# Obamacare for U.S.



## surfrider (Oct 4, 2011)

I have heard that the citizens of the U.S. have to join this new system and if they do not join, then then the person will have to pay a fee. 

Does anyone have information if this ins. package has anything to do with the Expats living out of the U.S.? Will it effect us or does it have anything to do with us at all?


----------



## Marishka (Feb 1, 2009)

surfrider said:


> I have heard that the citizens of the U.S. have to join this new system and if they do not join, then then the person will have to pay a fee.
> 
> Does anyone have information if this ins. package has anything to do with the Expats living out of the U.S.? Will it effect us or does it have anything to do with us at all?


If you are 65 or over, you have Medicare Part A and are considered to meet Obamacare's insurance requirement, whether you live in the U.S. or outside the U.S.

And regardless of your age, if you are a U.S. citizen who is a legal resident of another country and live outside the U.S. for at least 330 days a year, you are exempt from paying the penalty tax. That's another good reason to get a residency visa, instead of living in Mexico on a tourist visa and going back to the border for a new tourist visa every six months.


----------



## surfrider (Oct 4, 2011)

Marishka said:


> If you are 65 or over, you have Medicare Part A and are considered to meet Obamacare's insurance requirement, whether you live in the U.S. or outside the U.S.
> 
> And regardless of your age, if you are a U.S. citizen who is a legal resident of another country and live outside the U.S. for at least 330 days a year, you are exempt from paying the penalty tax. That's another good reason to get a residency visa, instead of living in Mexico on a tourist visa and going back to the border for a new tourist visa every six months.


I think that it is more involved than that ==. I found this on the web Based on Section 911, qualifying Non-Residents must prove that they are are not a “bona fide resident” of the USA nor do they have a “tax home” inside the United States. Typical retirees currently living full-time in Mexico can use their Mexican address for all IRS filings to meet some of the qualifications as a Non-Resident.

IRS Section 911 Rules:
” (d) Definitions and special rules
For purposes of this section—
(1) Qualified individual
The term “qualified individual” means an individual whose tax home is in a foreign country and who is—
(A) a citizen of the United States and establishes to the satisfaction of the Secretary that he has been a bona fide resident of a foreign country or countries for an uninterrupted period which includes an entire taxable year, or
(B) a citizen or resident of the United States and who, during any period of 12 consecutive months, is present in a foreign country or countries during at least 330 full days in such period. “

I think that you have to have a legal position of having a foreign income exclusion acknowledged by the U.S. and Mexico. I do not know that our residente temporal from inm is enough.


----------



## AlanMexicali (Jun 1, 2011)

My friend in the US said if you have a residence in the US you have to pay the yearly $600.00 US "fine" if not 65 or older starting Jan. 1st.


----------



## Marishka (Feb 1, 2009)

surfrider said:


> I think that you have to have a legal position of having a foreign income exclusion acknowledged by the U.S. and Mexico. I do not know that our residente temporal from inm is enough.


You might have to fill out IRS form 2555. You won't have to prove anything until the spring of 2015 when you file your 2014 federal tax return. By then, we'll know know exactly what information we will have to to provide to get the exemption for citizens who live abroad. 

Here's an article that you might want to read: Expats and Obamacare for los Idiotas



AlanMexicali said:


> My friend in the US said if you have a residence in the US you have to pay the yearly $600.00 US "fine" if not 65 or older starting Jan. 1st.


There's no $600 fine. If you don't have an exemption, and refuse coverage, you will have to pay a tax penalty of $95 per individual, $285 per family, or 1% of income (whichever is greater) in 2014. The penalty amounts increase to $695 per individual, $2,085 per family, or 2.5% of income (whichever is greater) by 2016. After 2016 the penalty increases annually based on cost-of-living adjustments. Exclusions apply to individuals who make too little money to file a federal tax return, or who would have to spend more than 8% of their household income on the cheapest qualifying plan.

Here's a Q&A from the IRS with details on exemptions, including the exemption for US citizens living abroad: 
Questions and Answers on the Individual Shared Responsibility Provision


----------



## ElPaso2012 (Dec 16, 2012)

Marishka said:


> You might have to fill out IRS form 2555. You won't have to prove anything until the spring of 2015 when you file your 2014 federal tax return. By then, we'll know know exactly what information we will have to to provide to get the exemption for citizens who live abroad.
> 
> Here's an article that you might want to read: Expats and Obamacare for los Idiotas
> 
> ...


That is the document to read if you a glutton for parsing legalese, and bear in mind this is how the IRS explains things when they are _trying_ to be clear. 

Alan's point about having a US residence possibly complicating things is worth bearing in mind, although there is not much clarity right now about much of the Affordable Health Care Act, and the IRS rep I spoke to said he expects more drastic changes.


----------



## sparks (Jun 17, 2007)

That form 2555 is only about foreign income. They are going to have to come up with a simple procedure for proving you are an expat. Here's the program sign up site https://www.healthcare.gov/ and it plainly says expats won't pay but no clue how to prove it. US consulate will refer you to that site and say "_Due to the fact this is a Health and Human Services Program… you will need to consult the following website for information. It is not within the scope of activities of this Consular Agency_."


----------



## sparks (Jun 17, 2007)

Not that it's going to go anywhere but ....

_The House voted Friday to prevent the IRS from enforcing any aspect of ObamaCare, a bill meant to exact revenge against an agency that Republicans say is incapable of neutral enforcement of the law.

Members approved the Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act in a 232-185 vote. Four Democrats supported the bill along with every Republican._

House votes 232-185 to block the IRS from enforcing ObamaCare - The Hill's Floor Action


----------



## TundraGreen (Jul 15, 2010)

sparks said:


> Not that it's going to go anywhere but ....
> 
> _The House voted Friday to prevent the IRS from enforcing any aspect of ObamaCare, a bill meant to exact revenge against an agency that Republicans say is incapable of neutral enforcement of the law.
> 
> ...


Politics as theater. The House Republicans have voted 40 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act or implementation of it.


----------



## Marishka (Feb 1, 2009)

ElPaso2012 said:


> That is the document to read if you a glutton for parsing legalese, and bear in mind this is how the IRS explains things when they are _trying_ to be clear.
> 
> Alan's point about having a US residence possibly complicating things is worth bearing in mind, although there is not much clarity right now about much of the Affordable Health Care Act, and the IRS rep I spoke to said he expects more drastic changes.


Note this section of that document:


> *12. Are US citizens living abroad subject to the individual shared responsibility provision?*
> Yes. However, US citizens who live abroad for a calendar year (or at least 330 days within a 12 month period) are treated as having minimum essential coverage for the year (or period). These are individuals who qualify for an exclusion from income under section 911 of the Code. See Publication 54 for further information on the section 911 exclusion. They need take no further action to comply with the individual shared responsibility provision.


Here's an excerpt from chapter 4 of _IRS Publication 54_: Tax Guide for U.S. Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad



> *Bona Fide Residence Test*
> 
> You meet the bona fide residence test if you are a bona fide resident of a foreign country or countries for an uninterrupted period that in-cludes an entire tax year. You can use the bona fide residence test to qualify for the exclusions and the deduction only if you are either:
> 
> ...


----------



## sparks (Jun 17, 2007)

We all know where we reside and how permanent it is .... so the IRS stuff tells us nothing. We are not snowbirds or vacationers. Problem is if you are younger than 65 and don't have Medicare ... how to you prove your foreign status. Especially if you are using a US mailing address and bank


----------



## Marishka (Feb 1, 2009)

sparks said:


> We all know where we reside and how permanent it is .... so the IRS stuff tells us nothing. We are not snowbirds or vacationers. Problem is if you are younger than 65 and don't have Medicare ... how to you prove your foreign status. Especially if you are using a US mailing address and bank


I would think that having some of the following would go a long way toward proving that you are a bona fide resident:


Having a Residente Temporal or Residente Permanente visa

Owning a home in Mexico and paying property tax on that home, or having receipts for rental payments

Having receipts for utility payments

Having a Mexican drivers license

Having an account with a Mexican bank

Having IMSS, Seguro Popular, or private health insurance in Mexico

Having an INAPAM card

Here's another excerpt from IRS Publication 54 with more suggestions:


> *Example 2. *For several years, you were a marketing executive with a producer of machine tools in Toledo, Ohio. In November of last year, your employer transferred you to London, England, for a minimum of 18 months to set up a sales operation for Europe. Before you left, you distributed business cards showing your business and home addresses in London. You kept ownership of your home in Toledo but rented it to another family. You placed your car in storage. In November of last year, you moved your spouse, children, furniture, and family pets to a home your employer rented for you in London.
> 
> Shortly after moving, you leased a car and you and your spouse got British driving licenses. Your entire family got library cards for the local public library. You and your spouse opened bank accounts with a London bank and secured consumer credit. You joined a local business league and both you and your spouse became active in the neighborhood civic association and worked with a local charity. Your abode is in London for the time you live there. You satisfy the tax home test in the foreign
> country.


----------



## vantexan (Sep 4, 2011)

The above statement that those who live in another country for at least 330 days in a 12 month period are treated as having met the minimum responsibility and need to take no further action seems to cover fulltime residents, whether with a permanent visa or living on a tourist card.


----------



## Marishka (Feb 1, 2009)

vantexan said:


> The above statement that those who live in another country for at least 330 days in a 12 month period are treated as having met the minimum responsibility and need to take no further action seems to cover fulltime residents, whether with a permanent visa or living on a tourist card.


According to the current rules, the definition of living abroad is pretty strict. You must be "an individual whose tax home is in a foreign country," _and_ you must reside in a foreign country for at least 330 full days out of the year. 

You're required to meet the bona fide residence test, and the problem with living in another country on a tourist visa is that it seems to indicate that you are a tourist, and not a bona fide resident. How would you explain why you are residing in a foreign country on a tourist visa, instead of a residency visa?


----------



## surfrider (Oct 4, 2011)

From what I have read on the bona fide residence test you actually need both countries to acknowledge that you have a tax home base in the foreign country and - I think have documentation that you pay tax in that foreign country. AM I right?


----------



## Marishka (Feb 1, 2009)

surfrider said:


> From what I have read on the bona fide residence test you actually need both countries to acknowledge that you have a tax home base in the foreign country and - I think have documentation that you pay tax in that foreign country. AM I right?


Yes, I believe so, although maybe they'll wise up to the fact that many expats don't pay income tax to the foreign country they live in because they are retired, and hopefully, they'll provide a less stringent way for retirees to prove bona fide residence. 

Some of you may know attorney Jim Karger, who lives in San Miguel de Allende. He wrote an article for _The Dollar Vigilante_ last year about Obamacare called "Expat Meet Obamacare" and touched on that subject:



> What the IRS does make clear is that the determination of whether you are a bona fide resident of a foreign country will be made based on your answers on IRS Form 2555 which can be found here.
> 
> The questions asked on Form 2555 include: whether you buy or rent your residence in the country in which you live, whether you have told the government in the country in which you live that you are not a resident of that country, whether your family lives with you full or part time abroad, and whether you are required to pay income taxes in the country in which you live.
> 
> Disturbingly, the effect of your answers to all of these questions is not made clear on Form 2555, except for this bright line test: if you have told the government of the country in which you live that you are not a resident of that country and (for that reason) claim you are not required to pay income tax in that country, welcome to ObamaCare. In such a case, the IRS will deem you having not met the bona fide residence test.


Jim wrote that article before the Mexican immigration changes, but what he wrote about expats who had an FM3 visa applies to what I mentioned earlier about the difficulty of trying to prove bona fide residence while living on a tourist visa:



> On the other hand, if you fall into one of the following categories which many U.S. expats will, my guess is you will find the IRS wanting you to pay the ObamaCare tax if you fail to purchase US health insurance that meets minimum government requirements:
> 
> 1) You live out of the country and spend more than 35 days a year in the U.S. and are not considered a "resident" by the country in which you live and do not pay income taxes in that country as required of residents, or
> 
> 2) You live out of the country pursuant to a non-resident visa, e.g., an FM-3 "non-resident" visa in Mexico, and you do not pay income tax in the country where you live because you are not, or claim not to be, a resident there.


----------



## vantexan (Sep 4, 2011)

Marishka said:


> According to the current rules, the definition of living abroad is pretty strict. You must be "an individual whose tax home is in a foreign country," _and_ you must reside in a foreign country for at least 330 full days out of the year.
> 
> You're required to meet the bona fide residence test, and the problem with living in another country on a tourist visa is that it seems to indicate that you are a tourist, and not a bona fide resident. How would you explain why you are residing in a foreign country on a tourist visa, instead of a residency visa?


But that's for purposes of qualifying for the tax exclusion on income earned outside the U.S., not for whether you are required to carry health insurance under Obamacare. It clearly states that if you are outside the U.S. for at least 330 days then you are presumed to have met minimum insurance requirements and need to take no further action.


----------



## Marishka (Feb 1, 2009)

vantexan said:


> But that's for purposes of qualifying for the tax exclusion on income earned outside the U.S., not for whether you are required to carry health insurance under Obamacare. It clearly states that if you are outside the U.S. for at least 330 days then you are presumed to have met minimum insurance requirements and need to take no further action.


The problem is that the exemption is for "individuals _residing_ outside United States." Just _being _outside the U.S. isn't good enough. For instance, let's say that I took a trip around the world next year and remained outside the U.S. for 330 full days. Would I be exempt from either having to buy the minimum health insurance coverage or having to pay the penalty? Nope. I would have to _reside _outside the U.S.

Section 1501 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act



> (4) INDIVIDUALS *RESIDING* OUTSIDE UNITED STATES OR RESIDENTS OF TERRITORIES- Any applicable individual shall be treated as having minimum essential coverage for any month-- `(A) if such month occurs during any period described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 911(d)(1) which is applicable to the individual, or`(B) if such individual is a bona fide resident of any possession of the United States (as determined under section 937(a)) for such month.


Now how is that part of the law interpreted? Let's see what the IRS has to say about that:



> *12. Are US citizens living abroad subject to the individual shared responsibility provision?*
> 
> Yes. However, US citizens who live abroad for a calendar year (or at least 330 days within a 12 month period) are treated as having minimum essential coverage for the year (or period). These are individuals who qualify for an exclusion from income under section 911 of the Code. See Publication 54 for further information on the section 911 exclusion. They need take no further action to comply with the individual shared responsibility provision.


So the IRS has a pretty strict definition of what it means to "reside" outside the U.S. "These are individuals who qualify for an exclusion from income under section 911 of the Code."


----------



## vantexan (Sep 4, 2011)

Marishka said:


> The problem is that the exemption is for "individuals _residing_ outside United States." Just _being _outside the U.S. isn't good enough. For instance, let's say that I took a trip around the world next year and remained outside the U.S. for 330 full days. Would I be exempt from either having to buy the minimum health insurance coverage or having to pay the penalty? Nope. I would have to _reside _outside the U.S.
> 
> Section 1501 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
> 
> ...


Yes, they are saying that those who are out of the U.S. at least 330 days in a twelve month period qualify for an exclusion. Seems pretty cut and dried to me. If one maintains a residence in the U.S. then one is really only visiting another country, or is there for work. If one is living in another country with no home in the U.S., and is out of the country at least 330 days in a 12 month period, then one is presumed to be meeting minimum requirements and has to do nothing else. That's what I'm going with until the I.R.S. tells me otherwise. And as far as I'm concerned if the government is telling me I must either pay for a U.S. policy or pay them a fine, even if I'm living in another country, then the government is essentially telling me they own me, that I'm free only to the degree they allow. Why anyone supports such a premise is beyond me.


----------



## Marishka (Feb 1, 2009)

vantexan said:


> Yes, they are saying that those who are out of the U.S. at least 330 days in a twelve month period qualify for an exclusion. Seems pretty cut and dried to me. If one maintains a residence in the U.S. then one is really only visiting another country, or is there for work. If one is living in another country with no home in the U.S., and is out of the country at least 330 days in a 12 month period, then one is presumed to be meeting minimum requirements and has to do nothing else.


You’re partly correct, vantexan. To qualify for this type of exemption, you must either be outside the country for at least 330 full days in a 12 month period, or you must establish that you’ve been a bona fide resident of a foreign country for an entire taxable year.

What you are missing is that either of those options must be combined with one other factor. Read this again in context, paying attention to the part I have bolded:


> d) Definitions and special rules
> For purposes of this section—
> 
> (1) Qualified individual
> ...


Debbie Goehring explained this very clearly in Expats and Obamacare for Los Idiotas:


> *Who has to buy the mandated insurance?*
> 
> In the new Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax code, expats are treated as if they have health insurance regardless of whether they do or not. So, it looks like expats don’t have to buy insurance or pay a penalty for not purchasing insurance. But there’s a catch…there’s always a catch.
> 
> ...


Also, it's perfectly fine to also keep a residence in the U.S., in addition to your residence in a foreign country, as long as your tax home is in a foreign country.

Speaking of taxes, for those who have legal residency in Mexico, here's some info from _Overseas Retirement Letter_ on paying income tax in Mexico:



> If you hold a job, have an interest bearing bank account, invest in the stock market, or own a property that earns you rental income…you’ll need to file a Mexican tax return and pay a tax on any income you earn there. Depending on your situation in Mexico, the tax (or Mexican withholding) can be anywhere from 10% to 35%. If you’re an American, you’ll also need to declare this income on your U.S. tax return. Fortunately, as Mexico and the U.S. have a dual tax treaty, the U.S. gives you credit for any income tax you’ve already paid in Mexico, meaning you won’t be double-taxed.
> 
> However, Mexico does not tax funds you bring into the country unless you actually earn income on those funds within Mexico. So, for instance, if you’re an expat retiree who transfers money from the U.S. into a Mexican non-interest-bearing checking account, you won’t be taxed on that money.


----------



## vantexan (Sep 4, 2011)

Thanks for clarifying that. As Nicaragua and other countries have much lower financial requirements for residency we may have to seriously consider them. I wouldn't be surprised if Mexico raised it's requirements to keep a huge influx of low income retirees from rushing across the border.


----------



## Marishka (Feb 1, 2009)

vantexan said:


> Thanks for clarifying that. As Nicaragua and other countries have much lower financial requirements for residency we may have to seriously consider them. I wouldn't be surprised if Mexico raised it's requirements to keep a huge influx of low income retirees from rushing across the border.


You're welcome, vantexan.

You may be able to qualify for another type of exemption. Check out the Kaiser Family Foundation Subsidy Calculator.
 Enter your Modified Adjusted Gross Income, along with whether or not employer coverage is available, your age, and whether or not you smoke, and the calculator will estimate your cost for Silver and Bronze unsubsidized annual health insurance premiums in 2014, will tell you if you are eligible for a government tax credit subsidy, and whether you might be exempt. 

If Bronze level coverage costs more than 8% of your household income, that gives you an exemption from the requirement to obtain minimum essential coverage.

Of course, these are only estimates. We'll know for sure by October 1 when open enrollment begins and the plan prices are made available. We've got until March 1, 2014 to sign up, so you have plenty of time to decide what you want to do.


----------



## ElPaso2012 (Dec 16, 2012)

For those still in the US, the second step after using the Kaiser calculator might be to see a breakdown of the coverage actually being offered by the "metal" plans being offered. 

This is pretty anemic coverage since most of the US will only be able to afford Bronze or Silver, especially if you look at the Maximum Out-of-Pocket Cost column that cite that figure to be between $6,350-$12,700. I'm pretty sure that's annually. As we all know, in the US your 30%-40% of the total can reach those amounts just from arriving at a diagnosis in many cases. 

If I needed another reason to move to Mexico, the Affordable Health Care Law provided me one and may have been the deciding factor in the final analysis. VanTexan might be right about more and more people moving south of the border for this reason alone.


----------



## Marishka (Feb 1, 2009)

ElPaso2012 said:


> For those still in the US, the second step after using the Kaiser calculator might be to see a breakdown of the coverage actually being offered by the "metal" plans being offered.
> 
> This is pretty anemic coverage since most of the US will only be able to afford Bronze or Silver, especially if you look at the Maximum Out-of-Pocket Cost column that cite that figure to be between $6,350-$12,700. I'm pretty sure that's annually. As we all know, in the US your 30%-40% of the total can reach those amounts just from arriving at a diagnosis in many cases.
> 
> If I needed another reason to move to Mexico, the Affordable Health Care Law provided me one and may have been the deciding factor in the final analysis. VanTexan might be right about more and more people moving south of the border for this reason alone.


I totally agree. Mexico is looking better all the time.

The calculator estimated that I'd have to pay around $8,191 for a Silver plan and $6,789 for a Bronze plan.  And that's just for me alone. 

I hope the lowest priced plan available to me will be over 8% of my household income, as I would very much like to be able to opt out. All I really want is catastrophic coverage combined with a health savings account (HSA).


----------



## surfrider (Oct 4, 2011)

OK I own a home here in mexico...I do not have any connection with the us other than social security and a bank there that it is deposited in. I have been in mexico for 2 years now and never left. I have a job and will be earning income. I need to find a tax / immigration attorney to advise me on paperwork with this home tax base I have a resident temp for 5 years just renewed it. I think I should change my passport, my tax base and my type of visa 
anyone have a rec. on who to go to?


----------



## mickisue1 (Mar 10, 2012)

When you look at the "metal" plans, keep in mind that for those who have self-insured in the past, they were frequently paying upwards of $500/month, plus individual deductibles (paid before the insurance company paid a penny) of $1000, for coverage for a family of two or three people.

Then the coinsurance kicked in, and, if you or a dependent required NO care, you were still out of pocket $6000, just for premiums. For any care at all, that total went up to $7000 before anything was paid.

The real issue is that Obamacare is an attempt to assuage the un-assuageable: the insurance companies with their multi-millionaire CEOs.

Better the US should have joined the ranks of the civilized countries, who understand that healthcare ought to be on the same level as schooling and police and fire protection: a civil right.

But it's a step in the right direction, and better, for many, than what they previously had.


----------



## vantexan (Sep 4, 2011)

mickisue1 said:


> When you look at the "metal" plans, keep in mind that for those who have self-insured in the past, they were frequently paying upwards of $500/month, plus individual deductibles (paid before the insurance company paid a penny) of $1000, for coverage for a family of two or three people.
> 
> Then the coinsurance kicked in, and, if you or a dependent required NO care, you were still out of pocket $6000, just for premiums. For any care at all, that total went up to $7000 before anything was paid.
> 
> ...


The ones who'll get seriously hurt are those who's income is just high enough to not opt out but can't afford insurance now and their employer doesn't offer it. Probably millions in that situation.


----------



## mickisue1 (Mar 10, 2012)

vantexan said:


> The ones who'll get seriously hurt are those who's income is just high enough to not opt out but can't afford insurance now and their employer doesn't offer it. Probably millions in that situation.


That remains to be seen. There are already millions in that boat, but the insurance being offered is at much higher premiums with much worse coverage.

For example, a distributor in my organization has a husband who is a custom cabinetmaker in a very small resort town in the Great Lakes region.

They have been paying a thousand a month premium, because he has a history of hypercholesterolemia, with the aforementioned thousand for the individual deductible. Keep in mind that, in the winter of 2008-2009, he didn't work at all, because no one in their little town could afford to hire him.

THAT was a hard, hard year for them. Her business was pretty new, and just barely kept them afloat. With even slightly lower fixed medical costs, they'd have been able to breathe a lot easier, a lot earlier.


----------



## vantexan (Sep 4, 2011)

mickisue1 said:


> That remains to be seen. There are already millions in that boat, but the insurance being offered is at much higher premiums with much worse coverage.
> 
> For example, a distributor in my organization has a husband who is a custom cabinetmaker in a very small resort town in the Great Lakes region.
> 
> ...


Unfortunately there are always cases like this but now Obamacare will force millions who can't afford insurance but can't opt out to pay a fine. If your total household income is $30k with a couple of kids then shelling out a couple of thousands in fines is going to hurt.


----------



## Marishka (Feb 1, 2009)

vantexan said:


> Unfortunately there are always cases like this but now Obamacare will force millions who can't afford insurance but can't opt out to pay a fine. If your total household income is $30k with a couple of kids then shelling out a couple of thousands in fines is going to hurt.


A household like that would have to pay very little for insurance, because they would get a substantial subsidy. I invented a mythical couple, age 35, who make $30k a year, and have 2 kids. According to the subsidy calculator, their Silver plan premium would cost $11,209 a year, but their government tax credit subsidy would be $10,609, and they would only have to pay $600.


----------



## vantexan (Sep 4, 2011)

Marishka said:


> A household like that would have to pay very little for insurance, because they would get a substantial subsidy. I invented a mythical couple, age 35, who make $30k a year, and have 2 kids. According to the subsidy calculator, their Silver plan premium would cost $11,209 a year, but their government tax credit subsidy would be $10,609, and they would only have to pay $600.


Who then pays? The taxpayers? The insurance companies?


----------



## Marishka (Feb 1, 2009)

vantexan said:


> Who then pays? The taxpayers? The insurance companies?


From Obamacarefacts.com:



> Full List of All Taxes in ObamaCare / All Taxes in the Affordable Care Act
> 
> The following list of new ObamaCare taxes collectively raise about $700 billion over the next ten years. While most ObamaCare taxes won't affect the Average American there are some that will. Here is a complete list of new fees and taxes contained within ObamaCare:
> 
> ...


----------

