It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Let's talk ACA subsidies

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 04:37 PM
Firstly, it would be nice to see an ACA forum, just my two cents worth.

The subsidies will supposedly be paid directly to the insurance company based on your stated income figure. But then I read this:

According to a recent study, funded by the California Program on Access to Care at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health, up to 38 percent of families may have to repay some portion of their subsidy due to changes in income.

"Like any other tax-based program," lead author Ken Jacobs explains, subsidies are "reconciled at the end of the year when you do your taxes." But unlike other tax-based programs, consumers must report income changes directly to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

And what happens if you retire in 2015 or later and your income is lower than the previous year you worked full time? Will you have to continue paying the high premiums from your 2014 income levels or is there a recalculation period?

What happens if you lose your job after signing up for the ACA? Will you have to continue paying the same premiums for the balance of the year?

Since the subsidy is technically a tax credit, will we have to report on our next year's filing like we do our regular annual refunds?

And finally this:

If you choose to apply for the subsidy/credit when you file your 2014 taxes in 2015, this will be a refundable credit. If you can afford to pay your health insurance premiums throughout the year you may take that route, in which case the subsidy will first pay down any taxes you have due, and whatever is left over will be distributed as a tax refund.

Isn’t this co-mingling funds. Tax credit from the ACA can pay down income taxes you owe? This seems wrong to me. I any intelligent thoughts on this issue?

posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 04:44 PM
Sounds like a classic bait & switch scam.

Many people will get nailed.

The usual targets are the poor and the lower end of the middle class.

posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 04:50 PM
This makes perfect sense.

Any deduction, or subsidies effect your tax burden.

Its like forgiven debt (you owe taxes on it) Or remember that 300 bush handed out (that was taxed).

When tax time comes people might get hit with a burden they are unprepared for, and those that took the subsidy may see less of return because of it.

Anything to screw us over more.

posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 05:26 PM
reply to post by StoutBroux

Great points and great questions. S&F
I would love to see an OBAMACARE A.K.A. ACA ATS forum. In the coming year, as this law continues to collapse the well as upon itself, we will have plenty of material for it.

posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 06:06 PM
Subsidies may very well never happen for at least 33 states. Some may be downright shocked by who is fighting on which side of this case, but it's steadily moving long and got a nod to proceed at the end of last month.

Original Court Filing Papers, Case 1:13-cv-00623 / Halbig et al. v Sebelius

A First Swing at the Bat in the Battle against Obamacare’s Federal Subsidies

The October 22nd decision by the District Court in DC is not a win. Not by any means. It simply means valid legal grounds to proceed were found, basically.

Within the filing, the most important parts are sections 1-3, 33-35 and this final bit I'll just quote, since it's what you might call...the bottom line of it.

Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court:1.

Enter a declaratory judgment that the IRS Rule violates the APA;2.

Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the application or enforcement of the IRS Rule; and3.

Award all other relief as the Court may deem just and proper, including anycosts or fees to which Plaintiffs may be entitled by law
(First link above)

So subsidy may not even happen for those states and residents that fought and rejected the exchanges. Many of those same states also took advantage of the Supreme Court decision earlier in this, which allowed each to determine without penalty from Washington, whether they would expand Medicare/Medicaid in any way.

I wish I had better things to share...but there it is and it's a crappy situation for us all.

posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 06:35 PM
reply to post by IAMTAT

Not sure this is the right forum for such discussion as it always contains a large amount of disinformation. That said if it could set people straight on the facts, then all I be all for there being an ACA forum.

What I want to know is why a supposed larger pool of people is still causing rate increases of 50% or greater compared to the current private insurance market. The larger pool has to offset the cost of pre-existing conditions to a large degree. Already most insurance companies were spending less than 80% of premiums on cost of care. I want to see these increases justified.

I also think the whole issue of policy cancellations needs to be discussed. They say they are being canceled because they offer insufficient coverage. I would say that policies with $5k deductibles and $10000 out of pocket are just as worthless and offer insufficient coverage.

I want to know why the administration is letting the insurance companies get away with this highway robbery. Is it a backdoor way to funnel premiums into Medicare? Or is it simply a way to funnel money to the insurance companies?

I was always a hesitant supporter of the ACA until all the facts had come out. Now that most of them have, I can no longer support it. We needed healthcare reform, but we didn't need this.

I think we need a single payer system with excellent compensation standards including bonuses for providing excellent levels of care. Pay the people providing the care rather than the boardroom. Nationalize the research of drugs and other advances with the successes belonging to the American people and a nice reward for that success to the developers. Pay for people to get the training they need in return for their future service.

It is all so frustrating because the current system and the ACA are both very illogical systems if you really want a healthy vibrant hard working population. Get rid of the profit motive and you will get rid of 50% of the cost of the system and as such the current total level of premiums would be enough to fund the whole system for everyone. Get everyone on board would mean 50% lower premiums than curren

posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 07:01 PM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

2nd link Wrabbit, very interesting. Here's the final para:

A final trial-court ruling in any one of those cases that knocks down the IRS rule and the subsidies through federally run exchanges would add substantially to the current headwinds facing the implementation of Obamacare. In this ballgame, it might require as many as four strikes in court to call “out” the opponents of federal-run exchanges in up to 36 states. And it looks like the Obama administration’s lawyers can’t keep pitching around some serious problems.

So there might not be any subsidies. One more thing they should have gotten fixed before this was put out to the public. If that happens where they can't get the subsidies, that will kill it right there, END OF THE LINE.

new topics

top topics


log in