Cheapest ObamaCare Plan for Family of 5 Will Cost 30% of Household Income

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


Based on census figures, median household income for a family of 5 is $58,754. That number has been declining during the Obama Recession. And there’s little relief in sight.

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 examples point to families of four and families of five, both of which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of $20,000 per year for a bronze plan.

Bronze will be the lowest tier health-insurance plan available under Obamacare–after Silver, Gold, and Platinum. 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.

This does not tell the full story as household disposable income is around $27,000.

The Congressional Budget Office had estimated the cost of a Bronze plan at between $12,000 and $12,500 a year. That does not appear to be the case.

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    Firstly, having been a co-owner of a corporate tax practice, it is impossible to blow smoke in my face. Moreover, whatever the stated costs, rational folks should know that a "surcharge" will be placed atop it. Therefore, the low ball cost is NOT the cost.

    In the same manner in which MANY Americans will be forced to forego insurance, due to the POTUS's "fairness" measures, surely many employers will cut back too. From the employer side, how many employees realize what regular benefits costs, aside from one with so many pitfalls/loopholes as ObamaCare? The amount of small businesses which will fold, will pale in comparison to the past.

    Again, ObamaCare was all about devastating the economy, in the attempt to resurrect it into a "fairer" socialist system. The road to hell – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/08/07/barack-hussei… been paved with "green" schemes, Obamacare and disarming the public, something which may well be their best insurance – but should NEVER be allowed to happen – once Americans are truly aware of the economic devastation to come.

    Adina kutnicki, Israel – http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

  • John Spielman

    I guess the penalty will be the way to go then a become another Medicaid recipient.
    Seriously though Obamacare missed the mark from the beginning. There should have been a health care system for the uninsurable people that begins with tort reform. Malpractice insurance for doctors adds 30percent to the cost of health care up front. A salaried doctor corps with public hospitals all funded by tax dollars would be possible and much cheaper with good quality health care.

    • JacksonPearson

      If you already have good health care, why would anyone want Obama to fix it for them?

      • John Spielman

        Because for people with preexsting diseases like cancer diabetes or a geneticaly inheritable susceptibility for them are presently uninsurable in for profit medical insurance companies.

        • JacksonPearson

          What part of your life, do you don't want the government to further encroach upon, or intrude upon?

          • AxisOfTruth

            @JacksonPearson The liberals will trade their freedom for handouts. You can't argue with their mentality. They just don't understand that more government = less freedom. It's a simple equation they refuse to understand.

          • John

            Have you considered that Liberals just might be that special kind of crazy that WANTS more government because it will mean less freedom?

      • Steve Morton

        Excellent question. I, for one would and do not.

    • BigC

      Just don't pay the penalty. They can't force you to because direct taxes must be apportioned among the states based on population according to the constitution. Don't pay, go to court, win !

      • OIC

        Oh, just like Income Tax, a mandatory "indirect" tax, which we can just not pay, go to court, and win. Right? Wrong! Why do you think they put the IRS in charge of handling the collection process for this, rather than the insurance company? Does the IRS collect your mandatory Auto Insurance "tax"? Does your state, county, or city government's revenue departments? Of course not, this whole thing is just another scam to steal what little bit of money hasn't yet been stolen from you by all of the other "voluntary" fees and taxes you pay.

  • Kristina

    From the IRS's document, Page 56: "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. " Page 60: "Example 2. Family. (i) In 2016 Taxpayers M and N are married and file a joint return. M and N have two children, P and Q. M, N, P, and Q are ineligible to enroll in minimum essential coverage other than coverage in the individual market for a month in 2016. The annual premium for M, N, P, and Q’s applicable plan is $20,000. The
    adjusted annual premium for M, N, P, and Q’s applicable benchmark plan (within the meaning of §1.36B-3(f)) is $25,000. M and N’s household income is $80,000, which is 347 percent of the Federal poverty line for a family size of 4 for the taxable year. "

    Income in those examples is $80,000-90,000, NOT $58,700. Maybe you want to update your story.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      That may be the example the IRS uses, but it's not the average household income for a family that size.

      $58,700 is the median household income for a family of 5 based on census figures.

    • KristenKosar

      The 90K was used to determine the tax or penalty you will pay if you do not take insurance. It does not change the fact that 58,700 is the median income nor does it change the fact that the cheapest insurance being offered through Obamacare would cost 20K.

      • http://twitter.com/bitsinmotion @bitsinmotion

        There is no insurance "offered through Obamacare," dimwit. This article is drivel. It's merely an example they chose as an example to illustrate tax computations.

  • tanstaafl

    I believe our family might be able to afford a monthly visit from a Witch Docter.

    • Rifleman

      I'm keeping on good terms with my Dog's old vet.

  • Mary Sue

    Ugh, even BC MSP Premiums aren't this steep. >.>

  • cxt

    And thus AGAIN. Decent, well meaning people screw up royally because they won't listen to anyone of anything that does that contridicts/challanges their pre-conceptions.

    Any hint that Obamcare was flawed was met with disbelief and insult from the Left. Anyone doing basic math could prove that it simply would not work as advertised.–an they were met with a score of "experts" whose math was "different."

    Logical objections were met with furious accusations of "evil" conservatives wanting to let people suffer.

    And here we are again…..and again…….and again…….and again….ad nausem.

    When a group refuses to admit that they ever make mistakes and thus LEARNING from them. They just keep screwing up.

    And since THEY never pay a price for their screwups–its the "little people" they claim to care so much for that gets hurt.

  • Rick003

    WELL NOW THIS SAYS IT ALL DOESN'T IT? OBAMACARE WAS SOLD TO CONGRESS AS THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, DOESN'T LOOK THAT WAY TO ME, I WOULD VENTURE MANY WILL LEAVE WHO HAVE THE MEANS TO SO AND FIND ANOTHER COUNTRY TO LIVE IN. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED THE UNAFFORDABLE CARE ACT, AND OBAMACARE REALLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED OBAMASCARE, ARE YOU SCARED YET? YOU WILL BE IN THE YEAR 2014 IF YOUR NOT ALREADY.

  • Walter

    Well everyone: Most of you voted for President Obama and now everyone in this country is stuck with the consequences. Were you people really dumb enough to believe someone who promised you good quality, easily affordable healthcare administered by the government was even a possibility? Did you really believe President Obama and his subordinates knew or know ANYTHING about healthcare. The man has never even held a job other than working for Acorn. He has never written a paycheck for even one employee. Why did you who voted for him think he had THE ANSWER about how to run one sixth of the American economy or, in other words, the nation's healthcare system. Well, I suppose, you get what you beg for.

  • SocialismIsDumd

    I hope people get it stuck right up their wazoo. I can't wait until this "affordable" health plan kickes in. Then maybe the morons who voted for this marxist will realize what socialism is all about. I hope the country crashes and burns. People are so stupid. Socialist and communist country after country continues to be the worst in the world and continues to constantly hurt its citizens BUT yet people do not learn, they do not see, what the hell is wrong with them. I know I am cutting my nose of to spite my face, but so be it.

  • thinker70

    All I can say is I am glad i do not live in the disUnited States. What all this proves is that people need to wise up and adopt healthy diets so they do not need medical services. Will be 75 next month and have never been to a medical doctor in my adult life.

    Of course i have an acre of organic garden to grow a good portion of my own food and do not buy highly processed food or anything with artificial colours, flavours or sweeteners, and preservatives. Maybe our unnecessary health costs could be financed by a TAX on manufactured/processed foods and drinks based on the percentage of health promoting naturally occurring vitamins and minerals REMOVED in the process of creating the artificial psuedo foods that fill supermarket shelves.