<p>Yeah, $1536 a year for bronze is what I’m getting. I understand how that may not be a problem to some of you, but it is still a problem for us, as it represents a significant part of our spendable income. It’s not that I don’t think it’s a low cost for health insurance; rather, even if it’s cheap, it is still too expensive given the amount of spendable income some families, including myself, have. I’m sure there will be some sort exemption from low income families or at least a delay. I’ll have to look into that.</p>
<p>92tiger16,</p>
<p>In addition to the sliding scale income-based subsidies for purchases of health insurance on the exchanges, a majority of states have passed or will pass legislation expanding Medicaid eligibility. If your family lives in one of those states and their income is low enough, they might become Medicaid-eligible and would not be required to purchase health insurance on the exchange. The intent of the authors of the ACA was to have all states expand Medicaid, but this was thwarted by the Supreme Court ruling that the principal mechanism to induce states to go along–the threat to cut off all Medicaid funding if they didn’t–was unconstitutionally coercive. With that threat out of the way, a number of states, mostly in the South and interior West, have dug in their heels politically against Medicaid expansion. IMO states’ refusal to expand Medicaid when the federal government will pay almost the entire cost is much more harmful to low-income people than the ACA; but I don’t think it’s an Equal Protection violation.</p>
<p>There is no Equal Protection argument here. There is no facial discrimination against any protected class (race, religion, national origin) or semi-protected class (gender). The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that low-income persons are not a protected class for Equal Protection purposes. That means the only possible Equal Protection argument is that the distinctions drawn by the statute are not rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective. I’m not even sure what distinctions you’d be talking about, since the ACA requires everyone to have health insurance (whether employer-provided, government-provided as under Medicare or Medicaid or certain other state and federal programs, or purchased through an exchange), or alternatively to pay a penalty (tax) of $95 or 1% of income, whichever is higher. Those provisions apply to everyone. Even the wealthiest zillionaire who doesn’t care to buy health insurance because he’s wealthy enough to self-insure against any medical need is subject to the same requirements: get health insurance, or pay the tax. And surely the Supreme Court is not going to say that the ACA isn’t animated by a legitimate governmental interest. Some might think it’s an unwise way to achieve that interest, others may think it’s likely to be ineffective, but that’s not enough to establish an Equal Protection violation.</p>
<p>And, underlying all this, despite worries about this category or that, is that the longer one goes without medical services, the increased risk that something later discovered will be at a stage that is high cost to remedy and all the more threatening.</p>
<p>92tiger16: $1536 a year is less than $30 a week. That’s incredibly cheap for health insurance and, frankly, it’s hard to understand how your family can’t budget in $30/week. I say this as someone who, at times in my life, earned very little money. </p>
<p>But if your family truly can’t come up with $30/week, then pay the fee and take your chance that someone will get cancer or a stroke or in an accident and then you’ll be on the hook for many, many thousands of dollars. </p>
<p>Note that you can’t just sign up for insurance when you need it. There is an open enrollment period and, if you’re after that time, you’re responsible for all those costs incurred before the next time enrollment opens.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, there is an alternative of sorts: you can forego the insurance and pay the penalty. I believe the penalty is $95 or 1% of income, whichever is greater. So on an income of $40,000, the penalty would be $400. That’s cheaper than buying the insurance, even with the subsidy. A lot of people are probably going to elect to pay the penalty. </p>
<p>But then you need to consider that you’re either paying $400 and getting nothing for it, or paying an additional $1136–or $94.67 per month–and getting health insurance. I think it’s pretty clear what the economically rational choice is there, though I can understand that for some people of modest means even coming up with $100/month–actually $128 a month to get to $1536–is a real challenge.</p>
<p>^that keeps going up each year until it hits a cap. As I see it, there is little to no choice but to purchase the insurance and rebudget around it. Just gotta love Big Brotha! Thank you all for your suggestions!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>With an 40k annual income, you have (before taxes) $3,333/month. What are you considering “spendable” income? Are you saying that your family cannot squeeze $128 out of $3333 to pay for health insurance?</p>
<p>Does anyone know whether the penalty is based on the income after deductions? </p>
<p>If that is the case, It might be more like 200-250 for a 40k income.</p>
<p>93tiger, the wealthy would buy the insurance instead of paying the penalty. </p>
<p>The benefit of owning the insurance for your family exceeds the cost. That is a winner. The penalty is a loser.</p>
<p>Copy the wealthy. 
Go with the winning choice.</p>
<p>What subjects are you interested in?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The penalty is actually $95 per uninsured adult and $47.50 per uninsured child, or 1% of income, whichever is greater.</p>
<p>According to the Kaiser Foundation, “income” is defined as “total income in excess of the filing threshold ($10,000 for an individual and $20,000 for a family in 2013).” There is no penalty for those whose income is so low that they don’t need to file tax returns.</p>
<p>I take it from this definition they work with gross income. But for a family of 3 with a $40,000 gross income, “income” for this purpose would be $20,000 (the amount in excess of the $20,000 filing threshold). 1% of $20,000 is $200. But if the family consists of 2 adults and one child, the flat-rate penalty would be higher: $95 + $95 + $47.50 = $237.50. That’s for 2014.</p>
<p>In 2015, the penalties are much stiffer: $325 per adult and $162.50 per child, up to a maximum of $975 per family. So our hypothetical family of 3 earning $40K would pay the higher of $400 (2% of the $20K in gross income over the $20K filing threshold) or the flat-rate penalty which is now $812.50 ($325 X 2, plus $162.50). At this point, their of $812.50 penalty is getting pretty close to the cost of the insurance after the subsidy.</p>
<p>By 2016, it’s cheaper for this family to buy the insurance because the flat-rate penalty goes up to $695 per adult and $347.50 child, up to a family maximum of $2,085, or 2.5% of income, whichever is greater. So our hypothetical family of 3 earning $40K would pay a penalty of $1,737.50 ($695 X 2, plus $347.50). By buying the insurance they’d save $500 and get health insurance to boot.</p>
<p>EDIT: Actually, there’s a cap. “The penalty cannot be greater than the national average annual premium for Bronze coverage in an Exchange.” So they’re just taking the penalty to the point that it’s more or less a wash: buy the cheapest plan or pay the penalty, it will cost you about the same.</p>
<p>[The</a> Requirement to Buy Coverage Under the Affordable Care Act | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation](<a href=“http://kff.org/infographic/the-requirement-to-buy-coverage-under-the-affordable-care-act/]The”>The Requirement to Buy Coverage Under the Affordable Care Act | KFF)</p>
<p>
I’m hoping most people who fall into that category would be eligible for Medicaid. </p>
<p>I’m interested to see what sort of PR campaign occurs in October to get everyone to realize it’s time to sign up. With all the confusion about ACA, I think a lot of people will just ignore whatever they’re hearing.</p>
<p>Frankly, tiger’s family may already be stretched by their portion of any college expenses, even on Ivy aid. Most of us know that one. </p>
<p>Question: what’s total family income? With the kids’ earnings? I mean, kids over 21, based at home, no employer insurance. Or just the parents’ 1040?</p>
<p>Is it just me, or is the news coverage just awful?</p>
<p>I keep reading articles about premiums that either don’t mention the subsidies or wait until far into the article to mention they’re available.</p>
<p>And I keep running into people who think everyone has to buy through the exchanges. They’ll say, Obama said we could keep our insurance but now we have to buy this new insurance. When I ask questions, it turns out that they can keep their insurance.</p>
<p>Momfromme, not every employer has made a final decision yet. In my field, most have not, so people aren’t necessarily ignorant, uninformed or biased. The entire situation is still evolving across the board.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have NO idea what tiger’s family situation is, so this comment is not about tiger’s family, but a general comment. It’s all about priorities, but it’s my OPINION that people shouldn’t be going to a college that so depletes their family’s resources that they cannot afford health insurance.</p>
<p>The news coverage is terrible.</p>
<p>93tiger’s family is stretched.</p>
<p>93tiger, does the author of the piece you quoted have health insurance? </p>
<p>Can your family buy equivalent health insurance for a lower rate without ACA or with ACA?
The costs are lower with ACA. Right? ACA is a great deal for your familiy. Maybe that isnt the case for the author or lawyer that you mentioned. </p>
<p>I am curious. Is there anybody in this thread who is telling his or her kid to pay the penalty and not buy health insurance?</p>
<p>@dstark–if the parents have coverage the kids won’t have to think about it until age 26. I wonder how having insurance to that age–as opposed to losing it earlier–will affect young adults thinking about it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Tiger: make sure that you compare the exchange policies with what is required by your college. To waive Pton’s coverage, you will need to obtain “comparable” coverage (however defined). Just make sure the Bronze plan, or whichever one you choose, will be considered “comparable”.</p>
<p>^ I think it would be complicated. The plans won’t start until January while he must be insured now going back to college.</p>
<p>I know latichever… I didnt mean our kids were still kids. I have a 27 year old. :)</p>
<p>My brother did not have health insurance and when he was about 40 he collapsed in a parking lot with a kidney stone. Cost him a lot of money. My parents helped him buy insurance for awhile after that. Now he is covered with an employer. Nobody knew he did not have insurance.</p>
<p>Hopefully when our kids are 27, they are going to buy health insurance. My 27 year old does have insurance. </p>
<p>One thing about the exchanges is it should be easier to change insurance companies for most of us. There is going to be a lot more transparency in what is covered and what are the insurance costs.</p>