My experience with the ACA

I routinely run close to the poverty line in my earnings because, even though I have a degree, I am mostly having to pick up temp work right now. Regardless of that, though, I am frugal enough that I can generally keep a pretty okay life without government assistance.

Of course, with the ACA, this has changed considerably in regards to health insurance. Reluctantly, I've taken to looking at the exchanges, but after my experience today, I have changed my mind considerably.

I advised them of my situation and that I routinely make right above or right below the income line for subsidies and that the margin is usually pretty thin (we're talking less than 500 dollars some years). I was told that I would need to call in if my income changed considerably in its estimate, and I told them that my income never really seems to change that much from year to year and always hovers right around that line.

I asked if there was some limit on how much of the subsidies I would have to repay, and I was told that there was not because I would be falsifying information and that I would know what I was going to make well before the end of the year. Bear in mind that I had told them that my income is almost always right at the poverty line and that I would be dealing with razor thing margins here.

I asked what exactly what I was supposed to do, basically being told that I was either going to have to pay hundreds of dollars in fines or risk having to pay back thousands of dollars in subsidies. I was told that I needed to be responsible and an adult and that I would know what I was going to make well before the end of the year.

So, at this point, I have told these people numerous times that I am dealing with razor thin margins here several times over, am being given no sympathy or advice in anything that I can do which is what I thought they were there for, and am being told that if I keep subsidies that I don't qualify for it's obviously because I'm committing fraud.

That was bad enough, but to be told that I need to be responsible and an adult when I was on the phone trying to do just that is just a huge slap in the face. I'm done with the ACA, I'm done trying to follow the law in this, as it's obviously just meant to beat me over the head, result in fines, and punish the working poor.

a reply to: AnIntellectualRedneck

Id just say F it...don't pay the fines if they come out....by then maybe ACA will be overturned or you will be rebelling with the other 1000s of people not buying into that crap. I can't believe that lady told you to be an adult...I would have snapped lol...i can't stand people like that...

a reply to: AnIntellectualRedneck

You are an adult, don't listen to their insults. That person's a child working for such an oppressive insult to the American people. Freaking gestapos really.

There are about ten excuses for not being fined by the aca. They are REALLY broad and will be tests to the limits next year. Pick one and go with it...cant hurt.

What is the ACA?

a reply to: intrptr

Obama care.

And OP I would take the subsidies, sounds like you deserve to be able to qualify for them.


I don't get how people can still with a straight face say that this was anything close to socialized health care.

originally posted by: intrptr
What is the ACA?

Obamacare

You know, the total and complete mess of an attempt at socialized medicine.

Signing up is worse than a maze and the information people have put online to try and enroll has been compromised already.

Once people think they have signed up and try and go use them, they often find out that the companies that handle the exchanges don't have a record of them signing up and they have to pay the bill in full and still pay the premiums.

Lastly, if one doesn't sign up they are fined by the US government.

The end result? Millions are still without health care.

Affordable Care Act - A Complete fAilure i.e. Obamacare - thank you Obama for such a colossal failure and the 18 trillion dollars in debt too, when you said in 2008 that 9 trillion was unpatriotic and you would never have a debt that high - and you'd fix health care -
seems like everything he touches turn to excrement.

a reply to: grandmakdw

You know, the total and complete mess of an attempt at socialized medicine.

It wasn't even an attempt, nothing about it is socialized if you force people to buy something.

This was the the big insurance lobbyist winning, and it was going to happen regardless of who was in office.

Just like you won't see it touched by the new guys in office, they all work for the same people

Sound a pretty crap situation, you have my best wishes.
Being a UK citizen I've been stitched up and operated on many times without being asked for money or insurance details. For that reason (while I am also free to buy private healthcare if I wish) I am happy for general taxation to fund the NHS...and I wish everyone in the world had a similar system.
Is universal healthcare not a big sign of civilisation?

a reply to: AnIntellectualRedneck

I am not advocating this.... but your situation is enough to make you work 'under the table' as much as possible to avoid need to pay back subsidies.

a reply to: butcherguy
Every 'developed world' system of tax credits, benefits, and means tested services encourages 'under the table' income...or in laymans terms, telling lies.

I have often spoken of people falling through the cracks so to speak. If you so much as make a dollar or two over the poverty limit, you get denied help. Like that buck or two is going to pay for medical and essentials. It sucks. I did qualify for charity care for my recent mammogram, but did not qualify for medicaid or anything else.

If you have any tests done at a hospital, speak with their patient advocate people and see what they can do for you.

a reply to: AnIntellectualRedneck


Dumb question here but I really do not know.

If you are "close" to the poverty line, couldn't you definitely come in under by simply throwing the difference into an IRA or 401k?

If you are going to come say 1,000 dollars over, simply throw a $100 a month into tax differed retirement (up to 15%) and that reduces your taxable income.

a reply to: grandmakdw

a reply to: Sremmos80

Thanks guys!

a reply to: infolurker

I think the OP is trying to get at (If I am wrong, forgive me) is not everyone earns on a fixed basis. This month is gravy, next month I am starving...or maybe not. Predicting that down to the penny a year out is just a guess no matter how honest you want to be.

To the OP: take care of your health. That number was cooked up by lawyers, accountants, and actuaries. It was blessed off on by politicians. In real life a few bucks above or below makes no difference. If you need the help, you need the help. As a fellow American, I would rather have my tax dollars help you out in hard times than pay the salaries of the lawyers, accountants, actuaries, and politicians who cooked up this debacle.

You'll Be fine "uncovered'.

The ACA was codified in Title 42 of the USC. That title, "Public Welfare" is NOT positive law, rather "prima facie evidence of the law (1 USC §204), and are presumed to be the law, but are rebuttable by production of prior unrepealed acts of Congress at variance with the Code."

See what titles are positive law here

This is important to understand because the only people legally bound by prima facie evidence of law and exempt from the requirement of publishing implementing regulations in the federal register are FEDERAL EMPLOYEES! See 44 UCS §1505(a) and 5 USC §553(a).

You may also notice that the Internal Revenue Code [Title 26] has NEVER been made positive law...

For REGULATIONS to be binding on the GENERAL POPULATION, they MUST BE published in the Federal Register with IMPLEMENTING regulations! With out implementing regulations, the regulations are unenforceable on the public.

The "Effect of Failure to Publish" can be found in 26 CFR §601.702(a)(2)(ii)

This is also REPEATED in 5 USC §552(a)(1).

In the event they [the IRS] try to fine you under title 42, IMMEDIATELY rebut in writing that THEY MAY NOT use regulations written by other agencies per 1 CFR §21.21(c). ACA regulation in Title 42 was written by Health and Human Services.

In the event they [the IRS] try to fine you under title 26, IMMEDIATELY rebut in writing that THEY MUST PROOVE one of the following:
1) Proof of publication of enforcement regulations in the Federal Register for ALL Statutes sought to be enforced... OR
2) Proof that the target of enforcement is a member of one of the groups specifically exempted from the Federal Register Publication Requirements as stated in 5 USC §553(a)(1) [Military], 5 USC §553(a)(2), or 44 USC §1505(a)(1) [Federal employees].

Hope it helps.

originally posted by: AnIntellectualRedneck

I'm done trying to follow the law in this, as it's obviously just meant to beat me over the head, result in fines, and punish the working poor.

You are exactly right.

Americian society and soon all the western world will be egnineered in such a way that those at the bottom are there to donate money to the rich. If they fall off the income scale all together then they are supposed to crawl under a bush and die quietly, no mess, no fuss for those at the top.

Maybe you could do this, apply when your income is under the poverty line, then let them know when it goes over, let them know again when it gets under and keep on doing this. In my past experience with other departments when you contact them too much about itty bitty things and it overloads them, they usually cave in.

Why hasn't someone come up with a Health insurance company that charges $5 a month, for the people who don't want the insurance but don't want the penalties either. If the patient has to go to the Dr they would pay 99.9% of charges. COuldn't this work?

I have a friend who joined a nonprofit medical share plan.
It's the only alternative I know of. Looks like they are mostly
Christian based. I don't know if you can join if your not.
But here is a link in case your interested.
Nonprofit Medical Share Plan

a reply to: AnIntellectualRedneck

For ACA to work properly, it needs people to pay what it says they should pay given their circumstances and also the reverse applies to the subsidies they give out.

You give the impression to the ACA people that you are wanting to coast along with your employments but doing so with an eye toward the best deal for you on the insurance side rather than you being sheeple-minded, putting job/earnings first and then looking at your insurance situation. They assume--because that is what you are basically saying--that you are trying to beat the system and they can't have that. They want and must have you as a blind, ignorant player. Otherwise, their house of cards falls apart.