Obamacare Subsidies

cpwill · Nov 7, 2013

mac said:
That's because you are filing a 2013 tax return.

Yes. And I am filing it in 2014. Hence the "previous year". The subsidy I receive in 2014 will be based on the income I earned in 2013, because that is what I will have to put in the system when I apply.

That's not what I understand it to be. You pay the premium, the USG refunds a portion of your premium, to you, as a tax break in your return.

I do not think that is correct.

It's not a full year up front, it's a monthly premium. Still, people not used to paying a premium, because they can't afford to, are going to have trouble paying it regardless of the year end refund.

If I am a couple with two kids making $35,000 a year, and I sign up in Dec 2013 based off of my 2013 income, and I have to pay for insurance for all of 2014 before I get the subsidy in April of 2015 - there is no way I'm going to be able to afford the the sky high premiums in the meantime. Therefore, in November of 2014 (before I get my subsidy, but after I have been economically ruined) I'm going to vote Republican no matter who I am. I cannot imagine the Democrats would be that deliberately suicidal.

mac · Nov 7, 2013

cpwill said:
Yes. And I am filing it in 2014. Hence the "previous year". The subsidy I receive in 2014 will be based on the income I earned in 2013, because that is what I will have to put in the system when I apply.

It's still the 2013 tax return. The tax year ends on Dec 31, it would be nonsensical for the filing deadline to be in 2013...the gov wants every last dime they are entitled to. You may be filing in 2014...but it's a 2013 tax filing, not a 2014 filing. :shrug:

I do not think that is correct.

Well, it's possible it's not....but that's what all the reporting I've read on it states.

If I am a couple with two kids making $35,000 a year, and I sign up in Dec 2013 based off of my 2013 income, and I have to pay for insurance for all of 2014 before I get the subsidy in April of 2015 - there is no way I'm going to be able to afford the the sky high premiums in the meantime. Therefore, in November of 2014 (before I get my subsidy, but after I have been economically ruined) I'm going to vote Republican no matter who I am. I cannot imagine the Democrats would be that deliberately suicidal.

Well, you're not paying it lump sum....it's monthly, unless you choose to pay a year at a time.

cpwill · Nov 7, 2013

mac said:
It's still the 2013 tax return. The tax year ends on Dec 31, it would be nonsensical for the filing deadline to be in 2013...the gov wants every last dime they are entitled to. You may be filing in 2014...but it's a 2013 tax filing, not a 2014 filing. :shrug:

Yeah - but you're not going to get your tax return until 2014. So any subsidy for 2013 would be paid in 2014. See where I'm getting this?

Well, it's possible it's not....but that's what all the reporting I've read on it states.

I just don't see this bill of all bills choosing to give people more control over their own money, or trusting them to use it wisely and appropriately.

That's sort of the antithesis of the spirit of the thing.

Well, you're not paying it lump sum....it's monthly, unless you choose to pay a year at a time.

That's why I'm thinking that the money goes straight from the government to the insurer, and then the insurer charges you lower monthly premiums.

reinoe · Nov 8, 2013

Deuce said:
Let me know when the GOP house votes to increase the penalties.

Wouldn't it be easier to just shut down the government and jeapardize the solvency of our economic system then attach an amendment to a bill?

mac · Nov 8, 2013

cpwill said:
Yeah - but you're not going to get your tax return until 2014. So any subsidy for 2013 would be paid in 2014. See where I'm getting this?

Ok, I'll meet you half way. Since you file taxes after the year is over, it's technically last year. Cool?

I just don't see this bill of all bills choosing to give people more control over their own money, or trusting them to use it wisely and appropriately. That's sort of the antithesis of the spirit of the thing.

Yeah, I agree, but I sincerely doubt they expect you to come up with a lump sum for the year.

That's why I'm thinking that the money goes straight from the government to the insurer, and then the insurer charges you lower monthly premiums.

It's possible. It's not like anyone knows whats in this bill until after it takes effect.

cpwill · Nov 8, 2013

mac said:
Ok, I'll meet you half way. Since you file taxes after the year is over, it's technically last year. Cool?

:salute:

Yeah, I agree, but I sincerely doubt they expect you to come up with a lump sum for the year.

It's possible. It's not like anyone knows whats in this bill until after it takes effect.

Well YEAH. That way we can all find out how awesome it is!

USViking · Nov 8, 2013

mac said:
Lower premiums as compared to what? and, where does it say how the "subsidy" is delivered? Hmm?

Lower premiums compared to the unsubsidized premium.

In my own case the unsubsidized premium will be $590 per month. If I am eligible
for subsidy my premium will be under $100 per month (I am not yet sure I will be
eligible). And "lower premium" means "lower premium", not the same thing as "tax refund."

mac said:
and....where is the person that wasn't paying a premium (because they couldn't afford it) going to get the $193 a month to pay it now?

I have not studied the tables, but I think it is likely that anyone required to pay
a lousy $193 a month earns enough to able to afford it without hardship. And they
will have an option of paying the much less costly penalty for non-compliance

mac · Nov 8, 2013

USViking said:
Lower premiums compared to the unsubsidized premium.

In my own case the unsubsidized premium will be $590 per month. If I am eligible
for subsidy my premium will be under $100 per month (I am not yet sure I will be
eligible). And "lower premium" means "lower premium", not the same thing as "tax refund."

This doesn't make sense for a lot of reasons. First, the only reason you wouldn't qualify is because you make too much money, and if you make too much money, you should have allready had a policy. With a premium (your part) lower than $590 a month.

I have not studied the tables, but I think it is likely that anyone required to pay
a lousy $193 a month earns enough to able to afford it without hardship. And they
will have an option of paying the much less costly penalty for non-compliance

According to your link, that $193 is the capped premium for a family of four making $28k a year. I assure you, a family of four making 28k a year will have trouble coughing up an extra $193 a month. So, let's say they pay the penalty for non-compliance....they still aren't insured, so all Obamacare has done for them is fine them.

Great policy.

USViking · Nov 8, 2013

mac said:
This doesn't make sense for a lot of reasons. First, the only reason you wouldn't qualify is because you make too much money, and if you make too much money, you should have allready had a policy. With a premium (your part) lower than $590 a month.

I don't think it makes sense either, because my income is definitely low enough to qualify,
unless I have badly misunderstood something. However, I went through the North Carolina
application process on the 1st day the site opened, and was told I did NOT qualify. Because
I felt something was wrong I did not complete the application, and am now in a state of
what might be termed limbo.

mac said:
According to your link, that $193 is the capped premium for a family of four making $28k a year. I assure you, a family of four making 28k a year will have trouble coughing up an extra $193 a month. So, let's say they pay the penalty for non-compliance....they still aren't insured, so all Obamacare has done for them is fine them.

Great policy.

In 2010 I paid $519.96 per month, and I was making less then $28k per year, so I do not
need to listen to any speeches about the "trouble" it can be to make health insurance payments.
(In 2011 I dumped the $519.96 plan, which was something like $1000 deductible $2000 yearly max
for a $300 plan which was $5000 (now $2700) deductible.)

Now, I should make it clear that I am not composing a brief on behalf of ObamaCare. I think it is
far too ambitious and inflexible. It should have been a bare-bones plan like I had starting in 2011.
That way the family of four could probably get away with premiums of well under $193.

It appears quite possible that ObamaCare premiums will be so high for so many people that massive
non-compliance will result, even after they get the IT running. If that is the case then it will crash
and burn: even Democrats will abandon it rather than follow the logic of sending the IRS out after
a brand-new class of millions to 10s of millions of tax evaders who don't sign up for insurance, and
don't voluntarily pay the penalty tax, either.

mac · Nov 8, 2013

USViking said:
I don't think it makes sense either, because my income is definitely low enough to qualify,
unless I have badly misunderstood something. However, I went through the North Carolina
application process on the 1st day the site opened, and was told I did NOT qualify. Because
I felt something was wrong I did not complete the application, and am now in a state of
what might be termed limbo.

Looks like Obamacare is really helping you out, eh?

In 2010 I paid $519.96 per month, and I was making less then $28k per year, so I do not
need to listen to any speeches about the "trouble" it can be to make health insurance payments.
(In 2011 I dumped the $519.96 plan, which was something like $1000 deductible $2000 yearly max
for a $300 plan which was $5000 (now $2700) deductible.)

Now, I should make it clear that I am not composing a brief on behalf of ObamaCare. I think it is
far too ambitious and inflexible. It should have been a bare-bones plan like I had starting in 2011.
That way the family of four could probably get away with premiums of well under $193.

It appears quite possible that ObamaCare premiums will be so high for so many people that massive
non-compliance will result, even after they get the IT running. If that is the case then it will crash
and burn: even Democrats will abandon it rather than follow the logic of sending the IRS out after
a brand-new class of millions to 10s of millions of tax evaders who don't sign up for insurance, and
don't voluntarily pay the penalty tax, either.

Were you self employed? The absolute top of the line plan I could possibly buy through my employer plans was less than $400(my contribution) a month. That's with a special needs child and a family of 7. You should shop better.

USViking · Nov 8, 2013

mac said:
Looks like Obamacare is really helping you out, eh?

Maybe, maybe not.

My situation is this:

$263 MORE per month if I do not qualify for subsidy.

~$200 LESS per month if I do qualify for subsidy.

mac said:
Were you self employed?

Retired (early) in 2003.

mac said:
The absolute top of the line plan I could possibly buy through my employer plans was less than $400(my contribution) a month. That's with a special needs child and a family of 7. You should shop better.

I could be a few $k richer if I had switched plans earlier.

I cannot for the life of me figure out why employer-provided insurance should be
so much cheaper than individually purchased insurance, and I doubt there is an
economic or moral basis for the difference. It shows up with a vengance in ObamaCare,
where it seems that employer insureds are getting away scot free, and it is only
individual purchasers, who had been buying their own coverage all along, who are
getting hit with the premium increases approaching 100%.

reinoe · Nov 9, 2013

USViking said:
I cannot for the life of me figure out why employer-provided insurance should be
so much cheaper than individually purchased insurance, and I doubt there is an
economic or moral basis for the difference.

Because the employer is creating a pool of people with which to develop the policy for. An individual is literally a shot in the dark.

A pool of gainfully employed people will generally be healthier and a much more stable and reliable risk pool than a shot in the dark that an individual represents. Furthermore employers generally give people several months to become employed. During this temporary status a person who is "high risk" can be removed from the pool by getting fired. A lot of generally competent employees can be let go if they're pregnant or constantly out sick. In fact that's generally what I see happening more than anything else. People during the "temp period" are not kept because they are absent too many days, almost always due to illness.

In fact there was a temp recently let go because her kid was sick all the time. Same with pregnant chicks, even if they have perfect attendance and respectable job performance. There was one girl that people liked a whole lot but she had to get the ambulance brought in once and she was sick for a week. She wasn't fired but she wasn't hired on permanently even though there were people with more absences than her.

Compare that for example with individual insurance. There's no "screening process". There may be a 3-6 month waiting period but if it's a non-life threatening situation a person can wait it out and then start racking up the bills. And that my friend is a few of the reasons why employers (and employees) have cheaper and better insurance availability.

Deuce · Nov 9, 2013

mac said:
This doesn't make sense for a lot of reasons. First, the only reason you wouldn't qualify is because you make too much money, and if you make too much money, you should have allready had a policy. With a premium (your part) lower than $590 a month.

According to your link, that $193 is the capped premium for a family of four making $28k a year. I assure you, a family of four making 28k a year will have trouble coughing up an extra $193 a month. So, let's say they pay the penalty for non-compliance....they still aren't insured, so all Obamacare has done for them is fine them.

Great policy.

Such a family wouldn't be subject to the penalty.

So all Obamacare has done for them is offer them cheaper insurance than what they had access to before, which they've chosen not to take.

mac · Nov 9, 2013

Deuce said:
Such a family wouldn't be subject to the penalty.

So all Obamacare has done for them is offer them cheaper insurance than what they had access to before, which they've chosen not to take.

Everyone would be subject to such a penalty....only the IRS can't actually force anyone to pay it. This is the dumbest law ever written.

USViking · Nov 10, 2013

reinoe said:
Because the employer is creating a pool of people with which to develop the policy for. An individual is literally a shot in the dark…

…Compare that for example with individual insurance. There's no "screening process". There may be a 3-6 month waiting period but if it's a non-life threatening situation a person can wait it out and then start racking up the bills. And that my friend is a few of the reasons why employers (and employees) have cheaper and better insurance availability.

You have never applied for preObamaCare individual health insurance, have you?
Speaking from experience the screening questions they ask leave nothing in the
dark. At least they didn’t in NC when I applied in 2010. Their application must have
included 50 questions pertaining to my medical history. They asked even about
such relatively obscure conditions as sleep apnea.

reinoe said:
A pool of gainfully employed people will generally be healthier and a much more stable and reliable risk pool than a shot in the dark that an individual represents.

Excuse me, but not all employers offer subsidized health insurance, and you
should not claim that the pool of insured gainfully employed are a worse risk
than the pool of uninsured gainfully employed.

Also, what do you mean by “stable” and “reliable?” If you mean length of time
between jobs that should not be an underwriting factor in assessing health insurability.
Age is the predominant underwriting factor, and although it is fair to ask older
insureds to pay more for coverage, it is not fair to ask older insureds with similar
health histories to pay different rates according to employment status and employee
benefit status.

reinoe said:
Furthermore employers generally give people several months to become employed. During this temporary status a person who is "high risk" can be removed from the pool by getting fired. A lot of generally competent employees can be let go if they're pregnant (No. See Pregnant Workers Fairness Act-USV) or constantly out sick. In fact that's generally what I see happening more than anything else. People during the "temp period" are not kept because they are absent too many days, almost always due to illness.

In fact there was a temp recently let go because her kid was sick all the time. Same with pregnant chicks, even if they have perfect attendance and respectable job performance. There was one girl that people liked a whole lot but she had to get the ambulance brought in once and she was sick for a week. She wasn't fired but she wasn't hired on permanently even though there were people with more absences than her.

See above where I mentioned “underwriting factor” and “similar health histories.”
How many of these canned temps had medical conditions severe enough to warrant
underwriting attention? And how many permanent employees have similar conditions?

upsideguy · Nov 10, 2013

Deuce said:
Taxpayers. The bill adds that tax penalty for failing to carry insurance, a medical device tax, and some others. Any leftovers will be picked up by the general fund.

Plus employer mandate....

Obamacare Subsidies

cpwill

mac

cpwill

reinoe

mac

cpwill

USViking

mac

USViking

mac

USViking

reinoe

Deuce

Outer space potato man

mac

USViking

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist