View Full Version : the coming healthcare changes
poetry_writer
5-15-13, 8:54pm
I wonder what it will really mean for me? I looked at the form they have, I assume its a rough draft .....it asks if you are getting any money this year out of a "retirement account". What types of accounts would be considered a retirement account? How much will it actually cost and who exactly will qualify for govt assistance in paying for it? Gonna be interesting.
Retirement accounts include 401(k) plans, 403(b) plans, IRAs, SEP plans, 457 plans, and pensions, though I'm not sure if all income from all of those plans is considered as income for determining your status vis a vis FPL.
How much it will cost will vary from person to person, but you can visit the Mass Health Exchange website and see how a similar system works.
poetry_writer
5-16-13, 9:49am
Thanks for the comment bUU....this topic doesnt seem to generate much interest. i guess everyone is tired of it lol......and who knows how it will all play out?! I've tried looking up a few questions on some things about it, but all you find are vague responses, probably because even the govt itself doesnt know. Again ty..I will look at the Mass Health Exchage website....
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/05/10/1994331/obamacare-forcing-insurers-lower-premiums/
The health exchanges will, in fact, help consumers in that they can comparison shop, and find the right fit for them in an easy way. As this article points out, some insurers have actually LOWERED their prices as the comparisons that are easily accessed by the consumers and right there in black and white showed they were the highest and not competitive. Sooo....free market actually works, when it's actually a free market FOR THE CONSUMERS.
Unfortunately, some (ahem...republican) states have stomped their little feets and said we aint' giving our citizens this exchange knowledge/benefit/ability no way no how! And we don't care if it in fact helps/benefits our citizens, it's OBAMACARE and we aren't going to do it!
Of course, they CAN get away with this cause there really isn't a way for their state citizens to know they are being screwed by that states republican senate, or any communication devises that allows them to, you know, talk with folks in states that have this helpful aspect of the health reform...or any way to, say, get rid of those who are blocking this for spite and find leaders who will do 'the work of the people'......I'm just saying....:D
Seriously though, I"m sure it will take awhile for the dust to settle once this is implemented, although the way implementation was staggered is supposed to help this. Some will pay more, some will pay less, but everyone (at least in the states with grown-ups) will be able to see exactly what they are getting and paying for. A lot of people are mystified by the whole insurance game (something the insurance companies deliberately did) and one aspect of Obamacare is to help dispel the confusion.
Insurance is a product, like any other product, and just as we shouldn't have to guess what is in the can of food, we should't have to guess, or take the insurers word for it, what is in the insurance product. This is what the exchanges are for.
Now, for those who are so worried about the poor insurance companies, they don't actually have to be included in the exchanges. They can keep on offering their smoke and mirrors and the Cadillac plan (gold, silver, whatever) and you, as a free citizen, can buy whatever you want. But if they want to be included in the exchanges, and be competitive, they have to offer a base set of 'goods', then detail the add-ons. Yeah, comparison shopping is one in the axis of evil, right along with environmental protections and access to quality education for all, but, well, I'll take it. Put me on that slippery slope, I'm ready to slide!:)
This isn't to say there won't be bumps along the way, any new program has them. But we'll all get through it. Then we can concentrate on Universal health care. Maybe we can call it ObamaUniversal, or something like that.
Some will pay more, some will pay less, but everyone (at least in the states with grown-ups) will be able to see exactly what they are getting and paying for.True, but I think it is important to highlight the fundamental change that many critics ignore, either deliberately or inadvertently: ACA converts human costs into dollars, where, before ACA, human costs were not quantified, an imposed almost exclusively on the least fortunate. Therefore those who benefited from ignoring the human costs had an easier time getting their way. With ACA, things can no longer be structured such that poverty significantly increases the probability of early death or of chronic suffering. Affluence can still make the difference between quality of bedside manner, convenience of receiving health-related services, cosmetic surgery, etc., but will no longer govern access to the basic essentials of life and health. That translation of human costs into dollars, and the assurance that this translation of costs is treated as a societal cost like educating our children, will result in some paying more, as a matter of course, and as a reflection of American values that have been the foundation of this nation for almost 150 years.
ApatheticNoMore
5-16-13, 2:17pm
I think because the effect on people whose healthcare is employer provided won't be huge (although the ever rising insurance costs are a real problem even there!!!). And the effect on Medicare recipients won't necessarily be huge either. Now as for people not lucky enough to fall into one of these categories there seems plenty to be wary of (bronze plans that over cover 70% of expenses, ability to clawback subidies on death, attempts by some red states to privitize Medicaid, Medicaid systems in other states (like here) that was already shaky as it paid so little many doctors weren't taking it- and is this going to change or not? etc.)
poetry_writer
5-16-13, 2:49pm
Who exactly will get help from the govt to pay for it and who wont? Do you have to dip into savings, if you have any? Will you be helped if you are below poverty level on income?..........Spent around $8000 at an ER getting care recently.......well didnt spend it, but was charged it. No way to pay such a bill. Our current system sucks. Thanks all.
ACA provides subsidies for families at less than 400% of federal poverty level.
ApatheticNoMore
5-16-13, 2:59pm
Well there are concrete cut offs for who can get help paying for medical care, definitely if you are below poverty level you will as the cut offs are much higher (up to 4 times the poverty level?). And it's based on income not wealth. There's even calculators for that, so I don't think that's where any potential gotcha might be (more the other stuff I mentioned - flimsy bronze plans, potential clawback, more reliance on a Medicaid system that at present isn't working well, that could be potential problems).
I think because the effect on people whose healthcare is employer provided won't be huge (although the ever rising insurance costs are a real problem even there!!!). And the effect on Medicare recipients won't necessarily be huge either. Now as for people not lucky enough to fall into one of these categories there seems plenty to be wary of (bronze plans that over cover 70% of expenses, ability to clawback subidies on death, attempts by some red states to privitize Medicaid, Medicaid systems in other states (like here) that was already shaky as it paid so little many doctors weren't taking it- and is this going to change or not? etc.)
Here in MA, there was very little effect on those (like me) on employer provided healthcare. Those most negatively affected were those who were using the "cross your fingers and hope nothing happens" plan, they either had to come up with the money to cover insurance or are still on the "cross your fingers and hope nothing happens" plan plus losing part of their state tax returns in penalties. Those most positively affected are those being subsidized - and those who lose their income stream since they become eligible for MassHealth in a fairly short amount of time.
One big impact was a sudden shortage of openings for primary healthcare since so many more had coverage. And we had a very high rate of coverage to begin with. I can't imagine what it will be like in states where much higher numbers of people will suddenly be able to have primary care and start shopping for it.
True, but I think it is important to highlight the fundamental change that many critics ignore, either deliberately or inadvertently: ACA converts human costs into dollars, where, before ACA, human costs were not quantified, an imposed almost exclusively on the least fortunate. Therefore those who benefited from ignoring the human costs had an easier time getting their way. With ACA, things can no longer be structured such that poverty significantly increases the probability of early death or of chronic suffering. Affluence can still make the difference between quality of bedside manner, convenience of receiving health-related services, cosmetic surgery, etc., but will no longer govern access to the basic essentials of life and health. That translation of human costs into dollars, and the assurance that this translation of costs is treated as a societal cost like educating our children, will result in some paying more, as a matter of course, and as a reflection of American values that have been the foundation of this nation for almost 150 years.
This is true. I might possibly be one who has to pay more, but I will do that as this is my community (the US) and I will get pay back in the form of help for the young people, and the elderly in my family. It's all relative. I will be old someday, as everyone who survives will be old someday. And there will surely be young/poor/temporarily disadvantaged/pre-conditioned people in my family. This is life, and it never ceases to amaze me how anyone over, say, 25 or 30, continues to view it as 'does this affect me, myself, alone,' or the truly self centered "I'm OK therefore the world is OK"
That was actually a part of the whole discussion leading up to Obamacare that I didn't like...the attempt to hide the human cost to monetary cost thing. And it was largely those on the left/liberals who were trying to not necessarily hide it but to minimize it. I realize they were trying to play to, or rather answer to the ridiculously greedy 'some for them is less for us' meme that the opposition kept waving about. I wished they would just come out and say it. Yes, it might cost you more, but it's really the only choice a compassionate nation can make. And I wished the supporters were a little more willing to shame some of the worst offenders, and hold up their heartless greed to the light. What really amazed me was that some of the worst offenders were the so called 'religious right'. Yeah! Really! It reminds me of something I read the other day that said, 'if someone claims that religious faith is the only thing that keeps them from being a horrible person, then that someone is a horrible person anyway.' But, I digress...
Peggy, most everyone I know against Obamacare believes it is either a governmental infringement on individual liberty, or a dangerous leap of additional governmental control over their lives. Those people you talk about, the ones who want people to suffer and die, I've never met them, so not sure who you're in favor of shaming.
poetry_writer
5-16-13, 5:15pm
I have never met anyone who wants people to suffer and die either, but i have met people who dont really seem to grasp that I, their (friend, neighbor, relative ...etc) has ZERO access to health care except for the ER . They then gripe because "well you know THOSE people never pay their bills, they are all on welfare"....I am one of "those people".....never on any kind of govt assistance in my life. Just unemployed and uninsured for the first time in my life..........Honestly i have had this kind of convo so often i dont really attempt to explain anymore. I find people who have good jobs and insurance and nice homes, for the most part, dont get it. It hasnt hit them, so to speak....yet. I dont wish it on anyone.
Peggy, most everyone I know against Obamacare believes it is either a governmental infringement on individual liberty, or a dangerous leap of additional governmental control over their lives. Those people you talk about, the ones who want people to suffer and die, I've never met them, so not sure who you're in favor of shaming.
I keep reading this over and over and as far as I can tell is the first post mentioning "ones who want people to suffer and die". Did I miss something?
I think we all agree there should be some level of "governmental infringement on individual liberty" (any real anarchists out there excepted), it's just differences on where to draw the lines.
I keep reading this over and over and as far as I can tell is the first post mentioning "ones who want people to suffer and die". Did I miss something?
I think we all agree there should be some level of "governmental infringement on individual liberty" (any real anarchists out there excepted), it's just differences on where to draw the lines.
This.
What I don't get is, exactly which 'freedom' is this trampling on? I mean, if you already get insurance, through work or whatever, great. You won't really be impacted. If you get coverage through medicare, then again, fine. So, whose freedom is being endangered? What freedom? The freedom to get sick and die because you don't have coverage? I'm thinking those people who can now be covered and have their families covered don't feel their 'freedom' is compromised. Again, which freedom?
I don't think freedom means what you think it means Alan. People tend to toss around that word pretty freely to the point that it is really meaningless. Slavery is losing your freedom. Forced labor is losing your freedom. Forced pregnancy is losing your freedom. Having to obey traffic laws and pay taxes is NOT losing your freedom.
However, if the 'freedom' you speak of is the 'freedom' to not be covered and force the rest of us to pick up your tab when you do eventually need medical care (and every single person out there will, at some point) then yeah, I'm all about taking away that 'freedom'. Cause, the point is, you may call it a personal 'freedom' to not be covered, but I don't have the 'freedom' to turn you away from the emergency room, or deny you medical care. That's life in this country, or any modern, civilized nation really.
Now if some have a problem with that, I invite them to search for that happy circumstance in another country. There are many third world nations out there where everyone has the 'freedom' of every man for himself.
iris lily
5-17-13, 10:33am
I keep reading this over and over and as far as I can tell is the first post mentioning "ones who want people to suffer and die". Did I miss something?...
.
I think you missed peggy's characterization "heartless greed" among other phrases scattered throughout this thread. Usually people of the Heartless Greed are indifferent to suffering and dying, or that's the progressive narrative framing, anyway.
iris lily
5-17-13, 10:35am
This.
What I don't get is, exactly which 'freedom' is this trampling on? ...
I am being forced to buy a commercial product by virtue of living here. That is a new and pretty big government intrusion, despite what Justice John Roberts said.
You're actually being given a choice, to hold insurance or pay a tax. Taxes aren't always "fair" based on every single possible definition of fairness. Is it a unique scenario? Everything is unique. However, you still do have a choice. However it is no more unique, in its own way, than the AMT was, in its own way.
iris lily
5-17-13, 11:25am
You're actually being given a choice, to hold insurance or pay a tax. Taxes aren't always "fair" based on every single possible definition of fairness. Is it a unique scenario? Everything is unique. However, you still do have a choice. However it is no more unique, in its own way, than the AMT was, in its own way.
What's the AMT?
Regardless, the fees and penalties imposed by the ACA is a new intrusion by the Federal government. I don't have to pay Federal taxes of any kind by simply existing (until now) and if I don't earn income or earn below the threshold which, by the way, many of this board have done over the years, I still don't pay tax. The ACA thing--a new kind of tax.
Not sure why you are quoting back "fair" since no one here said anything about taxes being fair. Are you responding to me? I didn't say that. Sorry, I don't make the fairness argument since I think it is stupid.
ApatheticNoMore
5-17-13, 12:23pm
The AMT is possibly one of the worst paperwork monstrosities ever invented. A whole parallel secret shadow tax system (you thought the 1040 was *the* tax system - hahaha - guess again! There's a whole *second* tax system that most of the country doesn't know about, and it really is a whole second tax system, that you might fall into instead of the 1040 tax system and if you do you'll have to calculate your taxes under two different system. You could fall into it one day without even being aware if was even conceivably possible for you to fall into it, the rich may be aware, the middle class won't be because they don't have private financial advisors at their beck and call. It was designed in 1970 without *EVER* being adjusted for inflation, so this tax designed for the super rich snares the middle class all the time now. It now collects nearly as much money as the 1040 at this point if not more, however it is NEVER talked about when we talk about the tax system, tax rates, tax exemptions, blah blah blah. There has been MASSIVE inflation since 1970 (it's why I keep warning everyone the chained CPI is a scam but at least that is *a* CPI - this is *no* inflation adjustment at all). If congress had *really* wanted to fix the 1040 they could have eliminated some exemptions or limit the dependents deductable etc., instead they gave us this monstrosity.
So if a policy is *actually* anything like the AMT I would quietly advise -> RUN DON"T WALK IN THE OTHER DIRECTION AS FAST AS YOU CAN!!!
The AMT is possibly one of the worst paperwork monstrosities ever invented.In your opinion. And that's really the point: It's a well-established part of our economic system that pisses you off in the same way that ACA probably pisses you off, but it is still the right thing to do, even though it pisses you off.
I think you missed peggy's characterization "heartless greed" among other phrases scattered throughout this thread. Usually people of the Heartless Greed are indifferent to suffering and dying, or that's the progressive narrative framing, anyway.
First of all, here you go again. Taking what I said and putting all kinds of 'meaning' to it. Greed is greed. I like to think no one WANTS people to suffer and die, but heartless greed generally closes it's eyes so it won't see it, therefore it doesn't exist. But mischaratinization of what I said doenw't actually change all the ACTUAL arguments put forth by the opposition such as 'there will be a doctor shortage' (some for them is less for us) or, 'I might have to pay a hundred dollars more so some crack whore can get liposuction' (actually it's doctor visits for her 7 year old, but who notices...).
Look, let's be honest here. Just like the background checks on gun purchases that 90% of Americans wanted, the only reason republicans don't want this is because it's a democrat (specifically THIS democratic President) who is getting it done. I know it's so convenient to FORGET that this whole idea was first championed by the Heritage Foundation, or that the last republican candidate not only promoted this very system but actually put it in place in Mass (which the people of Mass like, by the way) but there you are. So, sorry, y'all didn't get the chance to call it Republi-care, or RomneyCare, but the right pretty much blew that opportunity. ( and they seem to keep making this same mistake of being on the wrong side of history) And frankly Iris, I haven't heard ANY real reason against it from the right EXCEPT the heartless greed angle of how little there will be to go around (which is false) and how many don't DESERVE this health care.
I am being forced to buy a commercial product by virtue of living here. That is a new and pretty big government intrusion, despite what Justice John Roberts said.
So Iris, you don't have health care? You aren't covered? How old are you? How can you be as old as you are and not feel the need for health coverage? What about your husband? Is he without health care coverage too? Were your parents also not covered? Brothers? Sisters? Have you NEVER been in the hospital, broken a bone, had an ear infection, anything?
I don't mean to be indelicate, but doesn't this lack of coverage when by all accounts you can afford it kind of make YOU one of the slackers that the right rails against? Doesn't this make YOU one of the 47%? You know, a taker, not a maker?
Greed is greed. I like to think no one WANTS people to suffer and die, but heartless greed generally closes it's eyes so it won't see it, therefore it doesn't exist.Precisely: It generally isn't deliberate evil, but evil that is the natural consequence of caring only about how one's self is affected.
But mischaratinization of what I said doenw't actually change all the ACTUAL arguments put forth by the opposition such as 'there will be a doctor shortage' (some for them is less for us) or, 'I might have to pay a hundred dollars more so some crack whore can get liposuction' (actually it's doctor visits for her 7 year old, but who notices...). The only way to rationalize the indefensible objection to the coming healthcare changes is to try to classify everyone who benefits as an evil person of some sort. It's a most disreputable form of rebuttal.
So Iris, you don't have health care? You aren't covered? How old are you? How can you be as old as you are and not feel the need for health coverage? What about your husband? Is he without health care coverage too? Were your parents also not covered? Brothers? Sisters? Have you NEVER been in the hospital, broken a bone, had an ear infection, anything?
I don't mean to be indelicate, but doesn't this lack of coverage when by all accounts you can afford it kind of make YOU one of the slackers that the right rails against? Doesn't this make YOU one of the 47%? You know, a taker, not a maker?
peggy, I don't see how you can consider the argument you put forth to be a serious one.
ApatheticNoMore
5-17-13, 4:01pm
In your opinion. And that's really the point: It's a well-established part of our economic system that pisses you off in the same way that ACA probably pisses you off, but it is still the right thing to do, even though it pisses you off.
in your opinion, it's the right thing to do, but that's really just your opinon. The AMT is a mess for various reasons: transparency, it is not transparent as most people don't even know about it and thus can't plan for it. Laws and taxation should be transparent. I have YET to FIND a good TAX ACCOUNTANT who fully understands the AMT. This lack of transparency only priviledges the already priviledged as they are the only ones privy to the secret mechanisms of avoiding the AMT. I haven't filled several years back taxes and who knows when I'll ever get around to doing so. They have my money anyway so the IRS can just **** off and die as far as I care*.
Yea Obamacare might be a similar mess, if it's true that subsidies can be clawed back. If it's true that bronze plans leave people exposed to medical bankruptcy. Some people say the bronze plans are better than nothing, and maybe they are, but if the trend is to make these lousy plans more and more the norm that's not an improvement. Everyone will have health insurance and noone will have healthcare.
*it may be unfair to blame the IRS as they didn't create this mess, the bozos in congress did, they are only enforcing it
The only way to rationalize the indefensible objection to the coming healthcare changes is to try to classify everyone who benefits as an evil person of some sort. It's a most disreputable form of rebuttal.
But, the only classifications I've seen are by those who like to talk about people who object to the coming healthcare changes.
I'm sure we've hosted this discussion dozens of times on these forums and several of us have given very specific reasons why we are not in favor of the Affordable Care Act. I can't recall anyone, ever, classifying it's supposed beneficiaries as evil.
Saying so is the actual 'most disreputable form of rebuttal'.
peggy, I don't see how you can consider the argument you put forth to be a serious one.This is the reason why this issue is contentious: Folks rejecting societal matters as not serious because they don't want to face the fact that it is a serious issue.
in your opinionNo: It isn't my opinion. It's the law. It's been ratified by our society. And many people in our society believe that there shouldn't be a way for rich people to excessively exploit tax shelters. While people bitch and moan about the AMT, it is still officially legitimate far beyond your personal opinion to the contrary.
Everyone will have health insurance and noone will have healthcare."The sky is falling! The sky is falling." Your nonsense is just that. People will have health insurance, and will have healthcare.
I think the whole debate is one of the saddest things around.
I have health insurance that I worked 31 years to get. I still feel guilty that our system does not provide it to everyone and that everyone does not believe that they should also be part of the whole system. Now I may not agree with the pretty "stupid" arrangement our Congress came up with but getting many more into the insurance system so they are covered with at least basic care is a good thing to me.
I can afford any care I want or need but I am part of the 1% and I would give up choice to have more equality. While the UK has its own unique issues, at least emergency care and much preventative care is available for the whole population. It is sad that we cannot take the best, sort out the problems and provide our own citizens with a great system. I am not hopeful that it will ever be done with our political system. We will have a poorly run, expensive system that still has immense problems.
ApatheticNoMore
5-17-13, 5:53pm
Ugh, you've never been victimized by the AMT. I am very far from anything most people would consider rich, I may be far from poor too, yea well, middle class (and no not "upper middle class"). As for Obamacare, I figure it will all play out. I obvously very specifically dont' trust this government of corporatist apologists, and therefore I'd advise anyone I cared for to be very careful in choosing insurance to make sure they get a plan that will be there for them when they need it and pay most of the bills (I don't actually advise otherwise now) and that they look at any potential catches.
I obvously very specifically dont' trust this government of corporatist apologists,.
Don't worry, ANM, Top People are in charge of Obamacare:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/irs-official-in-charge-during-tea-party-targeting-now-runs-health-care-office/
Caeser's wife, and all that...
"I am being forced to buy a commercial product by virtue of living here. That is a new and pretty big government intrusion, despite what Justice John Roberts said."
New but not unique. In a similar way, you have to show proof of having automobile insurance in order to register your car.
"I am being forced to buy a commercial product by virtue of living here. That is a new and pretty big government intrusion, despite what Justice John Roberts said."
New but not unique. In a similar way, you have to show proof of having automobile insurance in order to register your car.
But I don't have to drive a car. I'm not required to do that to be a citizen here. It's similar but not exactly the same thing ya know? Overreaching, Nanny G is.
And since you gave this as example: I live in the urban core where fully 1/3+ of drivers are not insured. So it goes back to those of us who are law abiding citizens will follow the directive of ACA. Those who don't give a damn about The Man will just ignore it. So what else is new?
I l ike your phrase about dogs, by the way. I love the way m y doggies are so content.
Now I may not agree with the pretty "stupid" arrangement our Congress came up with but getting many more into the insurance system so they are covered with at least basic care is a good thing to me.Precisely. We don't always get our way with regard to the nice-to-have's, but basic health care is a must-have, not a nice-to-have.
Ugh, you've never been victimized by the AMT.Whether we have or not doesn't actually matter. Life isn't always all just about you. My spouse and I realize that. So should you. And clearly, you've never been victimized by poverty, or you'd realize that paying AMT is a ramification of a privilege - a bonus - a fantastic circumstance - it is not a curse.
I think you missed peggy's characterization "heartless greed" among other phrases scattered throughout this thread. Usually people of the Heartless Greed are indifferent to suffering and dying, or that's the progressive narrative framing, anyway.
Greed and indifference are big steps from wanting people to suffer and die. Not even in the same room.
iris lily
5-18-13, 10:36am
Greed and indifference are big steps from wanting people to suffer and die. Not even in the same room.
haha, well, ok. I think they are in the same room but perhaps they are not close friends.
ApatheticNoMore
5-18-13, 11:27am
Whether we have or not doesn't actually matter. Life isn't always all just about you. My spouse and I realize that. So should you.
So because of that I should cheer the unfairness in the AMT and think it should never be fixed and that it's just great we have two taxation systems one of which is so obscure that almost noone knows about it. A tax system behind the tax system. And I should think this solution was so much better than actually *fixing* the loopholes in the regular tax system. I think you imagine it's just straightforward progressive taxation. And you could not be more misinformed! It's not, it's *extremely* arbitrary who gets taxed at least in the most obscure incomprehensible portions of the the AMT (again even I don't understand it and failed in my initial attempt to find accountants who do, and since then I've been procrastinating for years and years, dreaming of a mythical genius accountant who understands it all (aka prince charming CPA), and it's hard to stop procrastinating filing forever and ever).
And clearly, you've never been victimized by poverty, or you'd realize that paying AMT is a ramification of a privilege - a bonus - a fantastic circumstance - it is not a curse.
because things could always suck even more, so the fact they suck now is actually just wonderful.
I don't think you could possibly conceivably grok (way beyond the furthest reaches of the imagination!) that I can hold two seemly contradictory but not really ideas in my head at the same time but I actually do (I just don't voice them all when complaining about the AMT because uh *RELEVANCE*): 1) the AMT is way too complex, way too obscure, and way too arbitrary, and I could potentially pay rates that a doctor or a Rockefeller doesn't pay for reasons incomprehensible mostly because congress doesn't know what it's doing probably. Me paying a far *higher percentage* of income in taxes than the actual rich is unfair 2) overall I'm fairly lucky to be in the financial situation I am
3) money doesn't buy happiness - oh wait I don't know about that one :~)
4) there's a level at which I dont' expect laws to be fair and fairly applied. I mean yes of course in principle they should be (hence the complaint), and I support that principle, but in reality, I've never particularly had any illusions. Power is what you can get away with.
No this thread isn't about even supposed to be about the AMT, I just can't even see those 3 little letters, without thinking ok you're using one of the worst things out there to defend Obamacare. So yea many people's fears are that Obamacare is too complex, too incomprehensible, too full of hidden gotchas - and well throwing in the AMT in the conversation does provide a pretty good example.
I wonder what it will really mean for me? I looked at the form they have, I assume its a rough draft .....it asks if you are getting any money this year out of a "retirement account". What types of accounts would be considered a retirement account? How much will it actually cost and who exactly will qualify for govt assistance in paying for it? Gonna be interesting.
Poetry Writer - My understanding is that there are 2 parts to the ACA. The first is acually having to buy the health insurance coverage. You can either do that thru an exchange if your state has one (we do in Calif) which is sort of like a one-stop shopping place where many health insurance providers join and offer their products. If your state doesn't have an exchange then you need to look at each insurance company seperately or use something like ehealthinsurance.com to compare and buy insurance.
The second part is the governement subsidy to help pay for it - partially or fully. How much of a government subisdy you get depends on your age and income (they do not count assets like investments, savings, homes, vacation homes, cars, boats RVs, etc... and there is no means testing). Income is probably from all sources that you recieve like work, pensions, 401Ks, disability, social security, etc.. For lower income people (which isn't very low income by my standards at almost $100K income for a family of 4) you can get the subsidy or even qualify for welfare (Medicaid) irregardless of the value of any of your other assets. So if someone has a large amount of assets but a small income then they can actually get all of their health insurance paid for (this, plus the lack of means testing, is where the ACA seriously drops the ball IMHO - guess Bae with his yachts and second homes and vast financial resources yet small income gets free insurance just like me. Something wrong with that). For example I am an early retiree (at 42) by choice, have a high amount of cash assets in tax deferrred things, an expensive paid for home, yet a small income - some of which is not taxable. So when I did the calculator for the subsidy it put me in the "medicaid" catagory which, beginning Jan 1, 2014, will no longer require a means test or include assets to recieve medicaid. Only income. So I can get free medical insurance via medicaid even though I have a fairly large amount of assets. However, I use the VA hospital for very low cost health care because I'm a service-connected disabled veteran so don't need to buy a policy if I don't want to I don't think.
Now the question is - for those who can qualify for subsidies how will they be paid? Will the government pay your monthly premiums directly? Will there be a tax credit? And if so, what about people who have no taxable income? Is it based on your taxable income alone or on non-taxable income (like my military disability pension) too? How can truelly low income/low asset people afford to pay a monthly premium for a year while waiting to get a tax refund that covers that? Maybe someone here knows the answers to how exactly it will be administered cause I've looked everywhere and haven't found any info.
Also, besides the question of how subsidy money will be paid to the individual or insurance provider, how will penalties be paid. If a low income person doesn't have to file an income tax return, or have income to pay a penalty, how will that be paid. I guess I'd like spefic info on exactly how the plan will work.
ApatheticNoMore
5-18-13, 4:02pm
For example I am an early retiree (at 42) by choice, have a high amount of cash assets in tax deferrred things, an expensive paid for home, yet a small income - some of which is not taxable. So when I did the calculator for the subsidy it put me in the "medicaid" catagory which, beginning Jan 1, 2014, will no longer require a means test or include assets to recieve medicaid. Only income. So I can get free medical insurance via medicaid even though I have a fairly large amount of assets
with the medicaid funding issues in CA, unless the pay out to doctors increases, that's no prize. People commuting two hours to find a doctor that will accept a medicaid patient. The best way to get decent medical care will remain: get a job with employer provided insurance.
So because of that I should ...... because of that you should acknowledge that your own personal appraisals don't always prevail, and that often, when your personal appraisals are driven by personal gain and not by social conscience, that your personal appraisals shouldn't prevail.
because ...... because there are fundamental differences between annoyance, which is essentially what you're complaining about (even though you'll deny it to excess), and true hardship, which is essentially what is relieved by what you complained about.
Stop ignoring the words you're replying to and start reading them.
How much of a government subisdy you get depends on your age and income (they do not count assets like investments, savings, homes, vacation homes, cars, boats RVs, etc... and there is no means testing). Income is probably from all sources that you recieve like work, pensions, 401Ks, disability, social security, etc..There is a very clear definition of MAGI, which is used to determine the income side of eligibility for subsidies.
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/section/1004-income-definitions.pdf
I guess I'd like spefic info on exactly how the plan will work.Many states have underfunded the public education line items in the budget. Complain to your Members of Congress and state legislators that they've failed to do the right thing, and that you feel that they should be spending more money on educating the public about the things you want to know.
poetry_writer
5-19-13, 9:52am
Poetry Writer - My understanding is that there are 2 parts to the ACA. The first is acually having to buy the health insurance coverage. You can either do that thru an exchange if your state has one (we do in Calif) which is sort of like a one-stop shopping place where many health insurance providers join and offer their products. If your state doesn't have an exchange then you need to look at each insurance company seperately or use something like ehealthinsurance.com to compare and buy insurance.
The second part is the governement subsidy to help pay for it - partially or fully. How much of a government subisdy you get depends on your age and income (they do not count assets like investments, savings, homes, vacation homes, cars, boats RVs, etc... and there is no means testing). Income is probably from all sources that you recieve like work, pensions, 401Ks, disability, social security, etc.. For lower income people (which isn't very low income by my standards at almost $100K income for a family of 4) you can get the subsidy or even qualify for welfare (Medicaid) irregardless of the value of any of your other assets. So if someone has a large amount of assets but a small income then they can actually get all of their health insurance paid for (this, plus the lack of means testing, is where the ACA seriously drops the ball IMHO - guess Bae with his yachts and second homes and vast financial resources yet small income gets free insurance just like me. Something wrong with that). For example I am an early retiree (at 42) by choice, have a high amount of cash assets in tax deferrred things, an expensive paid for home, yet a small income - some of which is not taxable. So when I did the calculator for the subsidy it put me in the "medicaid" catagory which, beginning Jan 1, 2014, will no longer require a means test or include assets to recieve medicaid. Only income. So I can get free medical insurance via medicaid even though I have a fairly large amount of assets. However, I use the VA hospital for very low cost health care because I'm a service-connected disabled veteran so don't need to buy a policy if I don't want to I don't think.
Now the question is - for those who can qualify for subsidies how will they be paid? Will the government pay your monthly premiums directly? Will there be a tax credit? And if so, what about people who have no taxable income? Is it based on your taxable income alone or on non-taxable income (like my military disability pension) too? How can truelly low income/low asset people afford to pay a monthly premium for a year while waiting to get a tax refund that covers that? Maybe someone here knows the answers to how exactly it will be administered cause I've looked everywhere and haven't found any info.
Thank you for your answer. Since I have no insurance I am looking forward to the change (anything at this point looks good to me!)............I have no idea how people will sort through all this, but time will tell. Truly low income or the working poor will simply not be able to afford to pay anything if they have to wait a year to get help with it. Many people now dont even use bank accounts, so that would make it interesting. Lots of things going on! I've found many people that I know who have plenty of money and good jobs simply cant relate to being among the working poor. They dont know that an extra bill can be a disaster for them , that many are truly hanging on by a thread. ........Again, thank you. .
Aqua Blue
5-19-13, 10:05am
poetry writer, that is so true. Many people are truely hanging on by a thread. I probably worked as hard as many others but 8 years ago my job ended and the only insurance I could get was costly AND had 5 riders. Since July 2012 I no longer have the riders. thank thank you obama care. It has taken ahuge load off my shoulders.
I have a close relative, who lost everything to her husband's illness and death. She ended up bankrupt, losing the house etc. She has not been able to find employment with health insurance(there just seem to be no jobs for a late 50's woman with few job skills) - She too is looking forward to having health care. Being the working poor is very very hard.
with the medicaid funding issues in CA, unless the pay out to doctors increases, that's no prize. People commuting two hours to find a doctor that will accept a medicaid patient. The best way to get decent medical care will remain: get a job with employer provided insurance.
Well I wasn't talking so much about the quality of health care but rather the availability of subsidies based on income rather than income plus assets. IMHO, I don't think people like me should get fully subsidised insurance coverage or medicaid since I can work or pay for it myself. But that's not how it will be set up.. Also, in states that won't have medicaid reform, low income people will get most, if not all, of their insurance subsidised. While I'm a huge advocate for a European or Canadian style universal healthcare for all - rich or poor - I am not a fan of the ACA structure for many reasons. But I guess it's better than nothing.
Thank you for your answer. Since I have no insurance I am looking forward to the change (anything at this point looks good to me!)............I have no idea how people will sort through all this, but time will tell. Truly low income or the working poor will simply not be able to afford to pay anything if they have to wait a year to get help with it. Many people now dont even use bank accounts, so that would make it interesting. Lots of things going on! I've found many people that I know who have plenty of money and good jobs simply cant relate to being among the working poor. They dont know that an extra bill can be a disaster for them , that many are truly hanging on by a thread. ........Again, thank you. .
You should have no problem getting it and probably getting it fully subsidised too. You can look online for the calculator and put in your numbers to see the projected amount it will cost and will be subsidised for you. Like I said earlier, some states like Calif will be changing their medicaid programs so that assests are no longer counted to qualify for medical coverage so very low income people in those states will has to apply for that. And as Apathetic no more pointed out, finding a Dr that accepts medicaid may be difficult. But in any case it's something and non insured people - especially those with per existing conditions - will have coverage even if it's not ideal coverage. Again, I have no idea about how subsidies will be paid, to who - the individual or the insurance provider - when they will be paid, how who bought coverage will be track or how penalties will be charged or any of it.
Also read an article that said that working low income people with employer provided health insurance may actually be worse off financially than those who can app,y for aca subsidies. Apparently if you have employer coverage that you have to pay a part of, you can not get any of the subsidies to help with your % of coverage and must continue to pay that - and your dependants mount as well - yourself. So a person with low income wage with 2 kids and a spouse who has health insurance coverage from their job but will have to pay their share of their employer covered health insurance -maybe several hundred a month - but won't get subsidy help with that. Where as another person in the same situation but no employer health insurance would be able to get nearly 100 % subsidies to buy insurance. Even those with high incomes of over $80K can get those subsidies if they don't have employer health insurance whereas a minimum wage employee who does have coverage may have to pay a large amount towards their monthly premiums themselves.
ApatheticNoMore
5-19-13, 12:16pm
because of that you should acknowledge that your own personal appraisals don't always prevail
my heavens, you think I think my personal appraisals ever prevail.
and that often, when your personal appraisals are driven by personal gain and not by social conscience, that your personal appraisals shouldn't prevail.
so why again should I pay more taxes than the top tax bracket?
... because there are fundamental differences between annoyance, which is essentially what you're complaining about (even though you'll deny it to excess, and true hardship, which is essentially what is relieved by what you complained about.
Annoyance is not exactly it, it's more a feeling that even when you briefly get lucky and win at the games of this screwed up world, that the game is rigged against you anyway because you're not smart enough to know the inside rules. Now the person I know who netted 25 million that year probably made darn sure they knew the rules and got off paying a teeny tiny percent of their income in taxes. That's the tax code you wish to defend, where what percentage of tax you pay depends not even on income but on obscure tax code knowledge because the tax code is so complex that the average person can't know it.
Of course you prefer to make this about giving moral lectures (though I never joined your church, so never asked for your sermon on this sunday morning, and I dont' believe that moral lectures are the path to a better world ANYWAY - they've only been trying that one several thousand years) to me than even about the tax code. The tax code is too complex, that is all.
catherine
5-19-13, 12:27pm
FWIW, I went to a managed care conference last December, and if we, as consumers, are slightly confused and unsure about what's to happen, the private insurance companies are as well, let me tell you. However, they are poised to recognize the huge shifts that will have to happen in terms of innovative strategies--in other words, they feel prepared to help pave the way and show the government how best to run this show, from the POV of technological solutions, collaborative healthcare communities, innovative systems, etc.
This is a period of chaos but from chaos comes innovation and progress. For those of you who fear the Government is going to slow down healthcare efficiency, the private sector has every intention to take advantage of gaps in the market to correct that if it happens. At the same time those folks who have had to walk the tightrope of maintaining their health with no insurance, they won't have to do that anymore, thanks to government intervention.
For sure, this system is crazy broken, but reducing the vulnerability of the least of us is a step in the right direction. We can work out the details as we go along.
poetry_writer
5-19-13, 6:28pm
poetry writer, that is so true. Many people are truely hanging on by a thread. I probably worked as hard as many others but 8 years ago my job ended and the only insurance I could get was costly AND had 5 riders. Since July 2012 I no longer have the riders. thank thank you obama care. It has taken ahuge load off my shoulders.
I have a close relative, who lost everything to her husband's illness and death. She ended up bankrupt, losing the house etc. She has not been able to find employment with health insurance(there just seem to be no jobs for a late 50's woman with few job skills) - She too is looking forward to having health care. Being the working poor is very very hard.
Very true. I am 55 and no one is hiring my age group. I have quit looking.
so why again should I pay more taxes than the top tax bracket?That's not what's happening.
Annoyance is not exactly it, it's more a feeling that even when you briefly get lucky and win at the games of this screwed up world, that the game is rigged against you anyway because you're not smart enough to know the inside rules.That much is certain: The super-rich generally are going to win no matter what, the way things are now, but that doesn't mean society should just bend over and let that happen without trying to put in place barriers.
Of course you prefer to make this about giving moral lectures (though I never joined your church, so never asked for your sermon on this sunday morning, and I dont' believe that moral lectures are the path to a better world ANYWAYCompassion and consideration for always is the path to a better world. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Many states have underfunded the public education line items in the budget. Complain to your Members of Congress and state legislators that they've failed to do the right thing, and that you feel that they should be spending more money on educating the public about the things you want to know.I don't think the problem is their ability to get the information out to the public - at least not that I have seen - but that they actually don't know how they are going to run the program at the various state and even the federal level yet. There seems to be no concrete plan to administer the program, fund the subidies to the individuals, track who does and doesn't buy health insurance, apply penalities, etc... I'm not sure how Mass does their program but it sounds like it's all based on income tax credits (which the link you posted seems to indicate this is how the ACA program will funtion based on modifiied adjusted gross income - which includes all forms of income , taxable or not) as well as tax penalities for those who do not have insurance. Something that may not work for low income people who can not afford to buy insurance for themselves or their families for an entire year before getting a refund based on tax credits. And if they are already in the zero percent tax bracket what then? For myself, I already have coverage so it doesn't effect me, but am still curious how the practicle aspects of the program will work.
I don't think the problem is their ability to get the information out to the public - at least not that I have seen - but that they actually don't know how they are going to run the program at the various state and even the federal level yet.Some of the questions being asked above are matters where the decisions have been made, or even more definitively, are simply matters for which the law doesn't allow variance. You earlier indicated you were unsure of the sources of income that would be considered, but that's already determined - it just hasn't been communicated yet - and again, that's substantially due to inadequate funding for communications and public outreach.
There seems to be no concrete plan to administer the program, fund the subidies to the individuals, track who does and doesn't buy health insurance, apply penalities, etc...I'm not sure how to explain it differently: That is simply not true. The plans for those specific things happen to be pretty clear - the message simply hasn't reached you yet, for the reasons mentioned earlier.
I thought we were supposed to see what was in the bill once we passed it.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU
I thought we were supposed to see what was in the bill once we passed it.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU
Badly conceived laws at any level of government are almost always a nightmare to administer. I think the reason so many states are electing to let the feds set up the exchanges in their jurisdictions rather than do it themselves is that they don't want to be the scapegoats if the wheels come off.
Some of the questions being asked above are matters where the decisions have been made, or even more definitively, are simply matters for which the law doesn't allow variance. You earlier indicated you were unsure of the sources of income that would be considered, but that's already determined - it just hasn't been communicated yet - and again, that's substantially due to inadequate funding for communications and public outreach.
I'm not sure how to explain it differently: That is simply not true. The plans for those specific things happen to be pretty clear - the message simply hasn't reached you yet, for the reasons mentioned earlier.
You are probably right - the plan and how to administer it is all set up but then details haven't made it to the public yet. I have looked at Calif health exchange website which is really comprehensive. While it does list the details of the program as to what will be available, it doesn't have the practical aspects of how the program is run listed because, as the website says, they are basic still working those kinds of details out. I expect those will be hammered out by Oct when people can start signing up for the various plans offered by the exchange - by Jan 1st for sure. But for now, at least in Calif, they haven't settled yet on how to fully implement all then technical detailed aspects of the program or at least haven't chosen to give the public the details yet. But because it shouldn't effect me, as I assume there will be a way to show you already have insurance coverage to the powers that be - maybe you have to submit proof with you annual income tax form - I am not looking into it the the same extent that I would if I had to apply for insurance at the exchange.
Badly conceived laws at any level of government are almost always a nightmare to administer. I think the reason so many states are electing to let the feds set up the exchanges in their jurisdictions rather than do it themselves is that they don't want to be the scapegoats if the wheels come off.
Well it will probably create a huge number of government jobs - and reams of red tape - to administer it at both the state and fed levels. Pus the changes that will probably come to many state medicaid systems to accomadate the ACAfor lower income people will create jobs too. So may have a slightly dusty silver lining :-)
Well it will probably create a huge number of government jobs - and reams of red tape - to administer it at both the state and fed levels. Pus the changes that will probably come to many state medicaid systems to accomadate the ACAfor lower income people will create jobs too. So may have a slightly dusty silver lining :-)
The worry lower levels of government often have with sweeping new programs is unfunded or underfunded mandates.
Just in case we needed something new to bicker about:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/05/24/unexpected-health-insurance-rate-shock-california-obamacare-insurance-exchange-announces-premium-rates/
Good news for you, ANM?
ApatheticNoMore
5-28-13, 7:25pm
Yea the $276 monthly premium - that's basically what I'm paying for "employer subsidized healthcare" now. Now I would *like* to think I am getting a better plan for my money (on account of it being an "employer-subsidized" plan) but I'd have to see all the details because that might not be the case.
One wonders whether this will get as much airplay in the media as all the ridiculous speculation about rates skyrocketing got.
One wonders whether this will get as much airplay in the media as all the ridiculous speculation about rates skyrocketing got.
I doubt it. It doesn't really fit the republican the-sky-is-falling meme, and the dems just aren't talking about it at all! The democrats/liberals simply need to stop using Bob's PR and Glue Factory, and start getting the TRUTH out. The only reason folks are believing the right wing shtick is because they are the only ones talking.
The only reason folks are believing the right wing shtick is because they are the only ones talking.
I don't know if that is even close to being accurate, unless you believe that some of our major unions are basing their actions on "right wing" talking points: http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/300881-labor-unions-break-ranks-on-health-law , or that Democrat lawmakers concerns over implementation are all based upon right wing supplied smoke and mirrors: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/us/politics/democratic-senators-tell-white-house-of-concerns-about-health-care-law-rollout.html?_r=0
try2bfrugal
5-29-13, 3:04pm
The democrats/liberals simply need to stop using Bob's PR and Glue Factory,
We rant about this at our house every day, but I like the way you phrased it. We've notices Yahoo news seems to be turning into Fox News.
I wonder what it will really mean for me? I looked at the form they have, I assume its a rough draft .....it asks if you are getting any money this year out of a "retirement account". What types of accounts would be considered a retirement account? How much will it actually cost and who exactly will qualify for govt assistance in paying for it? Gonna be interesting.
IMHO a retirement account is an IRA or 401k.
HealthcareReform 2014: Mandated Coverage, Insurance Exchanges, and Employer Requirements
By Sarah Densmore (http://www.dummies.com/search.html?query=Sarah+Densmore)
4 of8 in Series: The Essentials of Healthcare Reform (http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/the-essentials-of-healthcare-reform.html)
March 26, 2010. Some parts ofthe new healthcare law (called "Obamacare" by some) are slated forimplementation within the next year. However, several of the moregroundbreaking provisions that will affect the greatest number of Americanswon’t go into effect until 2014. During the next few years, federal and stateofficials will be working with leaders in the health and insurance industriesto restructure our nation’s healthcare system.
Thatrestructuring means most Americans will be required to have health insuranceand most businesses will be required to offer it to their employees. It alsomeans the creation of another kind of insurance plan called a health insuranceexchange.
Healthcare reform mandates coverage for most
Thegovernment will require most America’s to have health insurance by 2014. Thegovernment has enacted this provision as a way to get healthy people who don’tfeel the need to pay for coverage to buy insurance. That way, the healthypeople can help fund the cost of people who require more medical care.
Several states have filed suit against the federal governmentsaying that it is unconstitutional to make individual citizens to buy healthinsurance.
If youdon’t have coverage and you’re not in one of the groups that’s an exception tothe rule, you’ll pay a penalty. You may not be required to purchase healthinsurance if you
· Face financial hardships
· Have been uninsured for lessthan three months
· Have religious objections
· Are American Indian
· Are a prison inmate
· Are an undocumented immigrant
Ifyou’re penalized, the amount you’ll be fined will go up each year for the firstthree years. In 2014, you’ll pay $95 or 1 percent of your taxable income,whichever is greater. In 2015, the fine will be $325 or 2 percent of taxableincome, and in 2016 the penalty will be $695 or 2.5 percent of income. Eachyear after 2016, the government will refigure the fine based on acost-of-living adjustment.
To helpyou meet the cost of mandated insurance, the government will offer premiumcredits and cost sharing subsidies to you and your family meet certain incomeguidelines and if you enroll in one of the new state-run insurance exchanges(more on those below).
If your income falls between 133 and 400 percent of the federalpoverty levels (FPL), you could receive premium credits that will lower themaximum amount of premium you have to pay for your coverage. For instance, if yourincome is 133 percent of FPL, you won’t have to pay more than 2 percent of yourincome in premiums. At the high end of the range, if your income is 400 percentof FPL, your premium costs won’t be more than 9.5 percent of your income. FPLis $10,830 for an individual and $22,050 for a family of four.
Youcould also receive a cost-sharing credit to help reduce your out-of-pocketexpenses for deductibles and co-pays. Like the premium credits, the amount ofcost-sharing credit you receive will be based on your income in relation toFPL.
Insurance exchanges will be additional marketplace option
Manyspecifics still have to be worked out, but basically the new healthcare reformlaw provides federal funding for states to establish American Health BenefitExchanges and Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) Exchanges.
Whetheryou’re an individual or a small business owner, these exchanges are supposed toserve as an easy, cost-affordable way for you to get health-insurance foryourself or your employees.
From aconsumer perspective, the exchanges are about power in numbers. For instance,the American Health Benefit Exchanges are supposed to provide access to lowercost insurance plans for the uninsured because they allow individuals to jointogether individuals to join together with other individuals to create a largepool of insured people. Usually, in the insurance world, the more people whoare insured under any one plan, the lower the premiums for that plan.
The SHOPexchanges are where business owners with fewer than 100 employees can joinforces with other small businesses to try and get the best coverage at the bestprice for themselves and their workers.
Even if you’re offered insurance through your employer, youcould still opt to purchase insurance through the individual exchange if yourincome meets certain FPL guidelines.
Both theindividual and small business exchanges are supposed to give you access toplans that have four tiers of benefits: bronze, silver, gold or platinum. Therewill also be a catastrophic plan for people under 30 and for those who areexempt from mandated coverage.
Statesdon’t have to set up the exchanges. If a state chooses not to, the federalgovernment can come in and create them. States that do opt for exchanges willdecide whether they’ll be run by a government or not-for-profit entity. Statescan also establish regional, interstate exchanges if they choose. States mustmake the exchanges available to consumers via call center, but it’s up to thestates to create additional avenues of communication, such as Web access.
Many employers face penalties if they don’t offer health insurance
By 2014,the only businesses not at risk for being penalized if they don’t offer healthinsurance to their employees are businesses with 50 employees or less.
· Subsidies serve asinsurance enticement: Even if you don’t have toinsure your employees, the government is going to try and coax you into it witha series of subsidies to help you pay your premiums. If you purchase insurancefor your employees through SHOP, you might be eligible for a tax credit equalto up to 50 percent of the cost you pay toward your employees’ healthinsurance. That credit will be paid out for two years.
· Penalties for notinsuring: If you don’t offer healthinsurance and you’re an employer with more than 50 employees, if one of thoseemployees is a full-timer who receives a premium subsidy because heparticipates in an exchange, you’ll have to pay a fee of $2,000 for everyfull-time employee you have (although penalties for the first 30 are waived).
· Penalties even if you doinsure: Even if you offer healthinsurance, if one or more of your full-time employees chooses not toparticipate in your insurance plan and, instead, opts for an exchange plan thatallows them to receive a premium credit, you could still be penalized up to$3,000 for each employee receiving a subsidy.
You canavoid being penalized for the number of employees who receive insurance throughthe exchange by providing each one of them with a free choice voucher to helpoffset the cost of their premiums.
· Automatic enrollmentrequired for large employers: If you employmore than 200 employees, the new law will require you to automatically enrollthem in your insurance plan. However, an employee may choose not toparticipate.
poetry_writer
5-30-13, 1:56pm
From what I had read (and I may have read wrong lol)...an IRA isnt considered a retirement account. You cant withdraw it until 59 1/2 or there is a stiff penalty. Has anyone found any other info on this? Thanks!
Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA; P.L. 111-148, as amended), the definition of income for eligibility for certain Medicaid populations and premium credits in the exchanges is based on modified adjusted gross income (MAGI). As I mentioned at the start of the thread:
Retirement accounts include 401(k) plans, 403(b) plans, IRAs, SEP plans, 457 plans, and pensions
From what I had read (and I may have read wrong lol)...an IRA isnt considered a retirement account. You cant withdraw it until 59 1/2 or there is a stiff penalty. Has anyone found any other info on this? Thanks!
An IRA is considered a retirement account and once you begin making withdrawals from it that money is considered income - at least for a traditional IRA as I'm not sure how Roth's are treated for the purposes of qualifying for Obamacare subsidies. Once you make withdrawals - it will be considered income just like 401k's, 457's, pensions, and social security. However, you won't have to count any type of retirement account as income until you start making withdrawals. Some retirement accounts can be gotten much earlier than at age 59.5, so those will be counted once withdrawals are made I regardless of the person's age.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.