New ACA Subsidy In Relief Package?

[Sangiovese]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobandsherry Just my guess, but new Administration wants to continue to further implement ACA, uses the "covid relief" as a way to shim in a change. Calls it out as 2 years so it smells like a covid relief item, gets less pushback. Once this is in, it's relatively easier to fight to continue it

Yes, this is how it's done. Put in a benefit that is popular politically but controversial fiscally. Make it "temporary" so it passes. When the provision is ready to sunset (around the 2022 election), make it a campaign issue. Tell voters to re-elect the majority so they can protect your benefits. Claim that the other party will "take your benefits away". When re-elected, extend it for another two years until 2024. Lather, rinse, repeat.

[RunningBum]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agapostemon From what I understand, the reconciliation rules don't allow for permanent changes. Reconciliation is supposed to allow annual budgets to be passed without the threat of filibuster.

Bumping this post, which explains why the changes were only done for two years. This looks like a better explanation to me rather than some political/re-election strategy.

[GTFan]

C'mon guys, stay out of the politics b4 this gets closed. It's a useful thread to the ERs here.

[Sangiovese]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RunningBum Bumping this post, which explains why the changes were only done for two years. This looks like a better explanation to me rather than some political/re-election strategy.

It is true that Reconciliation rules do not allow for permanent changes. It is also true that whichever party uses Reconciliation to enact popular benefits (either D or R) will use the possibility of losing those benefits as a campaign tactic. This is truly not meant as a partisan commentary. Just a statement of reality. Both parties do it.

Having said that, I will personally benefit from the elimination of the cliff. I hate cliffs and I hope that this benefit is extended beyond 2022.

[bobandsherry]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RunningBum Bumping this post, which explains why the changes were only done for two years. This looks like a better explanation to me rather than some political/re-election strategy.

Everyone entitled to their own belief and I'm willing to listen. But I don't see how elimination of the "cliff" has anything to do with "covid relief". I'm a winner winner chicken dinner from this so I'm OK going to the payout window and claim my winnings.

[MichaelB]

<mod note> Let’s please move on from the politics.

[Agapostemon]

It makes healthcare more affordable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobandsherry I don't see how elimination of the "cliff" has anything to do with "covid relief".

[ncbill]

please fix the "family glitch" next.

[erkevin]

Just read an article that stated that healthcare.gov will be ready April 1 for you to make changes to your status/income, etc. You have to do this in April in order to get the new subsidy. If you don't, your premium will remain the same and you will get reimbursed at tax time. For states that dont use the national exchange, you will have to wait for guidance from them.
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...iden-officials

[ivinsfan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ncbill please fix the "family glitch" next.

What is the family glitch?

[SecondCor521]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivinsfan What is the family glitch?

Not the person you asked, but I believe it is the fact that whether an employer's coverage is considered affordable is based only on the cost to cover the employee as a percentage of the employee's AGI, even if that employee has a family that they want to cover.

A person can only decline their employer's coverage and qualify for ACA coverage if their employer's coverage is unaffordable, so there are some people who have families and consider their employer's family coverage unaffordable but do not qualify for ACA coverage because of the way the rule works.

[Z3Dreamer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecondCor521 Not the person you asked, but I believe it is the fact that whether an employer's coverage is considered affordable is based only on the cost to cover the employee as a percentage of the employee's AGI, even if that employee has a family that they want to cover. A person can only decline their employer's coverage and qualify for ACA coverage if their employer's coverage is unaffordable, so there are some people who have families and consider their employer's family coverage unaffordable but do not qualify for ACA coverage because of the way the rule works.

Example from my last j**: employee makes $30k per year. We paid all but $100 a month for single coverage. Therefore, coverage is affordable per ACA. Spouse, who made maybe $20k per year, would have to pay $700 a month for coverage. This is over 40% of pay, but because you only do the calculation on employee, spouse is not eligible for ACA. Hence, the family glitch.

[ncbill]

yep, on spouse' plan coverage for all family members (employee premium) is closing in on $1,000/month, and that's for a high-deductible plan with the lowest premium.

it would cost us a fraction of that on the ACA were it not for the "family glitch."

[ivinsfan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ncbill yep, on spouse' plan coverage for all family members (employee premium) is closing in on $1,000/month, and that's for a high-deductible plan with the lowest premium. it would cost us a fraction of that on the ACA were it not for the "family glitch."

OK yes I know about because it happened to a friend of mine. Her DH was on her plan and with two paychecks a month one entire paycheck went for HI.