Health Insurance | NoisyRoom.net

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

When it comes to MIT economist Jonathan Gruber’s Obamacare role, the media are making sure that the joke remains on us. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform recently received 20,000 pages of emails of exchanges between this professor and the White House during “the crucial months when [Obamacare] was being crafted and passed,” writes Charles Lipson for RealClearPolitics.

“I just heard about this,” President Obama said in 2014. “…The fact that some advisor who never worked on our staff expressed an opinion that I completely disagree with, in terms of the voters, is no reflection on the actual process that was run.”

Gruber informed the administration “about interviews with reporters and discussions with lawmakers” and consulted with the administration “about how to publicly describe his role,” reported The Wall Street Journal. He received at least $400,000 from the federal government, and millions more from state governments for his brilliant advice.

The mainstream media, as they do with most negative news regarding Obamacare, met this newest revelation regarding President Obama’s obfuscations and lies with a near complete blackout.

As we recently reported, members of the media not only cover up President Obama’s many lies, they also defend his signature legislation from any threat from any source. Most recently the press has been pressuring the Supreme Court to vote to save Obamacare’s federal subsidies based on the pervasive myth that the legislative text requiring that subsidies be distributed through an exchange “established by the state” results from a Congressional drafting error.

Could the impending Supreme Court ruling have influenced editors’ and television news producers’ decisions to ignore this latest information regarding Gruber’s Obamacare role?

“A search of the New York Times shows zero hits for ‘Gruber’ this week,” writes Lipson. He continues:

The Washington Post has one hit, a brief comment by an online opinion columnist. Regional newspapers like the Chicago Tribune: zero.…The network shows—Good Morning America, the Today Show, and CBS This Morning—have eight hours of air time but did not mention it at all. Zilch.

As for MSNBC’s Morning Joe, panelists took a moment to have a good laugh at America’s expense, as Accuracy in Media Chairman Don Irvine noted:

“I owe my Republican sources an apology because they kept telling me he [Gruber] was hugely involved, and the White House played it down,” said Mark Halperin, co-managing editor of Bloomberg Politics.

“Did the White House lie about that?” asked Joe Scarborough.

“I think they were not fully forthcoming,” replied Halperin. “Or they may have had their recollections impaired.”

In other words, President Obama lied.

“Morning Joe’s panel of Democratic stalwarts, including Howard Dean, actually laughed out loud,” writes Lipson. “When they were asked the same question—did the White House lie?—they kept laughing and said ‘they were not fully forthcoming.’”

Maybe if the media didn’t continue to laugh, ignore, or downplay President Obama’s constant lies and instead held him accountable for them, then the President and his administration wouldn’t be able to get away with their transparent disdain for the press, or, apparently, the “stupid” American voter, as Gruber characterized them.

By: Frank Salvato

As we approach the dreaded tax filing deadline of April 15th, many Americans are ill-prepared for the news they are going to receive from their tax preparers or tax preparation software. Between three and six million people are going to be affected by penalties, an “Individual Shared Responsibility Payment,” associated with the Affordable Care Act. And most of those affected have no idea how much financial pain they are going to feel.

When the Obama Administration was selling Obamacare to the American people – you remember, “It’s not a tax,” “If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it,” “We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it,” etc. – they alluded to the existence of penalties for those Americans who did not purchase ACA compliant health insurance. The amount for the first year non-compliance penalty was routinely quoted as $95. For many the choice was clear: keep the non-compliant health insurance, pay the $95 penalty (read: non-compliance tax), and hope that a Republican-led Congress would affect relief for the taxpayer as soon as they took control in Washington, DC.

But that scenario doesn’t impact this tax cycle. And while three to five million people have received subsidies through the Obamacare marketplaces to offset the cost of ACA compliant health insurance (still many more will qualify for exemptions), the penalty – or Individual Shared Responsibility Payment – for most of the three to six million Americans who opted to pay the fine and go without is going to be substantially more than they think.

Contrary to the commonly referred to fine of $95 for non-compliance, that amount is the least amount that can be imposed on an individual. The calculation used for the overwhelming majority of the non-compliant will be the higher of either one-percent of your household income above your filing threshold or a flat dollar amount up to $285 ($95 per adult, $47.50 per child). The important words to consider here are “household income.”

In the scenario where one spouse is covered by employer-sponsored health insurance but the other spouse is not – where one spouse is non-compliant, the Individual Shared Responsibility Payment is still based on the total of the household income; the compliant spouse is still entered into the penalty equation through the use of the household income as a defining integer. The idea that the ACA compliant individual cannot be adversely affected at tax time is a fallacy.

For example, let’s examine what the penalty (read: tax) would be on a Virginia household consisting of a man and a woman who, combined, made $150,000 for the year 2014. The woman is covered through her employer by ACA compliant health insurance, but the man is an independent contractor and chose to attain what used to be known as catastrophic health insurance, thus acquiescing to what he thought was going to be a $95 penalty. Using the Individual Shared Responsibility Payment calculator from HealthInsurance.org, the assessed penalty would be $1,297. A full $1202 more than the $95 for which they had planned. By contrast, a non-compliant single person making $75,000 in 2014 would have been assessed a $648.50 penalty. This means that the penalty for the “crime” of being from a household earning $150,000 with a single non-compliant spouse is $648.50; the penalty for being married to a non-compliant spouse is $648.50. The irony here is that the non-compliant spouse was still covered in the event of a medical emergency, even if he wasn’t ACA “compliant.”

The reasoning used by the Progressives and Democrats when arguing for the passage of the Affordable Care Act was that relief would be given to the healthcare system by virtue of the fact that everyone would be covered by health insurance; that everyone would be paying into the system. But having “passed the bill” so we can now “see what’s in it,” the reality of the matter is this. Obamacare was never about healthcare. It was never really even about everyone being covered by health insurance. And it wasn’t ever about everyone paying into the system. It was about creating two new revenue streams: one for the health insurance companies who now have a captive client-base, and another for the spendthrift federal government through the extraction of what the US Supreme Court has now identified as a tax.

And a heck of a tax it is…especially for the non-compliant and their compliant spouses.

Frank Salvato is the Executive Director of BasicsProject.org a grassroots, non-partisan, research and education initiative focusing on Constitutional Literacy, and internal and external threats facing Western Civilization; a division of The Archangel Organization, LLC, His writing has been recognized by the US House International Relations Committee and the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention. His opinion and analysis have been published by The American Enterprise Institute, The Washington Times, The Jewish World Review, Accuracy in Media, Human Events, Townhall.com and are syndicated nationally. Mr. Salvato has appeared on The O’Reilly Factor on FOX News Channel, and is the author of six books examining Islamofascism and Progressivism, including “Understanding the Threat of Radical Islam”. Mr. Salvato’s personal writing can be found at FrankJSalvato.com.