Obamacare Fines: How to Escape a Hefty Penalty If You Really Can’t Buy Insurance

Already, the fear-mongers are sounding the alarm: If you don’t purchase exactly the type of health insurance that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires, come tax-time the IRS will slap you with a stiff penalty.

As I explain in the post below, the ACA mandates that if you’re not already covered, you must buy insurance that includes “essential benefits” such as hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, and mental health services. Ignore the mandate this year, and you will be fined when you file your taxes next year.

                                 How Much Would You Owe?

If  you opt out of purchasing insurance that covers you and your family in 2015, the penalty will equal Either:

“Whichever is greater” means that wealthier taxpayers will be required to pay 1% of their income, and as a result can easily wind up owing significantly more than $285. This doesn’t mean that millionaires would be fined tens of thousands of dollars. An affluent family’s penalty also is capped, at the average cost of bronze plans sold in state Exchanges nationwide.

In  2014, nationwide, the average bronze plan premium was $2,448 per individual and $12,240 for a family with five or more. This year, across the nation, average premiums were slightly higher, so a family of five earning more than roughly $145,000 would have to fork over a little more than $12,240.

                         If This Sounds Complicated, Turbo-Tax Makes it Simple

If, at this point, your eyes are glazing over, the good news is that you can calculate your penalty, quickly and easily, on Turbotax’s online calculator. Just type  in your income, zip code, and  the size of your household, and in about three minutes, TurboTax will tell you  the size of your fine—and, most importantly, whether you might qualify for an exemption to the penalty.

                                 How You Might Escape the Fine

The  chances that the IRS will fine you are slim. What the fear-mongers rarely mention is that, thanks to the many exemptions built into the law, only about 10 percent of the uninsured will owe a penalty. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that in 2016,  just 4 million uninsured Americans will face fines, while 26 million will qualify for waivers. 

Recently, I wrote a piece for Consumer Reports listing some of the most common exemptions:

  •  if the lowest-priced coverage available to you, even after applying  a government subsidy, would cost more than 8 percent of your household’s income, the fine is waived;
  • –if you earn less than $10,150 (or $20,300 for a married couple) and so are not required to file income taxes you owe no fine and don’t even have to apply for a wavier;
  • if you were uninsured for less than 3 consecutive months, you will not be fined.

(As I explain in the post below,  this means that if you sign up for 2015 coverage by February 15 you will be insured as of March 1, and will not owe a penalty for 2015.) 

                       Little Known “Hardship Exemptions”               

On the Consumer Reports website, I also point out that late in 2013, the government added 14 new waivers

 

for people who have experienced personal hardships such as domestic violence, substantial property damage from a fire or flood, from a fire or flood, the death of a close relative, a utility cut-off, or bankruptcy.

Perhaps most importantly, the government is offering a one-year waiver to people who don’t qualify for Medicaid because they live in a state that has refused to expand the program under ACA rules.

To learn more about the hardship exemptions, how to apply for any exemption, and information on how you might escape the penalty, but still buy catastrophic insurance, read the rest of the post on Consumer Reports.org.

 

 

 

POST A COMMENT

The Post-Election Edition of Health Wonk Review

This most recent edition of HWR, a compendium of some of the best health care posts of the past two weeks, came out ten days ago. I apologize that I’ve been tardy in commenting— but, not to worry, it’s an “evergreen.” The problems Health-Wonkers raise haven’t been solved in the past week, and the issues discussed remain just as “hot”– as they were.

Managed Care Matters” Joe Paduda does an outstanding job of hosting the round-up in a post titled: “Elections Have Consequences.”

He begins with “Health Policy and MarketPlace Review’s”  Bob Laszewski, who  notes in the wake of the election, we can be certain of one thing: Obamacare will be implemented. To be sure, there will be lawsuits challenging reform legislation, but Laszewski says, “I wouldn’t waste a lot of time worrying about those. Anyone in the market will do better spending their time getting ready for all of the change coming.” He’s far more worried about whether the government will be able to set up the Exchanges in time to meet the deadline—and how legislators are going to solve the “fiscal cliff” problem.

Writing on “Health Affairs” Timothy Jost agrees that “there is a great deal of work needs to be done before reform becomes a reality.”  He focuses on the many rules that the administration will need to issue to provide guidance to the states, to employers and to insurers:  “The exchanges must begin open enrollment on October 1, 2013,” he observes. “By that date, the exchanges must have certified qualified health plans.  But before health plans can be certified, they must have their rates and forms approved by the states.  And before that can happen, insurers must determine what plans they will offer and what premiums they will charge.  Yet insurers cannot establish their plans and set their rates until they know a lot more than they do now about the rules they are going to have to play by.” In other words, the administration had better “roll up its sleeves and get to work.”

Meanwhile, President Obama still must contend with ornery governors, and rebellious states. “In an ominous sign,” Jost notes, “Missouri passed a ballot initiative prohibiting state officials from cooperating with the federal exchange in its state,  and authorizing private lawsuits against any official who cooperates.”   (Thanks, Missouri–just what we need, lawsuits against officials trying to do their jobs..)  “Whether this is constitutional remains to be seen,” says Jost, who is a constitutional expert.

Continue reading

POST A COMMENT

What if the Court rules that insurers don’t have to cover people suffering from pre-existing conditions?

The following post originally appeared on the healthinsurance.org blog.

In March, Ethan Fidler, a 10-year-old from England who had just had a tumor removed from his brain flew to Florida where doctors at the University of Florida used proton therapy to blast lingering cancer cells. (While proton therapy is widely available in Western Europe, the UK government has only recently approved funding the technology. Ethan couldn’t wait.)

Continue reading

2 COMMENTS SO FAR -- ADD ONE

If the Individual Mandate is Struck Down, What’s Next?

The following post originally appeared on the healthinsurance.org blog.

In Sunday’s edition of the New York Times, blogger Maggie Mahar responded briefly to the question, “What would the future hold if the Supreme Court strikes down the most controversial part of the health care law, the individual mandate?” We asked Mahar to elaborate on the question in this post.

Betting the individual mandate will be upheld

Ezekiel Emanuel says he has been betting on how the Supreme Court will decide the case challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).

Continue reading

POST A COMMENT

Health Wonk Review: ‘Voices from the Blogosphere’

The following post originally appeared on the healthinsurance.org blog.

This week, Maggie Mahar edits the Health Wonk Review, a biweekly compendium of the best of the health policy blogs.

Voices from the Blogosphere, May 21-June 6

I’ve decided to let the “Voices” of healthcare bloggers become the theme of this edition of Health Wonk Review. Some are passionate; others are dispassionate; some are disarmingly candid; others are angry.

Continue reading

POST A COMMENT

How did the challenge to the Affordable Care Act ever make it to the U.S. Supreme Court?

The following post originally appeared on the healthinsurance.org blog.

In 2009, when someone asked Nancy Pelosi a question implying that health reform legislation might be unconstitutional, she replied: “Are you serious?”

Pelosi wasn’t alone. At the outset, many legal scholars considered the challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) both “implausible” and “frivolous.”

Continue reading

POST A COMMENT

There Is No “Silver Lining” in Repealing Insurance Mandate

Earlier this week, as the Supreme Court continued to mull over which of the four legal challenges to the health reform law they will choose to tackle, I found out that, in fact, there could be a “silver lining” to the repeal of the individual mandate—the requirement that all Americans purchase health insurance.

In a post on Politco, Jennifer Haberkorn writes that some “Democrats and supporters of the law” believe that if “the least popular part of the law goes away, they think what’s left could become stronger and more popular with the public.”

Continue reading

7 COMMENTS SO FAR -- ADD ONE