Save Your Pennies: Cheapest ObamaCare Plan for Family, $20,000 per Year

What planet will you be living on when you get your first Obamacare billing? Have a good day thinking about it.

The following article was sent by Mark Waldeland:

IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family

(CNSNews.com) – In a final regulation — http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/REG-148500-12%20FR.pdf — 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 IRS’s assumption that the cheapest plan for a family will cost $20,000 per year is found in examples the IRS gives to help people understand how to calculate the penalty they will need to pay the government if they do not buy a mandated health plan.

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.

“The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says. . . .

continued: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-cheapest-obamacare-plan-will-be-20000-family

PRAGER NOTES BLACK RACISM IS DAMAGING TO BLACKS

Do Blacks and the Left Really Believe This?

By Dennis Prager – June 4, 2013

Here is a contemporary political truth: Every time you think that the left and its political party have hit moral bottom, they will eventually prove you wrong.

The most recent example occurred last week in Louisiana. The head of the Louisiana Democratic Party, State Senator Karen Carter Peterson, D-New Orleans, stood before her colleagues in the state Senate and announced the reason people oppose Obamacare.

“You ready?” she asked three times.

It is President Obama’s color.

“It isn’t about the administration, and it should not be about the administration of the state nor federal level when it comes to Obamacare,” she said. “But in fact it is. And why is that? I have talked to so many members in the House and Senate and you know what it comes down to? Are you ready for this? It is not about how many federal dollars we can receive. You ready? You want to know what it’s about? It’s about race. Now nobody wants to talk about that. It’s about the race of this African-American president. … It comes down to the race of the president of the U.S. which causes people to disconnect and step away from the substance of the bill.”

Now why would the head of a state Democratic Party — and a state senator — say something that is equally vile and moronic?

There are two possible explanations, and one is worse than the other.

One is that Peterson doesn’t believe what she said; that she said it solely in order to intimidate opponents of Obamacare. When a prominent black accuses anyone — even if it is most white people in America — of racism, it usually ends all debate.

This would, of course, reflect poorly on Peterson’s character, but it would actually be the more positive of the two possible explanations. Because the other possible explanation is that she really believes what she said. And if she really believes that the more than one hundred million Americans who oppose Obamacare — a CNN poll last week found that 54 percent of Americans oppose Obamacare — do so because Obama is black, America is in trouble.

America is in real trouble if Peterson represents a large majority of black Americans. And we have every reason to believe that she does. She represents a 48-percent black district. And virtually every black leader routinely charges whites with racism.

We simply need to be honest. Either the great majority of American whites are racist — indeed profoundly racist if they oppose Obamacare solely because the president is black — or the great majority of blacks wrongly perceive reality when it comes to their perceptions of whites. In either case, blacks and whites are living in parallel universes. And one of them is both factually and morally very wrong.

In my view, the idea that whites that oppose Obamacare do so because the president is black is one of those terrible lies that shape a society for ill.

But this is not only a commentary on present-day black America. It is even more so a commentary on the left.

Blacks have memories of genuine oppression that have left deep psychological scars. While we wish that reality would trump psychology here, we can understand — though not agree with — black anger at white America.

But the non-black left — which routinely accuses whites who oppose the president of racism — has no such excuse. Paul Krugman of the New York Times, Chris Matthews of MSNBC, former president Jimmy Carter, Frank Rich of New York Magazine, and so many others on the left have no psychological excuse for saying white opposition to Obama is racist. Their charge is just malicious.

This is just one more example of the societal destruction wrought by the left. Ironically, in this instance its primary victims are … blacks.

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/04/do_blacks_and_the_left_really_believe_this_118673.html#ixzz2VJL4rhTy
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

Krauthammer: Who Gave the Order to IRS to Sabotage the Tea Party?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Well, McDermott is so far in the tank, he’s just a lap dog of the left. He hasn’t even received the message from the Democrats that you’re supposed to being a knowledge it was wrong and to apologize which was done by the Democrat who was the ranking member on the committee today.

The president himself called the conduct outrageous. The new director of the IRS has said it was a breach of trust of America, and McDermott is pretending that somehow it was the fault of the tea party because like all Americans, they follow the law, made application for legal exemptions of one kind or another, and were discriminated against.

I mean, it’s embarrassing, butI think some Democrats are beyond embarrassment on this. There is no defense, even Democrats admit there is no defense. The only question is where the idea came from, who knew, who gave the order, who condoned it, and then who learned about it later and did nothing. And those are the important questions.

Today was important because it gave a face to what is a number, a 501c4 which is an abstraction. It showed how the First Amendment really affected real people. And that now is done. I think from now on, the task is to trace the chain and find out where it went, [how] high up, who started it and who knew about it. (Special Report, June 4, 2013)

more on video below:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/06/04/krauthammer_vs_juan_on_irs_scandal_only_question_is_where_the_idea_came_from.html

Krauthammer on IRS Scandal: “Is the White House’s Best Defense Stupidity?”

video: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/06/03/krauthammer_on_irs_scandal_is_the_white_houses_best_defense_stupidity.html

Moms Are Breadwinners Because There Are No Dads

BREADWINNER MOMS by Mona Charen at realclearpolitics:

The headlines were misleading: “Moms are Breadwinners in Record 4 of 10 Households.” Immediate thought:

Wow, 40 percent of wives are primary breadwinners. Nope. If you read down to the fifth or sixth paragraph in most stories about the new Pew study, you’d discover that the number of women out-earning their husbands was actually just 22.5 percent of married couples with children under the age of 18. The 40 percent figure includes single-parent households, in which the mom is not the primary, but the sole, earner.

They’re always lauded, those single moms. Politicians of both parties always append the word “heroic” to them.

But the profile of single mothers has changed dramatically since 1960, when only 4 percent were “never married.” In previous decades, women became single mothers through divorce, desertion or death. In 2011, 44 percent of single moms were never married.

Pew devoted some attention to the question of how Americans feel about wives out-earning their husbands.

Sixty-three percent of respondents (including 75 percent of college graduates) disagreed with the statement:

“It’s generally better for a marriage if the husband earns more than the wife.” Maybe that’s of interest to Sheryl Sandberg and some of her colleagues, but it’s not an urgent concern for society.

Wives who earn more than their husbands, like wives who earn less than their husbands, are part of the healthy elite in America — married couples. Their children are going to do well. Only a tiny minority of children from intact homes are going to get into trouble with the law, experience poverty, get pregnant as teenagers, commit suicide, acquire a drug addiction, perform poorly in school or wind up on public assistance. All of those troubles, and more, will be statistically much more likely for kids who grow up in single parent homes.

We know as well as we can know anything in social science that two parent families are best for children and for society. American married couples are solving the work/family balance in any number of ways. The overwhelming majority of mothers prefer to take the lion’s share of childcare responsibilities, and an equally large percentage of fathers prefer to be primary breadwinners. Other surveys have found married parents of both sexes spending more time than ever with their kids.

The slow growth economy under Obama has added to the burdens of all mothers, though, and this shows up in surveys about how much women would like to work. A 2007 Pew survey found that only 21 percent of mothers described their “ideal” situation as working full-time. In 2012, 37 percent said they’d like full-time work. In 2007, 60 percent said part-time work was their ideal. By 2012, 50 percent said so. More than twice as many men as women lost jobs during the recession, and women’s interest in work may reflect the state of the family’s finances more than anything else.

But what are we to make of the ever-swelling population of women who don’t have the luxury of part-time work because they chose to bear and raise children alone?

Pew tells us something unsurprising — the younger you are, the more likely that you are an enabler of this socially suicidal pattern. Seventy-four percent of those aged 50 and older say the rising number of single mothers is a big problem. The percentages decline steadily with the ages of respondents. Only 42 percent of those aged 18 to 29 think single parenting by choice is a big problem.

Some liberals, like President Obama, pay lip service to the importance of fathers. “I was raised by a heroic single mother” he told Morehouse graduates, “but I still wish I had a father who was not only present but involved.” That’s helpful, but liberalism has been the consistent cheerleader for burying the old stigmas that kept families intact. Liberals don’t mind if you want to have an intact family, but they bristle at the notion that you might recommend it for everyone. Katie Roiphe, for example, delights in the fact that 53 percent of the babies born to women under 30 are illegitimate. “If there is anything that currently oppresses the children,” she wrote recently in The New York Times, “it is the idea of the way families are ‘supposed to be’ …”

Roiphe is partially right — ideas can be oppressive. Liberal ideas are undermining marriage and condemning millions of children to unnecessary poverty, instability and unhappiness.

Comment: With American society as it is today with its collection of feminists and Marxists, black racists, Union gangsters, the products of Gay-Lesbian one sex studies, the press, religious and educational bureaucracies entwined in Obamaling politics, what would be the lure to father children, raise them in such environments which are criminal to normal male inquiry, energy, creativity, curiosity, problem solving, and invention?