Thread: Cheapest Obamacare Plan $20,000 per family per IRS Estimate

The IRS recently estimated that the cheapest of the mandatory plans available under Obamacare will cost a family of 4 $20,000 a year.

That is obscenely expensive and illustrative of the idiotic "one size fits all, we know what's best for you" mindset of the statist idiots who crafted this law.

I am self employed and currently carry a high deductable plan for my family of 6. I can afford to pay for office visits and the like, but need insurance for the possibility of some catastrophic problem (i.e when one of my kids broke his leg and the total bill was $300,000).

Of course, policies such as mine will soon no longer be allowed because president Obama and his Democratic allies don't think such policies are good enough. Therefore, I'll soon be forced to either spend much more on health insurance than I have before (to the point that I'll have to cut back on something else), or go without insurance and pay a fine (er.....tax).

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 a 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.

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

There are subsidies available, but many people will find that their take home pay is higher if they earn less:

The new premium assistance program provides powerful disincentives to work by imposing high implicit marginal tax rates on additional earned income. This occurs because large amounts of federal premium assistance is withdrawn at various points on the income scale. For example, a family of four earning just below $88,000, or 400 percent of the poverty level, will receive about $5,000 in annual subsidies to purchase insurance in 2016. Once that threshold is crossed, the subsidy immediately drops to zero. So for a family of four in that income range, a raise in wages would actually result in a significant reduction in take-home pay. The same disincentive applies at other points in the income scale, as premium assistance drops abruptly with small amounts of additional earned income. In fact, combined with explicit federal taxes (income and payroll taxes), the implicit tax associated with the withdrawal of premium assistance can push the effective marginal tax rates on earned income for many low and middle income households to well above 60 percent.

Exchanges & Premium Subsidies | ObamaCare Watch

One more way that Obamacare is killing our economy.

Now how about links the the actual IRS report so we can evaluate the veracity of the reporting?

The rapid rise of healthcare was harming our economy before and projected to be "killing our economy," well before the new health care law. The real question of effects can only be measured against those projections.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

The rapid rise of healthcare was harming our economy before and projected to be "killing our economy," well before the new health care law. The real question of effects can only be measured against those projections.

Obamacare forces every American to buy one of four ridiculously expensive plans. I want the insurance that I choose for myself, not one of four choices given to me by the president & his statist colleagues. I am not a child to be dictated to by a busybody tyrannical government.The only justification for the insurance mandate is the fact that a person without health insurance, like a person without auto insurance, might incur a bill he can not pay and become a burden on society. That problem should be fully satisfied by a bare minimum high deductible policy. Such policies are relatively cheap. But no. Obama feels the need to dictate the exact kind of coverage we all must have. Too little coverage, you pay a penalty. Too much coverage? Penalty. This is completely UN-AMERICAN and should have been found unconstitutional.By forcing me to buy more coverage than I want or need, Obamacare will certainly be more expensive than the alternative.

The figure is planning assumption by the IRS--probably not a bad one considering the continuing climb over the past couple decades.

"Under the law, the penalty for not buying health insurance is supposed to be capped at either the annual average Bronze premium, 2.5 percent of taxable income, or $2,085.00 per family in 2016."

Obviously if a family is making plenty of money, such as the $400,000 a year used for the upper tax bracket, than they might well pay that much. But the wealthy will likely pay for private insurance anyway.

--

Here's the general trend:

We probably shouldn't be surprised that it didn't cut cost though--its a unique design largely developed by the private health insurance agency following bipartician recommendations going back over 20 years.

Good grief!

I just made up an imaginary 2 child family with parents aged around 40 for a health insurance quote for South Australia. (For someone with an income less than $168000 pa.)
Your Results - iSelect

The 6 cheapest range from $218 to $252 a month. When you go for best benefits available for such a family it's $371 up to $513 a month.

So the cheapest cover is $2616 and the dearest is $6156 a year.

You guys really need to get your health / hospital costs under control. (I do realise that our insurance doesn't have to cover ordinary doctor's consultations or pharmacy, but even so.)

Originally Posted by adelady

Good grief!

I just made up an imaginary 2 child family with parents aged around 40 for a health insurance quote for South Australia. (For someone with an income less than $168000 pa.)
Your Results - iSelect

The 6 cheapest range from $218 to $252 a month. When you go for best benefits available for such a family it's $371 up to $513 a month.

So the cheapest cover is $2616 and the dearest is $6156 a year.

You guys really need to get your health / hospital costs under control. (I do realise that our insurance doesn't have to cover ordinary doctor's consultations or pharmacy, but even so.)

That's part of the problem right there. Obamacare has mandated all Americans choose between 4 pretty comprehensive (therefore expensive) plans. Why should insurance pay for regular office visits? Insurance is supposed to be for the rare and very expensive situation, it's not supposed to pay for your day to day needs.

Instead, Obama and his "we know what's best for you" jackasses have imposed a riduculously expensive one size fits all program upon the entire nation.

How about a mandatory insurance premium for everybody based on their ability to pay, i.e a percentage of their salary and then the service providers just provide whatever care is needed to who ever needs it, and they get paid a flat rate for the treatment involved by the insurance compaines. Then insurance companies can buy a licence to cover certain areas or groups of people from the government. This would help to maintain fairness across the insurance industry, meaning that everyone always gets the treatment they need, everyone makes a fair contribution to the overall countries healthcare costs and hopefully stopping the care providers from unnecessarily ramping up costs.

Why should insurance pay for regular office visits? Insurance is supposed to be for the rare and very expensive situation, it's not supposed to pay for your day to day needs.

It's to prevent the expensive situation from developing because risk are identified and diseases caught early. The poor are the very group most likely not to do preventative checkups or seek preventative health care while they feel fine...that is until disaster strikes. A lot of people are walking time bombs for heart attack or stroke--getting them some medical advice and on the right prescriptions can save hundreds of thousands of dollar in medical bills, unemployment and disability payments.

Originally Posted by madanthonywayne

Originally Posted by adelady

Good grief!

I just made up an imaginary 2 child family with parents aged around 40 for a health insurance quote for South Australia. (For someone with an income less than $168000 pa.)
Your Results - iSelect

The 6 cheapest range from $218 to $252 a month. When you go for best benefits available for such a family it's $371 up to $513 a month.

So the cheapest cover is $2616 and the dearest is $6156 a year.

You guys really need to get your health / hospital costs under control. (I do realise that our insurance doesn't have to cover ordinary doctor's consultations or pharmacy, but even so.)

That's part of the problem right there. Obamacare has mandated all Americans choose between 4 pretty comprehensive (therefore expensive) plans. Why should insurance pay for regular office visits? Insurance is supposed to be for the rare and very expensive situation, it's not supposed to pay for your day to day needs.

Instead, Obama and his "we know what's best for you" jackasses have imposed a riduculously expensive one size fits all program upon the entire nation.

Because when the insurance industry is NOT controlling things it works out fine, see the many western countries which already have this type of system in place.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Why should insurance pay for regular office visits? Insurance is supposed to be for the rare and very expensive situation, it's not supposed to pay for your day to day needs.

It's to prevent the expensive situation from developing because risk are identified and diseases caught early. The poor are the very group most likely not to do preventative checkups or seek preventative health care while they feel fine...that is until disaster strikes. A lot of people are walking time bombs for heart attack or stroke--getting them some medical advice and on the right prescriptions can save hundreds of thousands of dollar in medical bills, unemployment and disability payments.

I'm aware of the theory, but I don't buy it. There's no proof that the theory is true. Indeed, a recent study of 183,000 patients showed regular checkups in people with no apparent problems to be completely useless and possibly even harmful:

Routine checkups don't help reduce a patient's risk of dying from either heart disease or cancer, new Danish research suggests.

The finding applies to doctor visits among the general population, in which seemingly healthy patients, without any specific disease risk, come in on a regular basis for an array of standardized screenings and lifestyle counseling.
The goal of such checkups is to catch early signs of disease and thereby reduce the risk for early death.
But the fresh review of 14 previous studies involving nearly 183,000 patients uncovered no evidence that such checkups do anything of the sort. On the contrary, the research team found that routine checkups of healthy people may actually promote the use of potentially harmful invasive testing while at the same time leading to overdiagnosis and unnecessary treatment.

....Our results do not tell us what the optimal prevention strategy is, but they certainly do not support the idea of regular, systematic health checkups in addition to normal clinical practice."
Routine Checkups Don't Cut Cancer, Heart Deaths: Study

So your theory has no scientific basis. Furthermore, what you're talking about isn't really even insurance. Everyone is a walking time bomb. We are all going to die; mostly due to heart disease or cancer and when that time comes, it will probably be pretty damned expensive. That's what insurance is for.

Ironically, even most of that money is probably being wasted and only results in prolonging the agony of patients who will die regardless of what is done. A recent survey of doctors found that the majority do not want any heroic measures at all taken. Not even CPR which, it turns out, is only really successful about 3% of the time! Consider this story as an example of how much money is wasted and the perverse pressures physicians face:

One of my patients was a man named Jack, a 78-year-old who had been ill for years and undergone about 15 major surgical procedures. He explained to me that he never, under any circumstances, wanted to be placed on life support machines again. One Saturday, however, Jack suffered a massive stroke and got admitted to the emergency room unconscious, without his wife. Doctors did everything possible to resuscitate him and put him on life support in the ICU. This was Jack’s worst nightmare. When I arrived at the hospital and took over Jack’s care, I spoke to his wife and to hospital staff, bringing in my office notes with his care preferences. Then I turned off the life support machines and sat with him. He died two hours later.
Even with all his wishes documented, Jack hadn’t died as he’d hoped. The system had intervened. One of the nurses, I later found out, even reported my unplugging of Jack to the authorities as a possible homicide. Nothing came of it, of course; Jack’s wishes had been spelled out explicitly, and he’d left the paperwork to prove it. But the prospect of a police investigation is terrifying for any physician. I could far more easily have left Jack on life support against his stated wishes, prolonging his life, and his suffering, a few more weeks. I would even have made a little more money, and Medicare would have ended up with an additional $500,000 bill. It’s no wonder many doctors err on the side of overtreatment.

Zócalo Public Square :: How Doctors Die

So this doctor, in accordance with his patient's wishes, disconnected a patient from life support and risked being charged with a homicide! On the other hand, had he left the patient to suffer, he would have earned $500,000 extra for the hospital and faced no risk of being charged with homicide.

Which choice do you think most physicians make? Which choice would you make?

Originally Posted by madanthonywayne

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Why should insurance pay for regular office visits? Insurance is supposed to be for the rare and very expensive situation, it's not supposed to pay for your day to day needs.

It's to prevent the expensive situation from developing because risk are identified and diseases caught early. The poor are the very group most likely not to do preventative checkups or seek preventative health care while they feel fine...that is until disaster strikes. A lot of people are walking time bombs for heart attack or stroke--getting them some medical advice and on the right prescriptions can save hundreds of thousands of dollar in medical bills, unemployment and disability payments.

I'm aware of the theory, but I don't buy it. There's no proof that the theory is true. Indeed, a recent study of 183,000 patients showed regular checkups in people with no apparent problems to be completely useless and possibly even harmful:

Routine checkups don't help reduce a patient's risk of dying from either heart disease or cancer, new Danish research suggests.

The finding applies to doctor visits among the general population, in which seemingly healthy patients, without any specific disease risk, come in on a regular basis for an array of standardized screenings and lifestyle counseling.
The goal of such checkups is to catch early signs of disease and thereby reduce the risk for early death.
But the fresh review of 14 previous studies involving nearly 183,000 patients uncovered no evidence that such checkups do anything of the sort. On the contrary, the research team found that routine checkups of healthy people may actually promote the use of potentially harmful invasive testing while at the same time leading to overdiagnosis and unnecessary treatment.

....Our results do not tell us what the optimal prevention strategy is, but they certainly do not support the idea of regular, systematic health checkups in addition to normal clinical practice."
Routine Checkups Don't Cut Cancer, Heart Deaths: Study

So your theory has no scientific basis. Furthermore, what you're talking about isn't really even insurance. Everyone is a walking time bomb. We are all going to die; mostly due to heart disease or cancer and when that time comes, it will probably be pretty damned expensive. That's what insurance is for.

From your exact same link:

"[So] our results should not be interpreted as evidence against preventive actions to improve health in general," he said, "or evidence against clinicians trying to identify health problems early and treat risk factors in high-risk groups."

The one study showed a possible lack of benefit, but noted that may be due to preventative measures being taken in the high risk patients before problems happen.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

From your exact same link:

"[So] our results should not be interpreted as evidence against preventive actions to improve health in general," he said, "or evidence against clinicians trying to identify health problems early and treat risk factors in high-risk groups."

The one study showed a possible lack of benefit, but noted that may be due to preventative measures being taken in the high risk patients before problems happen.

It's the largest study of its kind ever and failed to show any benefit. Despite this, you believe we should base public policy on this theory?

Good find on that study of studies. Paleo already pointed to the caveats. It also probably a good signal to the physicians to target rick rather than wasting time and money on low risk stuff. I mean how many of have been through the whole battery of test, when in reality many of us might be like me. In five minutes a doc can figure out that since 3 of my grandparents died of heart problem, my uncle and both parent have had heart attacks before 60 and of all my relatives, only one (my paternal grandfather) died of cancer at 93 years old---well testing for cancer is probably a waste of time. On the other hand going in once a year, for my yearly admonition about gaining a couple pounds, not exercising enough, and getting my cholesterol and blood pressure meds have a good chance to buy me a few more years than my family thus far.

On the other hand going in once a year, for my yearly admonition about gaining a couple pounds, not exercising enough, and getting my cholesterol and blood pressure meds have a good chance to buy me a few more years than my family thus far.

And that's exactly what poor people can't afford to do when they have to pay full costs for the professional services required. Whereas here, the doctor's consultation will cost you a bit because very few doctors work on the government scheduled fee only, and the pathology testing might cost you a bit - the government's clamped down strongly on the profiteering in that sector - it's actually doable.

Especially since low income earners, or people who have a lot of medications, qualify for a healthcare card which gives them prescriptions at the pensioner rate. $5.60 per script regardless of the actual cost of the drug. (Note that drugs under this arrangement already cost our government less than people in the US pay because of the PBS purchasing arrangements.) Which gives a further benefit in that people are much more likely to stick to the healthcare plan proposed by the doctor - they can afford the medication.