x

Please Login




Register Here!

On Politics, We Can Always See the Whites of Their Eyes.

 Search:  
Login / Register   About Us   Advertise   Contact Us  
RSS Feed

The Patriot Room

IRS to enforce lack-of-healthcare penalties - and it could run to several thousand dollars

by: Clyde Middleton   posted: 2009-08-10 18:55:00
Viewed 1034 times. 1 Comments.

Here it is in a nutshell: We are required - every one of us - to report our health-insurance status each tax filing for the preceding year - I'll make this single caveat: It reads where it may be insurance companies are required to give us something like a W-2 for insurance coverage (the only date mentioned is January 31). And since it all leads to paying taxes, we'll be reporting it with our 1040s. Failure to provide insurance for ourselves and every dependent will result in a tax equal to 2.5% of our AGI (adjusted by a de minimus amount) to a maximum of the national average insurance premium for the periods of time for which no insurance was in place. It is not a "fine" or a "penalty," but a tax that falls under the IRS to collect and enforce non-payment. What is the average premium? Not a single number has been floated. So, $500 a month? Medicare Part B alone runs as high as $300. $500 is cheap - let's use it - that's an additional tax of 2.5% of AGI to a maximum of $6,000 for failure to sign up for Obamacare. Further, we don't get insurance for that tax, so functionally it is a fine except the full weight of the Internal Revenue Service will be involved.

Now, let me back up everything I just wrote. First, here's the full text of the present health-care bill.

We are required - every one of us - to report our health-insurance status each tax filing for the preceding year - I'll make this single caveat: It reads where it may be insurance companies are required to give us something like a W-2 for insurance coverage (the only date mentioned is January 31). And since it all leads to paying taxes, we'll be reporting it with our 1040s.

Go to page 175, beginning at Line 11 of the bill:

(a) REQUIREMENT OF REPORTING.—Every person who provides acceptable coverage (as defined in section 59B(d)) to any individual during any calendar year shall, at such time as the Secretary may prescribe, make the return described in subsection (b) with respect to such individual.

What does the reporting include? Page 176, Line 1:

(A) the name, address, and TIN of the primary insured and the name of each other individual obtaining coverage under the policy, (B) the period for which each such individual was provided with the coverage referred to in subsection (a), and (C) such other information as the Secretary may require.

When is the reporting required? Page 176, Line 20 - but note that this seems to be reporting to us from our insurance companies - similar to receiving W2s:

The written statement required under the preceding sentence shall be furnished on or before January 31 of the year following the calendar year for which the return under subsection (a) is required to be made.

What is "acceptable coverage"? Go to page 171 beginning at Line 12 to see the definition of "acceptable coverage." It doesn't define it, but instead refers to Section 100(c), which, again, provides no definition but refers to Section 202(d)(2) (page 76, Line 6): A qualified health plan, a grandfathered plan, Medicare Part A, Medicare, coverage through the military, and whatever else they deem OK.

What is a "qualified health benefits plan"? Go to page page 25, beginning at line 15:

SEC. 121. COVERAGE OF ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE. (a) IN GENERAL.—A qualified health benefits plan shall provide coverage that at least meets the benefit standards adopted under section 124 for the essential benefits package described in section 122 for the plan year involved.

Section 124 discusses the procedure to establish standards. Section 122 gives some specificity. The items that caught my attention - and remember, in context, every insurance policy in the nation will need to meet these requirements:

Page 27, Line 10: (3) does not impose any annual or lifetime limit on the coverage of covered health care items and services;

Line 15: (5) is equivalent, as certified by Office of the Actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, to the average prevailing employer-sponsored coverage. (NOTE - how is every policy equal to the average? Doesn't that mean that every policy is the same?)

Page 28, Line 8: (5) Prescription drugs (NOTE - every policy must, therefore, provide Rx coverage.)

Page 28, Line 23: (1) NO COST-SHARING FOR PREVENTIVE SERVICES.—There shall be no cost-sharing under the essential benefits package for preventive items and services (as specified under the benefit standards), including well baby and well child care.

Failure to provide insurance for ourselves and every dependent will result in a tax equal to 2.5% of our AGI (adjusted by a de minimus amount) to a maximum of the national average insurance premium for the periods of time for which no insurance was in place.

Go to page 167, Line 18:

(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of— (1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over (2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

Section 6012(a)(1) is merely the minimum thresholds for a taxpayer to have to file an income-tax return at all - so it's de minimum (here's the link if you want to read further). If you continue down that page, you will read that the tax is limited only by the amount of premium you would have had to pay the government if you bought their insurance.

It is not a "fine" or a "penalty," but a tax that falls under the IRS to collect and enforce non-payment.

You see that quote above? "TAX IMPOSED." Recall that insurance companies will give us some W-2-like form. This is after the fact - reporting for last year. We don't get the insurance, we just get fined for not having it - and the IRS cracks the whip for collection.

What is the average premium? Not a single number has been floated. So, $500 a month? Medicare Part B alone runs as high as $300. $500 is cheap - let's use it - that's an additional tax of 2.5% of AGI to a maximum of $6,000 for failure to sign up for Obamacare.

The premium for Medicare Part B changes by income, with the highest amount being $308.30 a month.

Medicare Part B is partial coverage. Here's the quick overview of Medicare:

There are four parts to Medicare: Medicare Part A, Hospital Insurance; Medicare Part B, Medical Insurance; Medicare Part C (Medicare Advantage), which was formerly known as "Medicare + Choice" and the new Medicare Part D, prescription drug coverage. Generally, people who are over age 65 and getting Social Security automatically qualify for Medicare Parts A and B. So do people who have been getting disability benefits for two years, people who have amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's disease) and receive disability benefits, and people who have permanent kidney failure and receive maintenance dialysis or a kidney transplant.

Part A is paid for by a portion of Social Security tax. It helps pay for inpatient hospital care, skilled nursing care, hospice care and other services.

Part B is paid for by the monthly premiums of people enrolled and by general funds from the U.S. Treasury. It helps pay for doctors' fees, outpatient hospital visits, and other medical services and supplies that are not covered by Part A.

Part C (Medicare Advantage) plans allow you to choose to receive all of your health care services through a provider organization. These plans may help lower your costs of receiving medical services, or you may get extra benefits for an additional monthly fee. You must have both Parts A and B to enroll in Part C.

Part D (prescription drug coverage) is voluntary and the costs are paid for by the monthly premiums of enrollees and Medicare. Unlike Part B in which you are automatically enrolled and must opt out if you do not want it, with Part D you have to opt in by filling out a form and enrolling in an approved plan.

Part B is not, therefore, the complete coverage offered. So using a number for the annual average national premium that exceeds $300 a month seems appropriate.

So what number to use? This article is somewhat on point and uses an example of $9,000 a year - or $750 a month.

Another example. This survey claims a national average of $5,799 annually a couple of years ago (see page 7). Seems low - that's just $483 a month. That certainly is not the type of policy coverage Obama is requiring.

Here's some more information:

The federal government tracks average spending on health insurance for people with job-based coverage. The most recent figures are from 2005, and indicate that the average individual's job-based premiums were $3,991 that year, while families spent an average of $10,728.

Of course, I am mixing and matching individual and family coverages, but I am leading to one place: $500 a month for family coverage is not outrageous, and most likely is low - quite low. Therefore, suggesting an additional potential tax of $6,000 for failure to provide insurance for the family for the entire year is likewise - at best - a low number. It is capped only by 2.5% of your AGI.

Your AGI $50,000 - tax owed is $1,250

Your AGI $75,000 - tax owed is $1,875

Your AGI $100,000 - tax owed is $2,500

Your AGI $150,000 - tax owed is $3,750

Your money - and you get nothing for it.

Further, we don't get insurance for that tax, so functionally it is a fine except the full weight of the Internal Revenue Service will be involved.

Read it all above. Can't prove a negative. This is a tax penalty.

Happy daze.

Tags:

Related Articles


Links to this post

Trackback url: http://patriotroom.com/article/irs-to-enforce-lack-of-healthcare-penalties--and-it-could-run-to-several-thousand-dollars/trackback

Comments 1

arkady on 2009-08-11 23:02:01

Amazing job here, hell of a breakdown. It looks like they are basically taking a page out of RomneyCare and following our model here.

We have MassHealth which is essentially a public option, but as of now private insurers are not quite stamped out.

We definitely get penalized for being uninsured, so that part is the same. What else is similar? Taking millions of people and dumping them onto the already stretched and ailing physician pool. Obama wants to take 40+ million people and do the same. Our waits in MA have grown and doctors are booked, on a national level this will be even more profound.


Have an opinion?

 Name (required)
 Email (required)
 Website

If you were a member you wouldn't have to input that stuff!


What is 2 + 3 ? (seriously... for moderates the answer is 4 and for liberals the answer is cat)

Note: Your comment may be held for moderation.

blog advertising is good for you

blog advertising is good for you

Publius' Newsstand

  • NYT: Why Don't you People Just Believe Everythi...

    The Times acknowledges, barely, that all is not sunny in global warming-alarmist land.
    But Dr. Pachauri and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are now under intense scrutiny, facing accusations of scientific sloppiness and potential financial conflicts of interest from climate skeptics, right-leaning politicians and even some mainstream scientists. Senator John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican, called for Dr. Pachauri’s resignation last week. Critics, writing in Britain’s Sunday Telegraph and elsewhere, have accused Dr. Pachauri of profiting from his work as an adviser to businesses, including Deutsche Bank and Pegasus Capital Advisors, a New York investment firm — a claim he denies. They have also unearthed and publicized problems with the intergovernmental panel’s landmark 2007 report on climate change, which concluded that the planet was warming and that humans were likely to blame.

      Views: 53 Comments: 0

  • Congressional Democrats point finger of blame a...

    Poor guy. One of the problems with yelling at people, berating people, and generally thuggish behavior towards people is that it doesn't exactly engender loyalty. Eventually they turn, even if it's not your fault.
    The share of the blame comes as cracks are beginning to show in Emanuel’s once-impregnable political armor... on Capitol Hill he’s under fire for poor execution of the president’s healthcare agenda in the Senate... Senate Democrats grilled White House advisers last week during a special Senate Democratic retreat, expressing frustration over the lack of a clear plan. While Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) ripped chief political strategist David Axelrod, Senate Democrats say Emanuel, who was more closely involved in managing negotiations in Congress, also deserves scrutiny.

      Views: 28 Comments: 0

  • Michelle O: Barry has done a "phenomenol job"

    A solid B-plus:
    Michelle Obama defended her husband against some of his most vocal critics, saying President Obama did a "phenomenal" job this year and that change is a long-term process. The first lady talks about her nationwide campaign called "Let's Move." "I think my husband has done a phenomenal job staying on course, looking his critics in the eye, coming up with clear solutions against staying the course," Michelle Obama told Robin Roberts in an exclusive morning television interview on "Good Morning America." "That's what leadership is. But people have the right to criticize the President of the United States."
    Let me finish that last thought for you, Michelle. I see you rubbing your hands together and thinking, "Yes, for now people have the right to criticize him, but we're working on changing that."

      Views: 39 Comments: 0

  • Sheriff Joe Arpaio Lends Fundraising Muscle to ...

    Following on the last story, this certainly will help.
    In his letter, being sent out to Arpaio supporters today as part of a 100,000-person national direct mail drop, the sheriff calls Hayworth's decision to challenge McCain "courageous." And he pledges to help Hayworth "every step of the way." "Senator McCain has served this country admirably but it's time to replace his moderate or even liberal positions on taxes, the border, social causes and big bank bailouts with a consistent conservative like J.D.," Arpaio continues. "After years of running over Republican principles his entire career no election year conversion to our way of thinking will save his campaign from voters that want conservatives to be a part of the solution rather than part of the problem," he says.

      Views: 56 Comments: 0

  • From Right of Radio Dial, a Challenge to McCain...

    Not buying it, Senator McCain.
    McCain now finds himself jammed, moving starkly — and often awkwardly — to the right, apparently in an effort to gain favor among the same voters whom Mr. Hayworth, a consistent voice for the far right, could pull toward him like taffy come summer. McCain now sharply criticizes the bailout bill he voted for, pivoted from his earlier position that the Guantánamo Bay detention facility should be closed, offered only a muted response to the Supreme Court’s decision undoing campaign finance laws and backed down from statements that gays in the military would be O.K. by him... “John is undergoing a campaign conversion,” Mr. Hayworth said. Hayworth’s radio-personality bluster and big emotions.. may now have a part in the greater populist narrative that threatens many of the nation’s more centrist Republicans.

      Views: 35 Comments: 0

  • Defiant Iran accelerates nuclear program

    I thought Obama was going to talk these things over with his boy Mahmoud and smooth everything out. Instead, Ahmadinejad remains "defiant." How's that hope-y change-y working out for us?
    Iran said Tuesday that it had begun producing higher-grade enriched uranium, marking a new and potentially dangerous turn in Tehran's confrontation with the West over its nuclear ambitions... U.S. National Intelligence Director Dennis C. Blair told the House intelligence committee last week that "Iran has the scientific, the technical, the industrial capacity to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon in the next few years and eventually to produce a nuclear weapon. The central issue is a political decision by Iran to do so."

      Views: 36 Comments: 0

  • Reid's Jobs Bill will have "Republican Support"

    Looks like there's been some compromise here, as the GOP gets an extension of tax cuts that expired last year. I don't know if this is a good thing - I don't see much incentive for the GOP to do anything but obstruct the Dems at every possible point between now and November.
    I wouldn't want my fingerprints on anything this administration or congress proposes. Reid told reporters the bill would be introduced on Tuesday, and that it would include an extension of the tax breaks... Reid did not say how expensive the jobs bill would be. The Senate had been considering a package of roughly $80 billion. The House passed a larger jobs bill before Christmas, but now plans to unveil a different bill independent of that package, which did not garner Republican support.

      Views: 62 Comments: 0

  • Without Murtha, Dems now one vote short of pass...

    Didn't realize the implications of Murtha's passing today, which include the following...
    Back in November, the House passed its health care bill by a narrow 220 to 215 margin, with 39 Democrats voting against it. Since then, the one Republican who voted for it — Joseph Cao — has indicated that he would not support the bill a second time around given the weaker language on abortion in the Senate version. In addition, Florida Rep. Robert Wexler already retired prematurely. Factor in Murtha’s death today, and Pelosi is down to 217 votes — one short of passage. To pass the bill at some point in the next few months, she’ll need to flip a Democrat who is already on record voting against the bill.

      Views: 125 Comments: 1

  • Republicans and the Populist Temptation could T...

    A warning from my favorite economic analyst, Donald Luskin.
    Don't think that Republicans can't be sucked in when an anti-Wall Street lynch mob gets its blood up. Recall that Sarbanes-Oxley, the devastating antigrowth response in 2002 to the Enron and Worldcom scandals, was passed with virtually unanimous support by Republicans in Congress, and signed by a Republican president. Recall that last year 85 House Republicans voted for a 90% tax on bonuses for any employee of any bank that took more than $5 billion in TARP money. Investors got some good news last Friday. Stocks resisted following through on Thursday's sharp plunge after (Congress) reached an impasse on bank re-regulation. That's a nice down payment on what investors need a lot more of now: proof that the GOP won't join Democrats in a populist rush to seek revenge against Wall Street.

      Views: 79 Comments: 3

  • Message to Democrats: Wall St. Sends Cash to GO...

    Great news, but these guys were a little late in realizing that Obama wants to destroy all their corporations and confiscate their money. Not quite sure how they missed that.
    Just two years after Mr. Obama helped his party pull in record Wall Street contributions — $89 million from the securities and investment business, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics — some of his biggest supporters, like Mr. Dimon, have become the industry’s chief lobbyists against his regulatory agenda. Republicans are rushing to capitalize on what they call Wall Street’s “buyer’s remorse” with the Democrats. And industry executives and lobbyists are warning Democrats that if Mr. Obama keeps attacking Wall Street “fat cats,” they may fight back by withholding their cash.

      Views: 79 Comments: 2

Get Your PR Button!

Copyright © 2008-2009 Patriot Room Media, LLC
Privacy Policy  Terms Of Service