8% of Americans to qualify for health subsidies

[REWahoo]

I was under the impression the number would be considerably higher, but according to this, only 26 million will qualify for the ACA subsidy:

8% of Americans to qualify for health subsidies

 

[Texas Proud]

This was in the ballpark of what I remember during the debate..

IIRC, they threw out 40 mill uninsured...

11 mill or so illegals who are not supposed to qualify

a few mill who will choose to pay the fine...


Yep, 26 sounds about right.... but even then some of those will qualify for Medicaid.... so even less (not that it will save the gvmt money)....

 

[gerrym51]

I was under the impression the number would be considerably higher, but according to this, only 26 million will qualify for the ACA subsidy:

8% of Americans to qualify for health subsidies

does not surprise me. limited groups for this.Early retirees like us are very interested in this because we are one of the catagories.

 

[W2R]

I was under the impression the number would be considerably higher, but according to this, only 26 million will qualify for the ACA subsidy:

8% of Americans to qualify for health subsidies

Interesting article! Thanks. It had a lot of other "nuts and bolts" information about how Obamacare will work.

 

[shotgunner]

I wonder how it will work for people whose income is at the low end of eligibility for subsidy if their actual income turns out to be Medicaid rather than a subsidy. Repayment of the subsidy by those least able to do so?

 

[REWahoo]

It had a lot of other "nuts and bolts" information about how Obamacare will work.

+1

It does a pretty good job of summarizing some of the details discussed in other ACA threads here, especially with regard to how the subsidies will work.

 

[Live And Learn]

Those people who get a big enough raise that they no longer qualify for the subsidies will have to pay back the money. But some families won’t actually have to pay back the full difference, since repayment amounts will be capped by income and family size. For example, for those making less than two times the poverty level, the maximum amount that needs to be paid back is $300 for a single person or $600 for a family. Those making between two and three times the poverty level won’t have to pay back more than $750 for an individual or $1,500 for a family. And those earning between three and four times the poverty level will face a maximum bill of $1,250 for a single person, and $2,500 for family.

This is a relief ! I was very concerned about calculating O-MAGI incorrectly and having to potentially pay back $15,000 the following year because of a clerical error !

 

[samclem]

This is a relief ! I was very concerned about calculating O-MAGI incorrectly and having to potentially pay back $15,000 the following year because of a clerical error !

Let's wait and see what the repayment cap is for those who wind up above the 400% level and who shouldn't have gotten a subsidy at all.
Still, this could turn into another point to be artfully used. Manage taxable withdrawals to get max ACA subsidies, then take out what you really need the following year and fail to qualify for the subsidies, and owe a repayment--but since it is only a partial repayment, it still makes sense to do it.
I was hoping to avoid doing any "forecasting" at all, and just take the subsidy after the fact once I knew what my income had been. If the article is right and payments are to be made directly to insurance companies, that won't work.
7 1/2 months from full implementation and the info is still coming out in press releases and papers by private entities. The folks responsible for getting this rollout done right and publicizing it appear to be incompetent. This is not a partisan issue: Even congressmen who wrote the law and strongly favor it are fed up with the way this implementation is being handled. It is a mess.

 

[Buckeye]

Let's wait and see what the repayment cap is for those who wind up above the 400% level and who shouldn't have gotten a subsidy at all.
Still, this could turn into another point to be artfully used. Manage taxable withdrawals to get max ACA subsidies, then take out what you really need the following year and fail to qualify for the subsidies, and owe a repayment--but since it is only a partial repayment, it still makes sense to do it.
I was hoping to avoid doing any "forecasting" at all, and just take the subsidy after the fact once I knew what my income had been. If the article is right and payments are to be made directly to insurance companies, that won't work.
7 1/2 months from full implementation and the info is still coming out in press releases and papers by private entities. The folks responsible for getting this rollout done right and publicizing it appear to be incompetent. This is not a partisan issue: Even congressmen who wrote the law and strongly favor it are fed up with the way this implementation is being handled. It is a mess.

I would hate to have her job. She has a huge job to do and Congress refuses to fund the effort. Depressing.

 

[samclem]

I would hate to have her job. She has a huge job to do and Congress refuses to fund the effort. Depressing.

"Her job?" Sebellius? Well, she's not ultimately responsible for administration of something this big. We have the IRS, etc. As they say: "Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it." Corollary: " Be careful what you promise . . ."

 

[FinanceDude]

I would hate to have her job. She has a huge job to do and Congress refuses to fund the effort. Depressing.

Well, there's always the IRS to lean on to do the dirty work for her.........

 

[MichaelB]

This is an interesting thread, lets keep it on topic.

 

[heeyy_joe]

I imagine some employee bonuses will be bumped from December to January to help smooth this out?

 

[2B]

Unfortunately, no one will really know how it's going to work until it is fully rolled out. There are obvious issues with what will be ready when and what things will cost. Anybody that follows news on this can probably think of a dozen recent articles. Samclem's link is one of many I've seen. We've seem various businesses "adjust" their employment practices and there's no telling what will really happen over the years. One thing I do expect, and it's based on a similar provision in French law, is that there will be many companies grow to have 49 employees and never grow beyond that size. That's where France requires the employer to provide health insurance. Sound familiar?

From an ER standpoint we have probably the best odds of coming out ahead. We can manipulate our taxable earnings and get a subsidy. I've seen several articles on how you can be a millionaire and get the subsidy. The cost for older people can only be 3 times that for younger when right now it's about 5 times if an older adult can even get insurance outside of their state's high risk pool.

 

[Texas Proud]

Unfortunately, no one will really know how it's going to work until it is fully rolled out. There are obvious issues with what will be ready when and what things will cost. Anybody that follows news on this can probably think of a dozen recent articles. Samclem's link is one of many I've seen. We've seem various businesses "adjust" their employment practices and there's no telling what will really happen over the years. One thing I do expect, and it's based on a similar provision in French law, is that there will be many companies grow to have 49 employees and never grow beyond that size. That's where France requires the employer to provide health insurance. Sound familiar?

From an ER standpoint we have probably the best odds of coming out ahead. We can manipulate our taxable earnings and get a subsidy. I've seen several articles on how you can be a millionaire and get the subsidy. The cost for older people can only be 3 times that for younger when right now it's about 5 times if an older adult can even get insurance outside of their state's high risk pool.

I was thinking the same about companies at 49 employees.... but then I read a link someone posted that the proposed rules would allow combining of companies that are owned by the same person (substantially owned, mostly owned... can not remember the word)... this will have some people thinking about how they handle businesses....

The other thing that people talked about was having all employees work less than 30 hours.... but that same article said they would look at full time equivalent..... IOW, 2 employees that work a combined 30 hours count as 1... so, you have to keep the total number of hours below a threshold of 6,500 hours per month... or 1,500 per week (30 X 50)....

 

[gerrym51]

Unfortunately, no one will really know how it's going to work until it is fully rolled out. There are obvious issues with what will be ready when and what things will cost. Anybody that follows news on this can probably think of a dozen recent articles. Samclem's link is one of many I've seen. We've seem various businesses "adjust" their employment practices and there's no telling what will really happen over the years. One thing I do expect, and it's based on a similar provision in French law, is that there will be many companies grow to have 49 employees and never grow beyond that size. That's where France requires the employer to provide health insurance. Sound familiar?

From an ER standpoint we have probably the best odds of coming out ahead. We can manipulate our taxable earnings and get a subsidy. I've seen several articles on how you can be a millionaire and get the subsidy. The cost for older people can only be 3 times that for younger when right now it's about 5 times if an older adult can even get insurance outside of their state's high risk pool.

in the governments defense(surprise) any big rollout is going to have some problems. i was a pharmacist when the medicare part D program started. for the first 2 months it was a disaster. now it works almost flawlessley. I would surmise that the the new plan will have some growing pains but will eventually function smoothly.