Millions of Obamacare subsidy recipients may need to pay back-taxes

Well the IRS will be charging a fee to recover those things !!!

They will call it a fine for having one. Legal per the tax codes.

I figured they would be sending the CDC out. Hope and Change ended up being an epidemic.

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
Wasn't this supposed to have only been taken from refunds.....and if you owed taxes.....they couldn't make you pay back any excess subside you received?

So, what is the truth here??

The confusion is about the fine for not having insurance.

This dilemma is not that.

This issue is about subsidy payments made to insurance companies in your name for your policy bought on an exchange.

And add that to the possible tax credit issue also.



added info ....
How Will Taxes Be Reconciled With Premium Subsidies?

They said right from the start that the IRS was going to be in charge of the money aspect,from collecting the "tax" for not having coverage and collecting any over payments.
when I saw that the IRS was going to be involved I knew that things were going to get ugly fast.the IRS doesn`t care why you owe them money, whether it`s an obamacare fine/overpayment or taxes that you didn`t pay on earned income they will use every weapon in their arsenal to get that money from you.

I`m wondering how they get money from people who have no money, who file no tax returns because all their assets come from government handouts, who own nothing.the people who are receiving the subsidies are people who have little to no money or assets that`s why they are getting subsidies in the first place.if they lied to receive more subsidies than they were entitled to how is the IRS going to get that money back from the poor people?
I`m wondering if they will still subsidize insurance for people who owe overpayments?
If they owe overpayments from last year will government continue subsidizing them this year? or will they cut off subsidies until the overpayments are repaid?
Without the subsidies the poor people won`t be able to afford the insurance and will then be subject to the "tax"/fine for not having insurance.

It`s an interesting situation I can`t wait to see how it all turns out.

ETA: according to that link in the above post if you are single and make less than $23,000 a year you only have to pay back $300 of any overpayments, so if you lied and said you had a wife and 6 kids you still only have to pay back $300 regardless of how much you actually collected in overpayments.
WOW! this ACA is just begging to be ripped off and scammed. scamming the ACA seems to be a low risk high reward proposition.

The godamn IRS works for the Fed....!
Its time to re educate the medical system......by hand!
These arrogant entitled SOBS simply charge waaay too much for the services provided......its bloody highway robbery.....
The Dems screwed themselves as well as everyone else with this stupid mish mash of a "plan".....

a reply to: xuenchen

Well, senior citizens don't often have babies. The cost of all the stuff in pregnancies is going to increase the rates.

The 1.45 is half, so 2.9% would give similar coverage. Remember part B costs about a hundred bucks a month also. That would need to be included, so I would say they could do it for about six percent of wages and when you consider that this would only cover workers, double that to account for those who don't work and the kids.

About twelve percent of wages would be my best guess and everyone would be covered. The biggest thing is that doctors would not need to have such over ridiculous malpractice insurance if they did it like the UK does. Also doctors would not need to be sending people for unnecessary tests to make sure that everyone stays working, their wages would be paid no matter how many patients are seen. Right now, it is a business and this is a big problem. Even if it is nonprofit, they still need money flowing through it. This rises costs for everyone. They need to quit trying to be better than other hospitals with the newest and best electronics and stuff like MRIs. Every little hospital does not need an MRI, but the could use a cat scan.

We have to get it so lawyers can't get their claws into the system with all the big lawsuits. Right now it is hard to sue a doctor here in Michigan because the old governor passed a law through before she left office, one that was supposed to keep healthcare costs down. That was a big lie, as soon as she left office prices started going way higher. One of those idle promises that were not in writing.

twelve percent of wages may sound steep but when you consider that on fifty grand it is about six grand or five hundred a month. There should be a ceiling on this though. This insurance would be complete coverage for most things, not like Obama care. No meds or dental though. And remember this would be cheaper automatically for lower income and could be capped after about seventy grand.

a reply to: rickymouse

Here's a piece for comparison...

National Health Expenditures 2013 Highlights

originally posted by: whyamIhere
Maybe people will someday learn...

Nothing is Free.

Will is free.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: rickymouse

Here's a piece for comparison...

National Health Expenditures 2013 Highlights

The economic impact of healthcare is about twenty four percent of the economy, not the seventeen and a half percent they state there. You need to include the insurance jobs and profits and military healthcare costs. Also the lawsuits and equipment sales.

Where my wife worked, the cost of healthcare was over a grand a month before she retired. Twelve grand and her wages came out to about thirty two grand. So the cost of her healthcare was roughly about thirty eight percent of what she was earning. Remember that insurance companies make money also and they even have legal expenses. Also part of car and house insurance is to cover injuries. Even hospital employees healthcare is costing people higher insurance rates. It is a pyramid scheme, the consumer pays for everything.

They could easily give good coverage on a national level for everyone at fifteen percent of wages, but this would put lawyers and insurance workers out of work.

Yet another post where the little gang gets their comments in and the real facts get on the bottom of the second page.

You just happened to forget a very important fact. The amount of money a person needs to pay back is limited if they are under a certain income level (around the middle class). But I guess that wouldn't work in your standard post template.

Most people probably wouldn't need to pay back more than $600.

And when people signed up they were told if the estimate too low they will have to pay back the money - so it shouldn't be a surprise.

But I will give you that this is one of the parts of the law that doesn't work. People don't have steady permanent jobs anymore. Part-time, temp work, second jobs, layoffs all make it near impossible to estimate your future income. (Of course the law was written by the group who have the last of the steady jobs).

It's time to have the two tiered system like the do in England. Just add a payroll tax to provide a minimum coverage for people. It's simple - though not perfect and seems to work in most countries.

originally posted by: Daughter2

Most people probably wouldn't need to pay back more than $600.

And when people signed up they were told if the estimate too low they will have to pay back the money - so it shouldn't be a surprise.

For families that were duped into this under the pretense of being "qualified" for a certain level of subsidy it will most certainly be a big surprise. There are many families out there that would be totally screwed if they suddenly lost $600 that they were depending on.

a reply to: Daughter2

I was told by .gov that people whose income fluctuates....of lose their jobs....or get a job....should go in and update their income info.
Paying it back should not be a surprise....but it should come out of refunds for the first year's subsidies....after that....no bargains.

When are people going to figure out that the Government's involvement in health care is one of the main causes for it costing so much. The doctor that I go to is part of a group of five doctors. Each doctor has two assistants, one for scheduling and one for assisting with patients. Counting the doctors this means that there are fifteen people that are directly involved in patient care. In another part of the office there are thirty people, who's entire job is to process the paperwork that is required by the Government, both State and Federal, so that they can get paid. It takes TWICE the number of people to do the paperwork required by Government as it does to take care of the patients.

Then there is the Government end of it. When you enter Washington DC on Interstate 270 there are acres and acres of buildings that house the Federal Government's employees that process the paperwork that those people in the doctor's office have to send them. This is duplicated at the State level. HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of people who are not involved with caring for patients, just processing the paperwork, who have to be PAID. There's your real cost of healthcare and if you think that going to Socialized care is going to be cheaper or an improvement, you are severely mistaken.

a reply to: xuenchen

The current Medicare system seems to generally be funded by payroll tax. 1.45% from paychecks, and 1.45% matched by the employer. How much would a full Medicare system cost?

You forgot the capital gains medicare tax.

The medical device tax.

How much would it cost to fully fund ?

Even they have no idea.

Already looking at quadruple taxation on top of printing, and borrowing, and issuing treasuries.

And that still doesn't pay the hospital bills.

That's government, and they are doing things 'right'.

The 'Affordable' Shaft Act is no different.

How much bigger can Government get?Where does it end?1 Gov worker for every one in nthe private sector?
I think the end game is total Government control over everything and everyone.