Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've been poking around the 'net and most sites say that the FPL percentage for the HC subsidies is an AGI number. Of course, it is the Internet, so reality could be another matter.

Hoping it's true! And, a lot can happen between now and 1/2014. A graduated percentage vs a cliff would hopefully be in future legislation.

Right now, I can think of about 6,000 good reasons to toggle yourself below the 400% line!!
 
If I'm using the Kaiser calculator correctly, incomes under $100K are generally yield a net out of pocket cost for HC at about 6-9% of income (wish they'd have a 'family of 2' button).

Is this so? Is this gross income or AGI??

Agreed with another poster: this should bring about all sorts of 'income management' schemes!

I hoping that when this all shakes out that there will be a calculator that includes the few of us that are married but only need coverage for one, not both. I'm still not sure if I should use just my income or our combined income (or maybe half of combined??).

But in the big picture, when I lose my coverage from DH's retiree plan on 1-1-14 I will be able to buy coverage at a reasonable price.

I'm very satisfied with that.
 
I've been poking around the 'net and most sites say that the FPL percentage for the HC subsidies is an AGI number. Of course, it is the Internet, so reality could be another matter.

Hoping it's true! And, a lot can happen between now and 1/2014. A graduated percentage vs a cliff would hopefully be in future legislation.

Right now, I can think of about 6,000 good reasons to toggle yourself below the 400% line!!

If it is AGI then you can put those good reasons in your health savings account.
 
The whole thing gets more confusing as you go along. For instance, I heard a number of talking heads say today that this is not a mandate.
It really isn't complicated or new. The Act doesn't force anyone to buy insurance. It assesses a penalty (or tax if you will) if you don't carry insurance. The tax is a lot less than the cost of insurance. All that is new is that CJ Roberts articulated the reality fairly clearly in explaining why the so called mandate is Constitutional under the government's broad taxing authority.
 
That would make it a lot like the folks who itemize every other year and take the standard deduction every other year. You try to make two property tax payments -- one in January for the previous year, one in December for the current year -- in the year you itemize and none when you don't, and you might pay one mortgage payment exactly on January 1 to make 13 of them in a year when you itemize and 11 when you don't.

Fun times!

I see this happening for me now that I will begin an every-other-year pattern of itemizing and taking the standard deduction due to being able to make estimated state income tax payments in December or January, thereby putting zero or two of them within the same calendar year (like your property tax example). Between that and the erratic nature of cap gains distributions, I expect the subsidy to vary wildly from year to year.
 
The Act doesn't force anyone to buy insurance. It assesses a penalty (or tax if you will) if you don't carry insurance. The tax is a lot less than the cost of insurance.
Here is a summary of the penalty/tax, which goes into effect in 2014, then increases in 2015 and 2016:
 

Attachments

  • Penalty.JPG
    Penalty.JPG
    37.2 KB · Views: 34
Last edited:
I see this happening for me now that I will begin an every-other-year pattern of itemizing and taking the standard deduction due to being able to make estimated state income tax payments in December or January, thereby putting zero or two of them within the same calendar year (like your property tax example). Between that and the erratic nature of cap gains distributions, I expect the subsidy to vary wildly from year to year.

Yeah, I'm beginning to wonder if it might make sense to put my income producing assets in a trust where I am the trustee and beneficiary and I can control distributions from the trust to manage my income and optimize the subsidy. Under that scheme, the volatility would be in the trust but not in my income. Taxes shouldn't change much because to the extent that I retain income in the trust the trust would have to pay tax on that income. It might be an interesting way to manage the income volatility of capital gains and distributions. Haven't put much more thought than what you see here into it though.
 
From http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/7962-02.pdf

"
What is the amount of the tax credit provided to people?


The amount of the tax credit that a person can receive is based on the premium for the second lowest cost silver plan in the exchange and area where the person is eligible to purchase coverage. A silver plan is a plan that provides the essential benefits and has an actuarial value of 70%. (In PPACA, a 70% actuarial value means that on average the plan pays 70% of

the cost of covered benefits for a standard population of enrollees.) The amount of the tax credit varies with income such

that the premium that the premium a person would have to pay for the second lowest cost silver plan would not exceed a
specified percentage of their income (adjusted for family size), as follows:

Income Level Premium as a Percent of Income
Up to 133% FPL 2% of income
133-150% FPL 3 – 4% of income
150-200% FPL 4 – 6.3% of income
200-250% FPL 6.3 – 8.05% of income
250-300% FPL 8.05 – 9.5% of income
300-400% FPL 9.5% of income"



There are other provisions for selecting the plan cost and out-of-pocket cost expectations depending on income levels.

This looks a lot more linear than the calculator is coming up with.


I remember looking this info from KFF last year. Let me explain how I was planning on gaming the system. Now most years my income is above the 51.4K limit for Hawaii, but not all years so I can take a tax loss, make a large charitable contribution, pre pay taxes etc to get myself below the threshold. I won't be able to this every year (at least I hope not) but probably every 2nd or 3rd year.

Kaiser has a tiered program Bronze-Platinum. As aside for a while I was covered by my ex girlfriends Platinum plan it was great basically free health care. My current plan is a silver plan. However, it lacks many of the coverages that are now mandated (birth control comes to mind but there are others.) Now Kaiser can continue offering my existing plan because it is grandfather in to existing members. Not sure about if they can offer it to new members or not. But I suspect that what Kaiser will actually do is make their existing Gold plan the new silver plan, make mine Bronze and drop the Bronze plan (which is basically catastrophic coverage with limitations that wouldn't fly under ObamaCara).

The current price difference between the silver and gold plan is >$150/month. However, in years where I can get my AGI below 51K I'll be able to upgrade to better health plan for a minimal amount $200-$300 a year thanks to the subsidies. So you are right it isn't like earning the extra dollar will cost the full $4K, but it certainly worth to do a bit of manipulation to save $1500. So essentially the poorer I am the better my health care insurance will be.
 
I wonder if any site has listed the 60 plus new taxes embedded in the over 3,000 pages otherwise I may have to print the 3,000 plus pages. I'm sure most may not apply but some will to some people.......like the 3.4% surcharge on dividend and interest income for couples making over 250K that is in addition to the increase due to the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts.
 
Yeah, I'm beginning to wonder if it might make sense to put my income producing assets in a trust where I am the trustee and beneficiary and I can control distributions from the trust to manage my income and optimize the subsidy. Under that scheme, the volatility would be in the trust but not in my income. Taxes shouldn't change much because to the extent that I retain income in the trust the trust would have to pay tax on that income. It might be an interesting way to manage the income volatility of capital gains and distributions. Haven't put much more thought than what you see here into it though.
As long as it is a revocable trust and you are alive it is one tax return for you and the trust.
 
I remember looking this info from KFF last year. Let me explain how I was planning on gaming the system. Now most years my income is above the 51.4K limit for Hawaii, but not all years so I can take a tax loss, make a large charitable contribution, pre pay taxes etc to get myself below the threshold. I won't be able to this every year (at least I hope not) but probably every 2nd or 3rd year.

Now I'm thinking of how to encourage people in my local community to support the animal shelter and come out ahead financially :D
 
I wonder if any site has listed the 60 plus new taxes embedded in the over 3,000 pages otherwise I may have to print the 3,000 plus pages. I'm sure most may not apply but some will to some people.......like the 3.4% surcharge on dividend and interest income for couples making over 250K that is in addition to the increase due to the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts.
This from the Kaiser Family Foundation summary. Nowhere near 60. More like 6, if you count new taxes and changes in tax rates.

• Impose a tax on individuals without qualifying coverage of the greater of $695 per year up to a maximum of three times that amount or 2.5% of household income to be phased-in beginning in 2014.

• Exclude the costs for over-the-counter drugs not prescribed by a doctor from being reimbursed through an HRA or health FSA and from being reimbursed on a tax-free basis through an HSA or Archer Medical Savings Account. (Effective January 1, 2011)

• Increase the tax on distributions from a health savings account or an Archer MSA that are not used for qualified medical expenses to 20% (from 10% for HSAs and from 15% for Archer MSAs) of the disbursed amount. (Effective January 1, 2011)

• Limit the amount of contributions to a flexible spending account for medical expenses to $2,500 per year increased annually by the cost of living adjustment. (Effective January 1, 2013)

• Increase the threshold for the itemized deduction for unreimbursed medical expenses from 7.5% of adjusted gross income to 10% of adjusted gross income for regular tax purposes; waive the increase for individuals age 65 and older for tax years 2013 through 2016. (Effective January 1, 2013)

• Increase the Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) tax rate on wages by 0.9% (from 1.45% to 2.35%) on earnings over $200,000 for individual taxpayers and $250,000 for married couples filing jointly and impose a 3.8% tax on unearned income for higher-income taxpayers (thresholds are not indexed). (Effective January 1, 2013)

• Impose an excise tax on insurers of employer-sponsored health plans with aggregate values that exceed $10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for family coverage (these threshold values will be indexed to the consumer price index for urban consumers (CPI-U) for years beginning in 2020). The threshold amounts will be increased for retired individuals age 55 and older who are not eligible for Medicare and for employees engaged in high-risk professions by $1,650 for individual coverage and $3,450 for family coverage. The threshold amounts may be adjusted upwards if health care costs rise more than expected prior to implementation of the tax in 2018. The threshold amounts will be increased for firms that may have higher health care costs because of the age or gender of their workers. The tax is equal to 40% of the value of the plan that exceeds the threshold amounts and is imposed on the issuer of the health insurance policy, which in the case of a self-insured plan is the plan administrator or, in some cases, the employer. The aggregate value of the health insurance plan includes reimbursements under a flexible spending account for medical expenses (health FSA) or health reimbursement arrangement (HRA), employer contributions to a health savings account (HSA), and coverage for supplementary health insurance coverage, excluding dental and vision coverage. (Effective January 1, 2018)

• Eliminate the tax deduction for employers who receive Medicare Part D retiree drug subsidy payments. (Effective January 1, 2013)
 
As long as it is a revocable trust and you are alive it is one tax return for you and the trust.

Actually as I have thought of this more and my concern is volatility of income perhaps a better solution is to move tax deferred monies into equities (currently bonds) and fixed income into my taxable accounts (currently equities). That would hopefully avoid a late year capital gains distribution blowing up my plan.
 
Last edited:
Actually as I have thought of this more and my concern is volatility of income perhaps a better solution is to move tax deferred monies into equities (currently bonds) and fixed income into my taxable accounts (currently equities). That would hopefully avoid a late year capital gains distribution blowing up my plan.
I often wonder about this. There have been times when I would have sold if the equities were tax deferred, and avoided major loss. But there are other times when I would have sold and missed out on some growth. My market timing skills are not that good.

My suspicion is in our case maximizing investment returns will continue to be more important than qualifying for a tax credit, but that may change. We need to see what qualifies as income. We need more details!:)
 
Do you really need to set up some formal trust?

For people who FIRE'd, don't you determine your annual income by how much you sell out of your taxable accounts for that year, plus the cap gains distributions and dividends for that year?
 
I am not trying to make a political comment here.... just a comment to the people who are stating that they can start taking COBRA next week and be 'in the clear' with the new law...


I read that since Roberts said it was a tax, then Congress can repeal this tax with a simple majority with no filibuster option... if it were me and I had to choose a date, I would wait until the elections to make the jump.... if the Senate is split 50-50 and Romney wins, I would bet that this part of the law will be overturned. I am not sure what else would happen, but would not want to chance it myself if I were relying on this law....

Texas Proud,

Thanks for pointing out that Obamacare can be repealed. Cobra-takers should remember that.

JG3
 
This from the Kaiser Family Foundation summary. Nowhere near 60. More like 6, if you count new taxes and changes in tax rates.

Thanks MichaelB. News media reported it was 60 plus. I really need to spend some time digging into this but have not had a lot of time thus far.
 
Texas Proud,

Thanks for pointing out that Obamacare can be repealed. Cobra-takers should remember that.

JG3

Probably not an easy and guaranteed process...


Agreed that it is not easy or guaranteed.... and if the dems win anything, (house, senate or president) I would say that it would not be repealed... I think a full repeal would take 60 votes and I do not see that happening...

I think they were talking about only the 'mandate' tax...

I do wonder if they can get rid of the other 6 taxes mentioned earlier with a simple majority vote....

However, all I was pointing out is that I would not jump on this law as my saving grace if I knew I could not get any coverage except for this law... to risky IMO.... if you do not have to worry about insurance without this law, then by all means take the plunge and RE....

Note to mods....
I am not trying to get into the politics of will this law be repealed or not.... just pointing out that relying on it has risks that some might not think about....
 
Also, the so called coverage of kids up to 26 under their parents plan is not universal either as it does not apply if your parent happens to be covered under a retiree health plan vs an active employee plan (unless your former company does so out of the goodness of its heart).

Actually, the megacorp DH retired from does do this for its retiree plan! I guess it really is out of the goodness of its heart.

I am very glad the Act was upheld. That said, I have read some speculation that upholding the Act would result in employers cancelling retiree plans on the theory the retirees could get insurance from the exchanges.

My fear is that the speculation turns out to be true and Megacorp ends the retiree plan and then the ACT is repealed or modified in some way such that we can't get the insurance (or that it is very expensive -- right now we are paying $328 a month for family coverage with a high deductible plan), but megacorp doesn't reinstate the retiree plan. I hope I am worrying about nothing....
 
However, all I was pointing out is that I would not jump on this law as my saving grace if I knew I could not get any coverage except for this law... to risky IMO.... if you do not have to worry about insurance without this law, then by all means take the plunge and RE....
.


Retiring early is risky. While I understand your point, it is one of those case where do you need to belt and suspenders and 2.5% WR or do you want to keep working at job you hate to add an emergency parachute. There are folks on this forum where medical insurance is the last thing standing in the way of retiring.

If ObamaCare was repealed than the understandable concern of how can I get insurance with my pre existing condition would give many people pause. The prohibition of insurance companies denying coverage for pre existing conditions seems to have bipartisan support. Even if the Republicans do succeed in repealing and replacing ObamaCara I suspect that odds that they will do so without some type of system for letting people with pre existing conditions get insurance are awfully small.
 
Agreed that it is not easy or guaranteed.... and if the dems win anything, (house, senate or president) I would say that it would not be repealed... I think a full repeal would take 60 votes and I do not see that happening...
ut....
As with TP I don't want to make this political but the law does stand on shaky ground until the changes take effect and become integrated into our system. And Texas, I think you were right on your first guess that repeal would not require a supermajority in the Senate. IIRC they get one shot on a budget reconciliation exception with a straight majority. Didn't the ACA itself squeak through on that exception? The point is that ERs looking for assurances that this is here to stay need to wait till the end of the year.
 
Between O'Care subsidies and the potential "end of the Bush cuts", when do we see a thread on 'controlling your taxable income' pop up?

Many of us seem to be just above the thresholds...a little creativeness would drop us below.
 
Retiring early is risky. While I understand your point, it is one of those case where do you need to belt and suspenders and 2.5% WR or do you want to keep working at job you hate to add an emergency parachute. There are folks on this forum where medical insurance is the last thing standing in the way of retiring.

If ObamaCare was repealed than the understandable concern of how can I get insurance with my pre existing condition would give many people pause. The prohibition of insurance companies denying coverage for pre existing conditions seems to have bipartisan support. Even if the Republicans do succeed in repealing and replacing ObamaCara I suspect that odds that they will do so without some type of system for letting people with pre existing conditions get insurance are awfully small.
All true enough, but at what cost? That's still a huge central question IMO...
 
The PPACA is the law of the land. Some measures are already implemented, the rest underway. Service providers, health insurance companies and some State Governments are working to implement provisions as well. Overturning this is not easy, because the health care industry is now behind it.

My plans going forward assume full implementation. I'll keep a contingency in case something happens. The important questions in my mind are what are the next steps or new measures to improve this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom