That amount shouldn’t add up to a 15 year mortgage. That was the homeowner’s option to extend a mortgage out that long. Additionally, the IRS/Govt gives you the option to modify your projected income during the year to take a lesser subsidy should your income increase so you aren’t stuck with a “claw back” or you have the option of taking a lesser subsidy at the beginning of the year to avoid that happening. I’d also suggest, as others hear have mentioned, that the daughter and family members fund IRAs/401Ks to lessen their AGI.
Right, it is not simply based on last year’s MAGI. (MAGI, not AGI.) You can adjust or predict differently. I had the same issue that D2 was on my policy, likely to get a job at an unknown income. She might have had employer insurance or not. Since MAGI plays such a large part f the exchange costs (ie, subsidy impact,) you have to have the tolerance to explore the projections.
Also, look at this chart. The full amount is not clawed back unless the new total was 400% or more of FPL. http://obamacarefacts.com/advanced-tax-credit-repayment-limits/
One of the ongoing challenges of discussing how ACA works or not is these “one patient” anecdotes.
(edited to add the link.)
Embrace the welfare state. Compete for maximum subsidies, i.e. let other people or your future children pay your costs. There will be a number of 50-60 year olds who ramp down work just so other people can pay for their health insurance until they retire. Can’t blame them.
WISdad23
" your future children " will live in your basement and will probably not be contributing to support you. it will be need to be OPM (other peoples money) to support both you and your kids.
Dang. Those Other People better get to work!
dietz199 I used to take a commuter train with a guy from eastern Europe. he always told me the best way to get money is OPM I had never heard the term before that and with his accent I thought he said opium. asked what it means and he said always use other people’s money…it is the best money you can have.
Every single person has the right to use whatever legal means possible to reduce their tax bills and expenses. These strategies should not be just for the rich and those that can employ tax experts.
Heaven forbid a person making S14,500 a year not put money into an IRA so they can meet the income limit to get healthcare. (Don’t save in an IRA because then you wont be eligible for ACA). Or a person making $30,000 a year put extra money in an IRA to get a bigger subsidy. Too bad they are not lucky enough to have employer based health insurance and a 401 k that gets matched to reduce their taxable income up to $18,000 a year. (That $18,000 reduction is only for people eligible for 401K’s)
Agreed Sax. EVERYONE should be granted hassle free permission to use every and all legal tax loopholes. EVERYONE. Regardless how many zeros to the left of the decimal.
OPM subsidized a lot of corporate entities after the 2008 crash. OPM subsidized my mortgage payments for years, when I had them, by reducing my taxes. I have no problem being the “other person” supporting the poorest among us try to stay healthy. Such a simple, basic thing they want - good health - and yet so hard to get in this country for our least fortunate citizens.
So do you use tax strategies to reduce your taxes or do you not? Why is it okay for some and not others.
You don’t like it change the laws.
This saddens me. I have avoided commenting on this thread, but I would like to address this opinion.
I think it is a cynical view of our fellow Americans. What has happened to our ideals? I view my neighbors and the rest of the nation, as being comprised of people who want basic necessities…people who hope that with hard work and a level playing field, will be able to enjoy individual pursuits.
However, the negative pervasive mood that is foster by demonizing fellow Americans, threatens to make us view “others” as parasites. I’m sorry, but I reject that stance. Yes, I have seen some who are lazy and want to play the system. But I also see many more, who through no fault of their own, face medical needs that are extremely costly.
We, as a nation, have a difficult decision when deciding who receives care and who doesn’t, as well as how much. I say this because our current healthcare situation is not prepared (at this point) to serve all Americans. I never saw ACA as a quick fix. A lot (huge understatement) needs to be done. It will be painful on many levels, but many things that are worthwhile often are.
In my opinion we should recognize that it is easier to demonize these nebulous Americans than face morally challenging questions.
Here are just a few:
– should there be a cap on expenditures for an individual? Is there a point when we say, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for an individual, is too costly? I was thinking about the young man (20 yrs old) on my street, who has been in and out of the hospital and receives kidney dialysis. He needs a second kidney transplant since the first one was done as a baby. I have no idea how much he has “cost” the system. But perhaps more importantly, I have no idea how many of “us” need to pay our insurance premiums so he can receive his care.
I even take it a step further, and think about all my friends who have health issues…friends with breast cancer and did chemo, radiation and reconstructive surgery…friend whose son had 4 long years of cancer treatment for brain cancer before passing at the age of 15…a friend who was hospitalized for weeks, when she was trying to carry her twins to term…a 52 yr old friend going through a heart valve replacement…an active runner friend who just had hip replacement.
– should older individuals have a limit to their healthcare needs? Last year, I went through 3 months of hospitalization and rehab with my 88 yr old father. This man paid his insurance all his life. He never had a health issue prior to his (in hindsight) end of life care. Yet, those 3 months, probably exceeded his and his past employer’s contribution. (Yes, I realize I’m now throwing in Medicare in the conversation but I’m just trying to think about ‘justifiable’ expenditures.)
– should obese people be discriminated against in the healthcare system?..or smokers?
Often, not always, it is a personal choice. Should the collective pay for their poor decision making?
I wish I had answers to the outrageous, rising healthcare costs. I believe we tolerate an abusive system in the name of profit. The recent Epi-pen stories is just one example. I was upset to see the CEO’s compensation.
Personally, I know a couple of individuals…nice people…who have made millions and live an enviable lifestyle. One man, with ‘just’ an undergraduate degree (this is CC) sells medical equipment to orthopedic surgeons. The other is a high up hospital administrator. I admit I don’t know exactly what they do. But I do think about how that money is passed onto the consumer.
Anyway, I am prepared and fully expect healthcare costs to continue to rise. It seems everyone wants to make a profit off of the provision of healthcare…insurance companies, pharmecutical companies, hospitals, medical equipment providers, etc. I don’t begrudge them for providing a service and making a profit. I guess it’s the perceived degree of compensation that I find distasteful.
There is no easy solution. But I want to add, that I believe healthcare costs would have continued to rise, regardless of ACA.
P.S. I agree all individuals have the right to use whatever legal means to reduce their expenses. The dilemma is access to healthcare versus cost.
Some years ago, it was common for employer-provided medical insurance policies to have lifetime maximums of $1,000,000 or so. But that became a source of complaint as medical costs rose to the point that people were in fear of hitting such limits.
It is not surprising that employers are promoting employee wellness programs (stop smoking, go exercise, eat more healthily, etc.) due to the effect of employees’ health habits on the medical insurance that they subsidize for employees.
There is also a tendency for providers and patients to see “more is better”. While the providers’ self-interest is obvious, the “more is better” attitude among patients seems to be ingrained also (and enabled by medical care being paid by insurance that is paid by one’s employer or the government, so the patient does not self-ration when seeing the cost like with most other goods and services). For example, consider the uproar when PSA screening for prostate cancer was found to be of dubious medical benefit, despite leading to lots of treatment with its own undesirable effects.
Sometimes,the right fight isn’t to tear down and deny something that tries to improve. Rather, to aim for those too highly paid execs, the systems that allow waste, the way profit is viewed. And how your own state manages or ignores the issues affecting you, as their citizens.
When you speak of eligibility for ACA, need to distinguish the $ brackets for Medicaid vs the exchange and its subsidies.
@sax Of course I use all legal methods to reduce my taxes. It is my civic duty. Which is why I stated EVERYONE should/can/must do so. And that includes those awful rich folks being raked over the coals for doing what you and I agree is okay to do.
The difference is in the magnitude of some people’s numbers.
And that magnitude is why the tax laws need to be rewritten . But I’m not denying low income people health care that they can’t afford.
@diets199, I’ve never felt like I’ve been “raked over the coals”. I do see the reverse happening…those with less, being judged as taking OPM (other people’s money).
Btw, “awful rich folks” don’t care what you, or I think.
It is interesting to me that for all of the hypothetical questions posed here, it appears that few see the free market as a potential option for lowering costs and increasing access. The only options considered are versions of socialism or a central economy managed by “experts.” The ideas of markets, profits, individual responsibility and self-interest, charity appear to be extinct.
At the same time, few want to pay the real costs of socialism. Instead, the idea is to ramp up the socialist rhetoric and condemn profits, “excessive” salaries, and simply take more money from others based on some measure of their current annual income. When that does not work, then the inevitable option of pushing the costs forward to a future generation occurs. Unfortunately, these approaches never works and always fails.
I worked in New Zealand years ago. They had already had socialized medicine for a few generations. The people there could not even conceive of the idea of freedom or free markets in health care. In fact, they viewed the notion with open hatred. I am afraid that is where we are headed.
Meaning abolish Medicare and employer-provided medical insurance, so that everyone becomes self-pay with respect to medical care?
It was hardly a free market pre-ACA when you had to have a certain job with certain benefits to get it affordably (or at all).