A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry
I can't afford this - can anyone?
Posted: Jan 31, 2013
IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family (CNSNews.com) – In a final regulation issued Wednesday, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assumed that under Obamacare the cheapest health insurance plan available in 2016 for a family will cost $20,000 for the year. Under Obamacare, Americans will be required to buy health insurance or pay a penalty to the IRS. The IRS's assumption that the cheapest plan for family will cost $20,000 per year is found in examples the IRS gives to help people understand how to calculate the penalty they will need to pay the government if they do not buy a mandated health plan. Continued at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-cheapest-obamacare-plan-will-be-20000-family;
I didn't even MAKE $20K last year - disgusted
[ In Reply To ..]x
Wouldn't you qualify for Medicaid then? - sm
[ In Reply To ..]The article says the 20K is based on family of 5 $120,000 per year income.
But there were some other figures there I didn't quite understand regarding how they came to that figure.
But if you made 20K,I doubt you would be required to pay 20K for insurance.
Source?? - (see message)
[ In Reply To ..]I had never heard of your source (CNS News), so I googled it. From Wikipedia: "CNSNews.com was founded by L. Brent Bozell III on June 16, 1998, under the name Conservative News Service and the domain name conservativenews.org." Their motto is "The right news. Right now."
A quick look at CNS News' website shows article after article that are quite negative and don't seem to be anything close to unbiased "news" reporting. It's "right," all right.
As is often said, "Consider the source."
CNS is a frequent flier source for Reps here. - not finding an MSM
[ In Reply To ..]that's offering any statistics regarding this.
I would like to have the IRS source they are citing.
I found a few other sites on the subject, but all right-wing and no links to official IRS statement.
CNS is a valid and reputable news source - unlike MSLSD. In fact
[ In Reply To ..]A simple search found: Cybercast News Service, also known as CNSNews.com, is an American news website founded by L. Brent Bozell III and owned by Media Research Center, Bozell's Alexandria, Virginia-based organization.
According to Bozell, the website would "report news ...not touched by traditional television news outlets" and "fill the growing news void left by the establishment media in their chase for the sensational."[3] On its first day of operation the website had 61,000 hits
In other words "the real news" that people should be reading. Not your lame stream media like MSLSD, Fox or the Commie News Network.
A weak attempt to cut down a news source just because it's associated with conservatives just makes people look foolish and ignorant. I trust websites that tell the truth whether or not I like the facts versus your paid and bought for by liberal stations the liberals here use as frequent flier sources.
I'm also finding other websites (independent ones) talking about this subject matter.
Not just because it's associated with conservatives, but because it's full of obfuscation - and propaganda.
[ In Reply To ..]- CNS' Starr Hides Ted Nugent's Provocative Attacks
- CNS Adds Bias To More AP Headlines
- CNS' Lucas Puts Words In Obama's Mouth
- CNS Turns Another Jay Leno Joke Into A 'News' Article
etc., etc., ad nauseam
They all do this... - so what difference does it make
[ In Reply To ..]again, by trying to degrade a person's source of info does not automatically make YOU right and everybody else wrong. Would like to know YOUR consistent source of info that makes you so superior to others???
How does calling out a bad source make me "right" or "superior"? - It's about news, don't take it personall
[ In Reply To ..]Oh, sources. Geez, there are tons of good sources. The BBC, Reuters, The Guardian, The New York Times, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor. The Atlantic and Slate. I follow some others you wouldn't be at all interested in, but the above are the most reputable and unbiased out of the ones I do.
When the source is not bad you shouldn't be calling it out - just sayin
[ In Reply To ..]I'm reading all the news stories on their site. It's not all political, but even with that the political stories are correct.
Just because you don't like a story does not mean it's not valid, and just because a website has a conservative slant to it doesn't mean it is not reputable.
Prove the story wrong and then we can talk. Otherwise, bye bye
You don't seem to get what we're saying... - (see message)
[ In Reply To ..]....when we question the source. Those who don't agree with this conservative source don't have to PROVE the story wrong in order to question whether it's presenting an accurate, un-biased viewpoint of the subject matter. There are such things as "half-truths"; stating some facts that might technically be "true" but leaving out other facts that lend a whole new meaning to the story; only presenting information that makes the opposition's side sound evil; taking things totally out of context....well, you get the idea.
I don't generally trust a story until I see or hear it from multiple sources and quote information from an entity that doesn't have an axe to grind or that knows it will be held to higher standards of truth and fact. In my opinion (and only my opinion, so I'm not asking for comments thereof), this CNS entity doesn't pass that standard.
I should amend this. - (see message)
[ In Reply To ..]On second thought, I shouldn't have used the word "evil" to describe the way I think some sources try to make their opposition out to be. "Bad," "wrong," or "negative" might have been better word choices. "Evil" is probably too strong a word. Sorry about that!
perfectly stated, and here's a perfect example - sm for link to post
[ In Reply To ..]it's up a couple threads
Okay so let me understand what you are saying - just sayin
[ In Reply To ..]You feel its okay to question conservative sources even though the story is real and can be verified by independent sources, but just because its being reported by a conservative source you have the right to disagree with the true story, just because it is being reported on a conservative site, never mind that the story can be verified to be true on independent sites.
I thought I mentioned in my post that the story was true and credible. I also stated that the stories that come out on CNS are indeed true and viable stories which many can be cross checked on independent sites, but just because it's being reported by a conservative news source its questionable.
I do believe I stated in my post that CNS is a credible and real news source that stories can be verified by cross referencing. Since they don't have an "axe to grind" with anyone and they are held to a high standard of truth and fact.
Also, don't care if you are asking for comments. I'm giving you mine.
CNS is a trustworthy news source. The news stories are true, unaltered and pass the test when cross checked with independent sites.
But hey, if you don't believe a story just because its reported on a conservative site that's your right. Thanks for clarifying that for us.
Once again, CNS is being called out because it is *not* credible. - sm
[ In Reply To ..]I'm not going to waste my time cross-referencing an unreliable news source vs. those that are to see how much of the story is true. Even if partly or all true, when a source is that non-credible, I have no idea how much, which part, etc., of the story *might* be reliable. Same with others posted here, NewsBusters, MRC, etc. Just a waste of time to even read them. I'd say the same thing if the postings were from the National Enquirer or The Daily Mail (which are not "conservative," as far as I know).
p.s. Here are some conservative sources that I don't totally discount. - sm
[ In Reply To ..]The American Conservative. National Review, kinda. Bloomberg View and The American Spectator (maybe; I'm new to those). I may not agree with their interpretation of events, but at least I don't believe them to be usually screwing around with fundamental facts and figures to arrive at those interpretations, so I can read them knowing full well how to read between the lines, unlike sources that basically lie about or manipulate the facts.
Intelligent conservatism is dying a slow death as it's being co-opted by the Neocons and Talibangelicals, and the increasing prevalance of yellow journalism from the right-wing media is more evidence of that. I'm willing and interested in debating actual conservative ideology, but not the junk in the news sources that's being passed off for it here.
Hey!! - That's Hillary's line!!
[ In Reply To ..]nm
I guess that might also be the National Enquierer's - mission statement
[ In Reply To ..]What do you mean, news people "should" be reading? The real news? I rely on sources that can be verified by a broad spectrum of news organizations, not just ones I find on obscure or sources with an agenda, i.e., sources someone deems I "should" be reading.
that should be Enquirer NM (correcting my post) - same poster
[ In Reply To ..]x
IRS source - link
[ In Reply To ..]the hot link in the original article ("final regulation") brings you to the IRS source. (It is one of the most confusing things I have ever read.)
Right??? But after all... it IS the IRS - ;-) (nm)
[ In Reply To ..]C
What is your source to refute the CNS News report? - Are they wrong?
[ In Reply To ..]Shooting the messenger?
I really have no idea.... - (see message)
[ In Reply To ..]....if CNS News is wrong or not. I also have no idea if they're reliable or not, one-sided or not, fair-and-balanced or not. I certainly don't take something for fact just because a very biased news source says it's so.
Some people will never understand that the MSM - does not report news (sm)
[ In Reply To ..]that might put the Great One in a bad light. Unless that light creates a halo over his pretty little pinhead.
see message - see message
[ In Reply To ..]I'll preface this by saying, there's nothing that he could do that would have you believe he is doing a good job.
Having said that, if he does do a good job, are they not supposed to report that? Could it be that they portray him in a good light because he is doing the absolute best he can and is doing a good job? His approval ratings are very good. Is that manufactured as well? When they were down, what can be the explanation for that? The truth is sometimes not what I want to hear, but I take the medicine, if it is the truth and is being reported by newsworthy organizations.
And if you don't watch MSM, how do you know what they are reporting, and if you are watching MSM, why? If they're not telling you what you think they should, why watch?
CNN seems pretty straightforward to me. When discussing political issues, they present both sides. Even MSNBC has Michael Steele, S.E. Cupp, and many Republican strategists, etc. to present both sides of the story.
msg - See mine (sm)
[ In Reply To ..]I do not watch MSM - but I do check their web sites when there is a big story - I rarely see it. His popularity numbers are up because people are clueless. He's cool, he's a rock star. He has a halo. He can do no wrong. They see the stock market going up, but they don't understand that his shrinking economy is his way of getting us to being fundamentally changed. Unemployment on the rise, people leaving work force. The people who still like him are ****, probably most of them don't even know who the VP is. They want free stuff and that's all many of them care about. I could go on, like the made up war on women and all that crap that they buy, but why waste any more time.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU - a hundred times -nm
[ In Reply To ..]nm
see message - see message
[ In Reply To ..]I won't waste time countering the right-wing talking points you are repeating from the right-wing celebrities. It's ya'll's opinion and I respect that.
The people who like Obama, the people who voted for him, don't have to be rocket scientists. They just have to choose which candidate they believe will represent and respect their needs, values, and rights.
Regarding idiots and the made-up war on women. The idiots are the Republicans who walked into a well-crafted strategy by the Obama people. I don't think it was an out-of-the-blue decision to announce the requirement of insurance carriers of Catholic institutions to pay for birth control; not mandate that it be provided, but that it is a benefit made available to those who wanted it. That's all it was.
But this common sense move, was blown out of proportion by the right wing, with completely incorrect charges that Obama was forcing women to use birth control, etc., trying to incite the base, which worked. The pseudoleader of the GOP, Rush Limbaugh, uses the word slut, so it's open season on women. Green light on any demeaning and insulting statement, including that a woman was not "really" raped if she gets pregnant, so she's lying; that it's God's will if a woman gets pregnant as a result of a rape, etc.
As a woman, whether I belong to a political party or a nonvoter, yeah, that's a war on women. The Republicans did it to themselves, at the hands of the idiots who took Obama's bait.
You pretty much said it right here. - Nuff said.
[ In Reply To ..]"......the candidate they believe will represent and respect their needs, values, and rights." Hope it works well for you.
msg above. - nuffsaid
[ In Reply To ..]short message
Imply all you want - sm
[ In Reply To ..]The only gov check I've ever received is tax return. That also includes no UI. That would be over a 40-year work history.
From some of the personal statements on this board by Republicans, it seems like a lot of hand outs going on there, but I guess that's "different."
I don't depend on the government for anything besides my civil rights and my right to pursuit of happiness. The Republican party has demonstrated over and over by actions and words this is not their priority for me or my fellow citizens. So yes, it's worked well for me.
Wait. - nm
[ In Reply To ..]nm
for what? - sm
[ In Reply To ..]I've been lining up my ducks since my first dollar. And it's not just re money.
I'm responsible for my future. No one gets credit but me, no one is faulted but me.
I subscribe to the ideals and policies of the Democratic party.
His Halo!!! Is this where you got the idea? - sm
[ In Reply To ..]I thought it was just a metaphor, but looks like it is another buzz word for ya'll, and repeated from the right-wing celebs and media.
Source - IRS
[ In Reply To ..]Example 2. Married employee with dependents. Taxpayers B and C are married
and file a joint return for 2016. B and C have two children, D and E. In November
2015, B is eligible to enroll in self-only coverage under a plan offered by B’s employer
for calendar year 2016 at a cost of $5,000 to B. C, D, and E are eligible to enroll in
family coverage under the same plan for 2016 at a cost of $20,000 to B. B, C, D, and
E’s household income is $90,000. Under paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(A) of this section, B's
required contribution is B's share of the cost for self-only coverage, $5,000. Under
paragraph (e)(1) of this section, B has affordable coverage for 2016 because B’s
required contribution ($5,000) does not exceed 8 percent of B’s household income
($7,200). Under paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(B) of this section, the required contribution for C,
D, and E is B's share of the cost for family coverage, $20,000. Under paragraph (e)(1)
of this section, C, D, and E lack affordable coverage for 2016 because their required
contribution ($20,000) exceeds 8 percent of their household income ($7,200).
http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/REG-148500-12%20FR.pdf
source says (and TY for link) - see message
[ In Reply To ..]PROPOSED rule making and NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING.
"[4830-01-p]
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 1
[REG-148500-12]
RIN 1545-BL36
Shared Responsibility Payment for Not Maintaining Minimum Essential Coverage
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing.
SUMMARY: This document contains proposed regulations relating to the requirement
to maintain minimum essential coverage enacted by the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010"
Completey misreading this section....let me explain - wheres_my_job
[ In Reply To ..]The government is giving examples of UNAFFORDABLE EMPLOYER PLANS. It's explaining that a sufficient employer plan that COMPLIES with the new health care law, cannot cost more than EIGHT PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME. I have capitalized below the relevant text:
"Under paragraph (e)(1)
of this section, C, D, and E LACK AFFORDABLE COVERAGE for 2016 because their required
contribution ($20,000) exceeds 8 percent of their household income ($7,200).
- - - -
Of course you can't afford this - that's the whole point of the new law - to make things affordable. At or below 8 percent, apparently, from what you've shared.
I may be totally misunderstanding this too... - so confusing
[ In Reply To ..]My understanding is similar to yours, but it is what's being used to calculate the penalty if opting out, so by setting it that high (rather than $15,000 at the most, say), it makes those opting out have to pay a higher penalty than assuming a lower average insurer rate for family coverage.
That's really not the worst of it, though. See the NY Times article I posted in another comment.
Maybe $15,000 for a family would have been more reasonable to set the penalty. - so confusing
[ In Reply To ..]What most conservative sites are assuming about this is erroneous, but what has actually happened is certainly not cool either.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/us/politics/irs-to-base-insurance-affordability-on-single-coverage.html?_r=0
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/31/1183701/-Obama-and-Dems-may-have-jost-lost-their-most-stalwart-supporter-with-this-Obamacare-ruling
Some more optimistic news about the ruling. - so confusing
[ In Reply To ..]I'm especially concerned about what the Federal Exchange is going to be offering since my state does not have an "enlightened governor."
(disclaimer: I'm a progressive, though not a big Daily Kos fan. However, this is the best source I'm finding so far besides the NYT. Looking forward to more non-fear-mongering information in the coming days.)
Per family - Anonymous
[ In Reply To ..]How many people in the family? A single person will not pay the same as a family with 2 adults and 4 children. Also, the word "assumption" is used several times, and you know what "assume" does.
Bottom of googled page 9 and couldn't confirm this. Just - smear machine posts... nm
[ In Reply To ..]x
Similar Messages:
In Need Of Dental Work But Can't Afford ItOct 05, 2011
I am in desperate need of dental work but have absolutely no money. I need 12 crowns on top and 2 on the bottom. I don't have a job, and I don't have insurance. I have nobody to borrow from or to apply to one of those dental credit plans for me. Do I have any solutions? Does Medicaid pay for dental work? ...
Abortion. Can We Really Afford To Be Wrong?Sep 05, 2012
My personal journey to an answer for this difficult question has been neither one of religious discovery nor a form of moral evolution. It is this conclusion--which, while difficult to come to for me personally as a former pro-choice advocate, has been as inescapable as it has been wrenching: It isn't necessary to argue religion. It isn't necessary to examine moral systems of thought. From a purely scientific and medical standpoint, there is absolutely no point in th ...
Need A Subsidy For Your Healthcare You Can't Afford? (sm)Jul 07, 2013
For the first year you won't even have to prove you need it. Come one, come all. We're using the honor system. OMG. I'm choking from laughter. link ...
Do As Obama Tells You - If You Can't Afford (sm)Mar 12, 2014
Obamacare, just cancel those I-phones and cable. Wow - I finally agree with him about something. I bet most English-speaking folks don't even know he said this. LOL link ...
So, We Can't Afford To Go Back To College, You Know, To Get Out Of MT But - See MsgJul 31, 2015
prisoners can go to college for free! How nice. ...
We Finally Got Insurance That We Can AffordNov 04, 2015
If the GOP takes away our insurance coverage after so many years of not being able to get it because of preexisting conditions, they will be making a fatal mistake. It will be the last nail in their coffin, which by the way is almost there anyway. ...
TX Can’t Afford To Buy New Far-Right Textbooks-Gov Perry Still ...Jun 21, 2010
Texas Can’t Afford To Buy New Far-Right Textbooks, But Rick Perry Still Resists Federal Aid For the past year, far-right members of the Texas Board of Education have been overhauling the state’s textbook standards. The changes include “pushing for inclusion of more…Confederate glorification,” re-naming the Atlantic slave trade the “Atlantic Triangle Trade,” prioritizing “a suggestion that the anti-communist witch-hunt by Senator Joseph McC ...
Feeling Like A Bad Mother - Can't Afford PreschoolDec 30, 2013
I have a 4-year-old who I would love to put in preschool, but I cannot afford it. I'm on my state's waiting list for childcare assistance as well as the waiting list for Head Start. I've been told I will be on the list for probably 2 years, by which time she will be in kindergarten. I can't even afford half days or just one day a week. I feel like a terrible mother because I can't afford preschool and she is going to be behind when she goes to kin ...
Americans Have Insurance But Can’t Afford To Use ItMar 13, 2015
Although more Americans have health insurance coverage, 25 percent of non-elderly Americans don’t have enough liquid assets to cover the deductible on their health insurance plan, according to a new report from the Kaiser Family Foundation. The report finds that many consumers don’t have the cash on hand to cover the cost of a mid-range deductible or $1,200 for an individual or $2,400 per family. High deductible health plans require that consumers cover their health car ...