Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 91

Thread: Obamacare Subsidies

  1. #81
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Obamacare Subsidies

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    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!

  2. #82
    Educator
    USViking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Greensboro NC USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,111

    Re: Obamacare Subsidies

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    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."



    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    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

  3. #83
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: Obamacare Subsidies

    Quote Originally Posted by USViking View Post
    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.
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

  4. #84
    Educator
    USViking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Greensboro NC USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,111

    Re: Obamacare Subsidies

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    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.
    Last edited by USViking; 11-08-13 at 07:26 PM.

  5. #85
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: Obamacare Subsidies

    Quote Originally Posted by USViking View Post
    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.
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

  6. #86
    Educator
    USViking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Greensboro NC USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,111

    Re: Obamacare Subsidies

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    Were you self employed?
    Retired (early) in 2003.



    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    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%.

  7. #87
    Sage
    reinoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Out West
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    16,107
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Obamacare Subsidies

    Quote Originally Posted by USViking View Post

    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.
    Last edited by reinoe; 11-09-13 at 04:03 AM.

  8. #88
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,803

    Re: Obamacare Subsidies

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    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.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  9. #89
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: Obamacare Subsidies

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    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.
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

  10. #90
    Educator
    USViking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Greensboro NC USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,111

    Re: Obamacare Subsidies

    Quote Originally Posted by reinoe
    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by reinoe
    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by reinoe
    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?

Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •