Obamacare

[fisherman]

Cover Oregon


cover Oregon is up with their obamacare exchange some info

Very nice site and easy to use. Thanks for the link. The calculator says my premiums will drop about $300 per month with the subsidy and my out of pocket max will drop almost 60%!!!

 

[Sue J]

I tried the CT calculator and if I need insurance for two the payment is $250/mo. If I need insurance for just one of us the payment is $301.

That does not make sense. It must be assuming that the income I put in is just for the one person needing insurance and it's not, it's for both of us, with only one of us needing insurance.

I'm not in CT so I guess it's not relevant.

 

[gerrym51]

I tried the CT calculator and if I need insurance for two the payment is $250/mo. If I need insurance for just one of us the payment is $301.

That does not make sense. It must be assuming that the income I put in is just for the one person needing insurance and it's not, it's for both of us, with only one of us needing insurance.

I'm not in CT so I guess it's not relevant.

IT MIGHT be relevant if all the other state calculators that don't ask how many actually need insurance did

Ct. retirements calculator makes you enter all family income. it asks how many in your family need insurance.(corrected)

it appears to then default to single coverage parameters if you say 1.

say 2 of you have income of 55000. but only 1 of you need coverage-it uses the 45,700 cap for single but still uses your total 55000 income.

the reason i bring this up is the california and oregon calculators don't ask this. it just assumes if you have 2 in household you both need insurance and give this calculation.

my wife is on medicare but i am not. i can get my magi down to
based on joint return but cannot get to less than 47,000


i.m wondering if this would happen in all calculators if it asked the same ct. question

 

[Sue J]

IT MIGHT be relevant if all the other state calculators that don't ask how many actually need insurance did

Ct. retirements calculator makes you enter all family income. it asks how many in your family but then asks you how many require insurance.

it appears to then default to single coverage parameters if you say 1.

say 2 of you have income of 55000. but only 1 of you need coverage-it uses the 45,700 cap for single but still uses your total 55000 income.

the reason i bring this up is the california and oregon calculators don't ask this. it just assumes if you have 2 in household you both need insurance and give this calculation.

my wife is on medicare but i am not. i can get my magi down to
based on joint return but cannot get to less than 47,000

i.m wondering if this would happen in all calculators if it asked the same ct. question

Where do you see the Ct retirement calculator? I only saw one for individuals or businesses and the one for individuals didn't have the options you mentioned.

 

[gerrym51]

Where do you see the Ct retirement calculator? I only saw one for individuals or businesses and the one for individuals didn't have the options you mentioned.

2/3 of the way down click on individuals and family

How to save | Access Health CT


i t words it differently-you have to list all family income-then asks how many in family will get insurance

the other calculators give you just choice of single or family-and if you use family minimim of 2 and uses 2 as the number of members who need insurance automatically

i worded my prior post incorrectly

i guess the simplest way to say it is if your 2 in a family but only one needs insurance then your goverend
by the single calculation even if you need to base it on all family income.

 

[Mulligan]

I couldn't help myself and finally called Blue Cross today, to see if they had any information about what they were doing with their "grandfathered plans" or whether we were going to get dumped into the health insurance exchange on our rears. They are still keeping a tight lid on the matter. All the lady would say was information on the matter would be sent out later in the year. I tried to ask it in a different manner a few times and she kept reading from the same cue card, so they definitely aren't willing to share any information yet, or possibly don't know either. I definitely know the customer service agent knows nothing about it.

 

[Katsmeow]

i guess the simplest way to say it is if your 2 in a family but only one needs insurance then your goverend
by the single calculation even if you need to base it on all family income.

Yes, this seems to be flawed. It is almost like none of these calculators can envision a household where there is one person on medicare and then another person or persons not on medicare.

Right now the kids and I are on DH's retiree coverage but I don't know if it will survive so I'm curious about the exchanges. DH just went on medicare so it is 2 adolescents and me that need coverage. I might be able to get our income into the family of 4 parameter to get a subsidy (around $92k) but I couldn't get down to the family of 3.

Once calculator said our premium would be almost $2k a month with no subsidy (putting in income of $92k) because they were counting our full income but then for subsidy were treating us like a family of 3....

 

[grasshopper]

How long before the subsidies get taxed.

 

[bUU]

They probably won't ever be.

 

[SumDay]

I saw this in today's New York Times:

NYT: Health Chaos Ahead

Obviously, it's an OpEd, but still interesting.

 

[MichaelB]

I saw this in today's New York Times:

NYT: Health Chaos Ahead

Obviously, it's an OpEd, but still interesting.

David Brooks OpEd about difficulties implementing the PPACA.

 

[travelover]

David Brooks OpEd about difficulties implementing the PPACA.

Thought provoking article. The most salient point that he makes, IMHO, is that the ACA doesn't address the cost issue.

I don't see any movement there under current circumstances.

 

[Texas Proud]

I saw this in today's New York Times:

NYT: Health Chaos Ahead

Obviously, it's an OpEd, but still interesting.

A very interesting article.... and I do not see him with an ax to grind (I think he is liberal, but not sure... he does have good opinions when on the talk shows)...


I think the telling paragraph is this (my bold):

"Then there is the cost cascade. Nearly everybody not in the employ of the administration agrees this law does not solve the cost problem, and many of the recent regulatory decisions will send costs higher. A study in California found that premiums could increase by an average of 20 percent for people not covered by federal subsidies. A study by the Society of Actuaries found that by 2017 costs could rise by 32 percent for insurers covering people in the individual exchanges, and as high as 80 percent in states like Ohio."


Not trying to bring bacon... just pointing out that Obamacare does not solve the problem that Obamacare was supposed to solve...

 

[bUU]

Also not trying to bring bacon, and keeping this completely factual, based on the actual wording of the law... ACA is supposed to solve the problem of lack of affordability of health coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, with conditions that otherwise would exceed a lifetime cap, etc., as well as with regard to the working poor, in general. Not for everyone.

And it definitely does those things.

If the objective was to lower health care costs overall, then there was a completely different approach available. That just simply wasn't the objective that we decided to pursue as a nation.

 

[travelover]

And with an eye on Porky - there are two elements of health care under discussion. One is cost shifting among the insured to benefit the previously uninsurable, the second is the general high cost of healthcare in general in the US, as compared to other western nations.

I'm sure that no one would try to take political advantage over confusion between the two.

 

[ziggy29]

How long before the subsidies get taxed.

Here's a question: If you expect to have low income in 2014 but high income in 2012 (guilty as charged), and you pay "full price" for HI in 2014 and you itemize the cost of HI above 10% of AGI, will the subsidy you get as a tax credit off your 2014 return itself be taxable, since you wrote off much of what you paid? The mind boggles.

 

[bUU]

the second is the general high cost of healthcare in general in the US, as compared to other western nations.

And that would definitely make a great topic for a discussion thread.

Here's a question: If you expect to have low income in 2014 but high income in 2012 (guilty as charged), and you pay "full price" for HI in 2014 and you itemize the cost of HI above 10% of AGI, will the subsidy you get as a tax credit off your 2014 return itself be taxable, since you wrote off much of what you paid? The mind boggles.

Interesting. I sure hope that they thought of that scenario.

 

[ziggy29]

Interesting. I sure hope that they thought of that scenario.

It *seems* to me the logical thing to do would be to take a tax credit *instead* of a Schedule A deduction on your 2014 tax return, but we're talking about the IRS so you never know.

 

[wmc1000]

Ziggy29 - right you are - credits are so much better than deductions!

 

[ERD50]

Also not trying to bring bacon, and keeping this completely factual, based on the actual wording of the law... ACA is supposed to solve the problem of lack of affordability of health coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, with conditions that otherwise would exceed a lifetime cap, etc., as well as with regard to the working poor, in general. Not for everyone.

And it definitely does those things.

If the objective was to lower health care costs overall, then there was a completely different approach available. That just simply wasn't the objective that we decided to pursue as a nation.

OK, but there is no reason for them to be mutually exclusive.

For the most part, the people w/o coverage (for whatever reason) were getting treated. It might have bankrupted them, or they might have been subsidized one way or the other. But it is still a 'cost' in terms of 'total health care cost' for the nation. So from a total cost POV, covering these people probably won't add much to overall health care spending, if done reasonably efficiently - it could lower costs in some cases if preventative measures or early treatment help.

I just feel there should have been more done for controlling overall costs - there are lots of opportunities that have been discussed in previous threads.

-ERD50

 

[bUU]

Would-a been nice.

 

[explanade]

First of all, Brooks is not liberal. Not as conservative as others in his party but he's far from liberal.

Second, they passed what they were able to pass. If they didn't pass even these tepid changes to the the health care system, there would be no chance of more serious reforms.

If they tried to attack the cost issue, like maybe leveling the pharmaceutical pricing structure in this country, or being more strict about non-profit hospitals or change the payment system (compensating providers based on results, instead of procedures performed, regardless of the results), the political opposition would have been far greater.

It's not as if the ACA could have been swept aside and Congress would have voted for a better reform law. If it failed to pass, then we likely would not have had another attempt at reform for at least another decade, with things getting worse.

 

[pb4uski]

Here's a question: If you expect to have low income in 2014 but high income in 2012 (guilty as charged), and you pay "full price" for HI in 2014 and you itemize the cost of HI above 10% of AGI, will the subsidy you get as a tax credit off your 2014 return itself be taxable, since you wrote off much of what you paid? The mind boggles.

I would think that they would require that the deduction for health insurance premiums on Schedule A be reduced by any subsidies being claimed on that return (and the subsidy would be known since it is based on O-MAGI and premiums paid and could be calculated before the deductible premiums are calculated). IOW, it'll probably be built into TurboTax.

 

[MichaelB]

It *seems* to me the logical thing to do would be to take a tax credit *instead* of a Schedule A deduction on your 2014 tax return, but we're talking about the IRS so you never know.

The tax credit should always be greater than the reduced tax from using the deduction. When the net is in your favor it seems like a pretty straightforward process to get it, just net it when filing. The issue I see is when the real income is higher so the subsidy earned is less than the one given upfront.

The Brooks OpEd is a laundry list of potential and real issues and problems. He can do better than that, and should. The lack of cost reduction is a red herring, because that never has been part of the this initiative.

 

[youbet]

They probably won't ever be.

Unless they are.