portion paid by her employer? Are you some kind of weirdo?

WE PAY 6k per year. Is that hard to understand?

Preexisting conditions are not covered. Where are you from?

She is non-union.

The coverage is excellent.

You might want to start looking at the employer co-pay for those premiums. The government surely is. There's a proposal afoot that would tax those premiums as part of your income.

A proposal afoot? Really? What proposal? Proposed by whom?

Nutter, I want UNIVERSAL SINGLE PAYER health care that relieves employers from the burden of offering, maintaining and paying for the health care that their employees need.

I am a pro business liberal.

Regardless of whether pro- or anti-, this administration has put forward a proposal that employer-paid health benefits might become an additional source of funding for obamacare programs. Single-payer, or not, many of us will be paying much more than we do now (even counting employer contributions).

"Obama Willing to Consider Tax on Employer-Paid Health Benefits"
President Obama, in a pivot from some of his harshest campaign rhetoric, told Democratic senators yesterday that he is willing to consider taxing employer-sponsored health benefits to help pay for a broad expansion of coverage.

Obama Willing to Consider Tax on Employer-Paid Health Benefits | 44 | washingtonpost.com

 

[gallantwarrior]

LOL. I knew this thread had to be idiocy, based on who authored it, the poster who has yet to utter an intelligent word here.

Pot, kettle, I see you've met...

Do you know where the $20,000 figure comes from?

It is a purely hypothetical number, used by the IRS in hypothetical EXAMPLES, for information and explanation purposes, of how the cost would be calculated for someone not having insurance.

Of course, the IRS would not want to use examples they feel represent realistic numbers. No, they would go out of their way to inflate such examples...just cuz.

They certainly wouldn't want to use scare tactics to stampede the public can be into the ultimate government program, would they?

 

[bripat9643]

We pay about 6k per year on health insurance. I expect that we'll pay about the same in 5 years. Nutters need a higher BS threshold.

and your provider is and through who?

Hmmmmmm. I smell a nutter trap.

Through my wife's employer. Rates have increased 12-15% per year for several years......but that will change. And....both of our preexisting conditions will be included for coverage next year. Big savings. Thanks, President Obama.

The last few years, before Obamacare was passed, rates were increasing by about 6% per year. And if you're already insured, you don't have "preexisting conditions."

 

[LoneLaugher]

and your provider is and through who?

Hmmmmmm. I smell a nutter trap.

Through my wife's employer. Rates have increased 12-15% per year for several years......but that will change. And....both of our preexisting conditions will be included for coverage next year. Big savings. Thanks, President Obama.

The last few years, before Obamacare was passed, rates were increasing by about 6% per year. And if you're already insured, you don't have "preexisting conditions."

Listen, fucknut. Rates increased by more than 6% every year from 1998 to 2011 and when you change providers.....like we did 4 years ago....you get fucked on your preexisting conditions.

Why do assholes like you ave to imply that others lie in order to try and make a point. You are a first class dick.

Health insurance premiums see smallest increase in 15 years - Nov. 14, 2012

 

[theDoctorisIn]

and your provider is and through who?

Hmmmmmm. I smell a nutter trap.

Through my wife's employer. Rates have increased 12-15% per year for several years......but that will change. And....both of our preexisting conditions will be included for coverage next year. Big savings. Thanks, President Obama.

The last few years, before Obamacare was passed, rates were increasing by about 6% per year. And if you're already insured, you don't have "preexisting conditions."

Preexisting conditions didn't prevent you from getting insurance, they just prevented the insurance from having to cover things related to those preexisting conditions.

 

[NYcarbineer]

LOL. I knew this thread had to be idiocy, based on who authored it, the poster who has yet to utter an intelligent word here.

Pot, kettle, I see you've met...

Do you know where the $20,000 figure comes from?

It is a purely hypothetical number, used by the IRS in hypothetical EXAMPLES, for information and explanation purposes, of how the cost would be calculated for someone not having insurance.

Of course, the IRS would not want to use examples they feel represent realistic numbers. No, they would go out of their way to inflate such examples...just cuz.

They're examples, not numbers the IRS is actually going to use. Do you get that? Can you confirm that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

LOL. I knew this thread had to be idiocy, based on who authored it, the poster who has yet to utter an intelligent word here.

Pot, kettle, I see you've met...

Do you know where the $20,000 figure comes from?

It is a purely hypothetical number, used by the IRS in hypothetical EXAMPLES, for information and explanation purposes, of how the cost would be calculated for someone not having insurance.

Of course, the IRS would not want to use examples they feel represent realistic numbers. No, they would go out of their way to inflate such examples...just cuz.

They certainly wouldn't want to use scare tactics to stampede the public can be into the ultimate government program, would they?

Here's a state by state list of the average projected 2016 cost of an employer provided family plan.

Full Cost of Family Employer- Sponsored Health Insurance (2016) | The State of State Health

Now what exactly is your problem with the IRS using 20,000 for illustration purposes?

 

[NYcarbineer]

LOL. I knew this thread had to be idiocy, based on who authored it, the poster who has yet to utter an intelligent word here.

Pot, kettle, I see you've met...

Do you know where the $20,000 figure comes from?

It is a purely hypothetical number, used by the IRS in hypothetical EXAMPLES, for information and explanation purposes, of how the cost would be calculated for someone not having insurance.

Of course, the IRS would not want to use examples they feel represent realistic numbers. No, they would go out of their way to inflate such examples...just cuz.

Full Cost of Family Employer- Sponsored Health Insurance (2016) | The State of State Health

 

[Antares]

Listen fuck nut, on Group plans when you change plans the new plan puts a 6 month waiting period on pre-existing conditions.You do lie fuck nut, and you show your lack of knowledge ...oh yes, I spent 10 years in the industry.

Hmmmmmm. I smell a nutter trap.

Through my wife's employer. Rates have increased 12-15% per year for several years......but that will change. And....both of our preexisting conditions will be included for coverage next year. Big savings. Thanks, President Obama.

The last few years, before Obamacare was passed, rates were increasing by about 6% per year. And if you're already insured, you don't have "preexisting conditions."

Listen, fucknut. Rates increased by more than 6% every year from 1998 to 2011 and when you change providers.....like we did 4 years ago....you get fucked on your preexisting conditions.

Why do assholes like you ave to imply that others lie in order to try and make a point. You are a first class dick.

Health insurance premiums see smallest increase in 15 years - Nov. 14, 2012

 

[AmericanFirst]

No "liberals" are responding to this because it's pure bullshit. The IRS said nothing of the sort.

And this thread makes it pretty clear that some of you still don't understand what "Obamacare" is.

Another libtard obamaturd butt kisser denying the truth.

 

[eflatminor]

LOL. I knew this thread had to be idiocy, based on who authored it, the poster who has yet to utter an intelligent word here.

Pot, kettle, I see you've met...

Do you know where the $20,000 figure comes from?

It is a purely hypothetical number, used by the IRS in hypothetical EXAMPLES, for information and explanation purposes, of how the cost would be calculated for someone not having insurance.

Of course, the IRS would not want to use examples they feel represent realistic numbers. No, they would go out of their way to inflate such examples...just cuz.

They're examples, not numbers the IRS is actually going to use. Do you get that? Can you confirm that?

Right, it would impossible for a federal agency like the IRS to accurately estimate such costs...so they'd just make them up. And of course, they'd estimate extremely high, just for kicks.

Once again,

 

[Antares]

Depends on the type of coverage and the severity of the condition.

Individual plans will ususally put a waiver on certain pre-existings, and in the case of serious conditions, i.e. cancer and such they will not take you.

Group plans work differently,usually with group plans if you can show prior credible coverage they won't put a waiting period on anything.

But if you go into the Group Plan with no prior coverage they will put a temporary waiver on certain conditions, could be anything from 6 months to a year.

Hmmmmmm. I smell a nutter trap.

Through my wife's employer. Rates have increased 12-15% per year for several years......but that will change. And....both of our preexisting conditions will be included for coverage next year. Big savings. Thanks, President Obama.

The last few years, before Obamacare was passed, rates were increasing by about 6% per year. And if you're already insured, you don't have "preexisting conditions."

Preexisting conditions didn't prevent you from getting insurance, they just prevented the insurance from having to cover things related to those preexisting conditions.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Pot, kettle, I see you've met...



Of course, the IRS would not want to use examples they feel represent realistic numbers. No, they would go out of their way to inflate such examples...just cuz.

They're examples, not numbers the IRS is actually going to use. Do you get that? Can you confirm that?

Right, it would impossible for a federal agency like the IRS to accurately estimate such costs...so they'd just make them up. And of course, they'd estimate extremely high, just for kicks.

Once again,

I posted the average employer provided family plan costs and they are right in line with the IRS numbers.

Why do you have such contempt for the facts?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Pot, kettle, I see you've met...



Of course, the IRS would not want to use examples they feel represent realistic numbers. No, they would go out of their way to inflate such examples...just cuz.

They're examples, not numbers the IRS is actually going to use. Do you get that? Can you confirm that?

Right, it would impossible for a federal agency like the IRS to accurately estimate such costs...so they'd just make them up. And of course, they'd estimate extremely high, just for kicks.

Once again,

If you know for certain that the examples used inappropriate numbers, then tell us:

1. what the 'real' numbers, and give us a reliable source for them, and make sure they compare precisely to the examples the IRS used.

2. explain to us what the motive would be for the IRS to concoct bogus numbers, especially when any individual will be able to see the real numbers next year when the exchanges begin operation.

 

[eflatminor]

They're examples, not numbers the IRS is actually going to use. Do you get that? Can you confirm that?

Right, it would impossible for a federal agency like the IRS to accurately estimate such costs...so they'd just make them up. And of course, they'd estimate extremely high, just for kicks.

Once again,

If you know for certain that the examples used inappropriate numbers,

I don't. Either do you. I'll take the latest IRS estimates, which would be the $20k figure, over anything you claim to know.

1. what the 'real' numbers, and give us a reliable source for them, and make sure they compare precisely to the examples the IRS used.

Looks like not even the IRS is sure, though their estimates keep rising.

2. explain to us what the motive would be for the IRS to concoct bogus numbers

None. What is your motivation to claim the latest IRS estimates of $20k per family are bogus? Nevermind, we know the answer. It only fits your agenda to use the lower estimates because after all, there's just no way Obamacare is actually going to result in less choice, less innovation and higher prices. No way...

Pathetic and yes...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Right, it would impossible for a federal agency like the IRS to accurately estimate such costs...so they'd just make them up. And of course, they'd estimate extremely high, just for kicks.

Once again,

If you know for certain that the examples used inappropriate numbers,

I don't. Either do you. I'll take the latest IRS estimates, which would be the $20k figure, over anything you claim to know.

1. what the 'real' numbers, and give us a reliable source for them, and make sure they compare precisely to the examples the IRS used.

Looks like not even the IRS is sure, though their estimates keep rising.

2. explain to us what the motive would be for the IRS to concoct bogus numbers

None. What is your motivation to claim the latest IRS estimates of $20k per family are bogus? Nevermind, we know the answer. It only fits your agenda to use the lower estimates because after all, there's just no way Obamacare is actually going to result in less choice, less innovation and higher prices. No way...

Pathetic and yes...

So you're yapping away here without any knowledge of anything.

Typical rightwing nut.