Obamacare

The meltdown of the Obamacare mandate

Friday, February 07, 2014 by: J. D. Heyes
Tags: Obamacare, individual mandate, penalty tax

eTrust Pro Certified

Most Viewed Articles
Popular on Facebook
Biologist explains how marijuana causes tumor cells to commit suicide
Companies begin planting microchips under employees' skin
NJ cops bust teenagers shoveling snow without a permit
Chemotherapy kills cancer patients faster than no treatment at all
U2's Bono partners with Monsanto to destroy African agriculture with GMOs
FDA targets Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps for sharing health benefits of coconut oil
Italian court rules mercury and aluminum in vaccines cause autism: US media continues total blackout of medical truth
Orthorexia Nervosa - New mental disorder aimed at people who insist on eating a clean diet
Whooping cough outbreak at Massachusetts high school affected only vaccinated students
Inuit Elders tell NASA Earth Axis Shifted
Vaccine flu shots still contain 25 micrograms mercury - 100 times the concentration of 'mercury-loaded' fish
Measles outbreak likely caused by vaccinated children, science shows
Baby formula is loaded with GMOs - Avoid these brands
Extreme trauma from male circumcision causes damage to areas of brain
Terminal stage IV lung cancer patient miraculously cured by cannabis oil
Costco stops selling antibiotic laden chicken in response to consumer demand
FDA cracks down Walmart, GNC, other companies selling supplements that do not contain the herbs on the label
McDonald's french fries found to contain Silly Putty ingredient and petroleum chemical

Delicious
(NaturalNews) To say that the roll-out of Obamacare is not going well is perhaps the understatement of the year. But even more than that, those who predicted that the law would ultimately collapse on itself might have been prophetic.

In particular, the "individual mandate" - the part of the law that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld as a "tax" and which requires, for the first time in U.S. history, that Americans be forced to buy a product or service - is failing miserably.

According to public policy experts James C. Capretta and Jeffrey H. Anderson, writing recently in the New York Post, the Obama administration is finding out that it is harder than they expected to get Americans - especially the healthy, young Americans necessary to fund older, sicker Americans - to buy insurance, leaving many to wonder if the mandate will actually survive:

Last month, the administration announced that anyone with a canceled 2013 individual insurance plan would be exempt from the "individual-responsibility requirement" this year, and would be allowed to buy the catastrophe-only insurance previously offered to those age 30 or under.

This exemption is likely only the first of many. How, for one, can the administration exempt people who had insurance last year but not exempt people who were uninsured because they couldn't afford coverage?


The penalty (er, tax) is a better buy

It's a valid question, especially given the manipulation of a number of unpopular (or unworkable) provisions of the law made by the president and his Health and Human Services department since its passage and implementation.

According to Capretta and Anderson, the architects of the Affordable Care Act were always undecided and unsure about the mandate. For instance, they realized that compelling Americans to buy insurance was key to making the system function. However, fearing a backlash, they also decided to impose a fairly weak penalty for anyone who did not obey.

In the end, the law's designers wound up with a mandate that still "provokes resentment" from the populace, but which probably won't work anyway.

And there is that Supreme Court decision:

The U.S. Supreme Court weakened the mandate even as it was saving ObamaCare. The law's authors hoped that the mandate would create the perception that insurance enrollment is now obligatory, but the high court made it clear that Congress has no authority to institute such a requirement. The justices ruled that the mandate could stand only as an optional tax, not as a fine for noncompliance.

So in other words, anyone who decides to forego purchasing Obamacare coverage (that has turned out to be very overpriced or comes with unreasonably high deductibles) is not really breaking the law; they are merely making the legal decision to pay the fine/tax instead.

On average, that tax will wind up being far lower than Obamacare premiums for tens of millions of Americans, based on the figures that I have seen thus far and based on a new study by the 2017 Project, which has compared premiums in the Obamacare exchanges in the 50 most populous U.S. counties to the tax that households could be liable for instead.

So much for the 'carrot-and-stick' approach

"This year, that tax equals the greater of two numbers: 1) $95 per adult in a household, plus half of that amount for each child, up to $285 for an entire household, or 2) 1 percent of household income in excess of the tax-filing threshold ($10,150 for singles, and $20,300 for married couples)," the experts wrote.

That means, for example, that a 31-year-old single male making $30,000 in Columbus, Ohio, will face a tax of $198.50, which amounts to about $2,000 less than the least expensive option in the state's Obamacare exchange - and that includes his taxpayer-funded subsidy.

Meanwhile, for a 36-year-old San Diego woman who makes $40,000, the tax would be $298.50, or some $2,400 less than the cheapest California exchange policy (this woman would not be eligible for a subsidy).

"ObamaCare can't work if the young and healthy don't sign up in large numbers - yet the law creates a clear incentive for them to opt out," the experts write. "There's more: The law also guarantees that you can always choose to buy during the next annual enrollment period - so if you fall seriously ill and find that ObamaCare has become a better investment, you can buy it then."

The carrot-and-stick approach that the law's designers hoped would make it functional has failed, clearly.

Sources:

http://nypost.com

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.forbes.com

Join over four million monthly readers. Your privacy is protected. Unsubscribe at any time.
comments powered by Disqus
Take Action: Support NaturalNews.com by linking back to this article from your website

Permalink to this article:

Embed article link: (copy HTML code below):

Reprinting this article:
Non-commercial use OK, cite NaturalNews.com with clickable link.

Follow Natural News on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, and Pinterest

Colloidal Silver

Advertise with NaturalNews...

Support NaturalNews Sponsors:

Advertise with NaturalNews...

GET SHOW DETAILS
+ a FREE GIFT

Sign up for the FREE Natural News Email Newsletter

Receive breaking news on GMOs, vaccines, fluoride, radiation protection, natural cures, food safety alerts and interviews with the world's top experts on natural health and more.

Join over 7 million monthly readers of NaturalNews.com, the internet's No. 1 natural health news site. (Source: Alexa.com)

Your email address *

Please enter the code you see above*

No Thanks

Already have it and love it!

Natural News supports and helps fund these organizations:

* Required. Once you click submit, we will send you an email asking you to confirm your free registration. Your privacy is assured and your information is kept confidential. You may unsubscribe at anytime.