Last week the Supreme Court of the United States worked really hard to reconfirm that they would defend our constitutional rights and freedoms… as long as the proposed laws are not heavily lobbied by the special interest groups.
First, they struck down the petition to make it a crime to lie about receiving military honors. The justices decided that this law would be a violation of the free speech. If people want to make up stories about their heroism in Iraq, it is their constitutional right to do so. It's been done since Beowulf and let's not disturb the ancient traditions of "military" folklore.
Thank God! If you start criminalizing any form of lying, you don't know where the hell it's going to get us. Give it a precedent and before you know it, people will not be able to lie on their resumes, brokers will not be able to bullshit about the prospective investments, people will stop stealing each other's ideas, and (oh, no!!!) the politicians will be forced to tell the truth.
On the very same day, the Supreme Court upheld the law that has been heavily pushed by HMO-financed insurance lobbyists (AHIP): the individual mandate for health care, probably the most debatable part of Obama's healthcare "overhaul." Even if you don't care about the news you cannot escape this one – it's been discussed by everyone and their mothers.
But, I would like the readers, for a brief moment, to let go of the politics surrounding this law and concentrate on the semantics. The government will issue a MANDATE – an authoritative order, an ultimatum to the people to obtain a health insurance, or else… A very personal choice of whether you want to buy an expensive policy with a lousy coverage is taken away from you. I am sure this is a kind of freedom the Founding Fathers dreamed about when they were writing our Constitution.
Back to politics. The gist of the mandatory health insurance can be simplified as follows. If you earn more than 2.5 times of the federal poverty level (FPL) you are required to obtain either employer-provided or individual policy to cover yourself and your dependents, or you will be fined. If you are under the FPL threshold, your coverage will be subsidized. The exempt categories are: illegal immigrants, jailbirds, and religious objectors.
Even the debate about the nature of the fine is all about the semantics. Let's get this straight first: it's the hard-working people, already paying payroll taxes, who will be subjected to this new levy, with IRS playing the role of the collector. The proponents of the law call this a "new tax" and that gave the Supreme Court the grounds for upholding it – the government has the right to impose taxes. The opponents called it a "penalty," making it an unconstitutional move.
Of course, Mitt Romney got all confused and instead of following his campaign handlers' suit of insisting that it's a penalty, he went on record to call it a "tax." Wall Street Journal couldn't pass on the opportunity to publish an op-ed calling the Republican candidate a dumbass, or something of the sort.
My dear breadwinners, let us now put our concerns about freedoms and politics aside and talk about MONEY. How much will it cost you to forgo the medical insurance?
Starting with 2014, the penalty per individual will be $95, or 1% of income, whichever is greater. So, if you are a New Yorker with a $45K salary (an average my junior accountants make), barely covering your living expenses and considering yourself too young and healthy for medical insurance expense, your will end up paying $450 fine to the government. For families, it'll be $285, or 1% of income, whichever is greater.
The penalty will subsequently rise in 2016, reaching $695 per individual and $2,085 per family, or 2 percent of income, whichever is greater. From 2017, the minimums will rise each year with inflation.
Now, this is for my fellow executive peers, who do cover themselves and their loved ones with medical benefits. Are we off the hook, here? Nope. To offset the cost of providing insurance to low income households and unemployed, individuals making more than $200,000 a year and couples earning above $250,000 will pay additional "health care payroll taxes", thus subsidizing somebody else's benefits.
And who benefits from this supposedly "socially-minded" law designed to keep people healthier and make sure that everyone stays on this poor planet longer? Let's see. You either buy the insurance (HMOs collect the premium), or you pay the fine (HMOs get the money collected by IRS), or you pay the subsidy for others (guess who gets the money).
The Frustrated CFO 