<p>Preironic, </p>
<p>I understand what you are saying. This legislation was extraordinarily complex, far more than it needed to be. There are winners and losers. Unfortunately, we are not allowed to discuss what should be changed on ACA to keep it simple. That went out the window pretty much from the get go.</p>
<p>Insurance companies may win. Others may lose. It is so simple.</p>
<p>If my money was tied up in tax deferred accounts, I would also be looking for ways to save money. If the law is structured in a way that assets are excluded, then the law can be changed, if that is intent of our legislature. </p>
<p>This is how those with wealth, keep it. </p>
<p>The trick is getting to that point.</p>
<p>Maybe we can back on task by simply stating what is happening to each of us next year. This information for other people is scattered sparsely through this thread and buried in posts about other issues.</p>
<p>My husband and I are on COBRA. 2013 premiums $750 VS 2014 premiums of $1250.
2013 - $1000 deductible each, 70% coverage until $5000 out of pocket, deductible does not apply to prescriptions
2014 - $1500 deductible each, 70% coverage until $6000 out of pocket, deductible applies to prescriptions</p>
<p>No state exchange here in Texas. Just over income for subsidy on federal exchange.</p>
<p>I expect there to be a lot of fraud in this program, just like with every other gov’t program. But I also do not expect much to be done about it, considering the IRS is administering the program, and already has so much on its plate with “regular” tax reporting and fraud, much of which is unaddressed.</p>
<p>A lot of what we are referring to includes actions already set as legal- eg, there are “tax deferred” accounts, allowances for this and that. Even looking at AGI/MAGI is all about what is already allowed, set as precedent. Just try to separate this from any argument against ACA or how ACA works for one person versus another.</p>
<p>“Most of what needs to go are the complexities added by initial compromises.” Yes, the initial compromises led to some of the headaches. “Compromise,” not something dictatorial. It took, right or wrong, a lot of people to put this together.</p>
<p>In the end, we are one freaking big country, with many sorts of needs to fill and many masters to serve. It’s not possible, imo, to do it all for one group [picking on this comment, just to make this point: taking care of the young and solidifying the middle-class] at the expense of other groups. And, don’t forget that we are a federal system of governing.</p>
<p>“real data from real people signing up for health care for next year”</p>
<p>Not sure what you are looking for. People are trying to help others when they show up and ask questions. No one comes here to post because they have been successful in obtaining insurance which means those with issues can choose or not choose to come.</p>
<p>"No state exchange here in Texas. Just over income for subsidy on federal exchange. "</p>
<p>You should be set then. Call your local insurance agent and sign up if you know which plan works for you. There is no need to go through dot gov if you have no subsidy awaiting you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LF, Are you saying assets were always excluded in consideration for getting gov handouts?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The pay also has to be market place wage as I call it or fair and reasonable, as LF called it, and it morphed to defensible. Since almost anything can be defensible…… I am not judging.</p>
<p>Several of us have been successful.</p>
<p>I’m not here because I was stumped. I knew the sort of decision process it would be for me and the level of analysis I would expect of myself.</p>
<p>Igloo, this is exactly what I mind: I say tax code already includes certain actions that are allowed and legal- eg,the notion of a tax-deferred account. Or how certain other investments or expenses are reportable or not, deductible or not, etc. And the fast comeback is a question about…govt handouts? Huh? it’s legal to set up a T-D account, has been, is used by many, serves purposes of its own for the economy— and you tie it to govt handouts? A gauntlet tossed down? At best, a misleading connection.</p>
<p>Am I allowed to say: I would like GP to apologize.</p>
<p>OKay let me rephrase as well as I can,</p>
<p>Have the assets been always excluded in consideration for getting food stamps, medicaid in the past, and other safety nets? Just yes or no.</p>
<p>Why not tell us- and include why that is relevant here? You don’t like it- but the thread is supposed to stay off what we wish were so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No ‘ifs’ about it. The ACA excludes assets, just like FAFSA – since this is a college board – excludes some assets, such as home equity or those from “family” offshore. Congress makes those distinctions all the time.</p>
<p>As long as someone follows the rules…</p>
<p>bb Does ACA exclude assets to the same extent of FAFSA, just some assets? I am not being contentious in spite of what LF is trying to make it to be. I initially thought they included all assets in determining poverty level. Half way through this thread I learned that all assets are excluded. Now, it seems only some assets are excluded. I don’t object to excluding retiremnet funds or principal home equity, maybe.</p>
<p>Subsidies are based on income only. That part is very simple.</p>
<p>"It’s a sad state of affairs the way we nonchallantly steal from those who are younger than us. "</p>
<p>That is what I tell my kids when they complain about my views - they will be stuck holding the bag and I will be dead. :p</p>
<p>Dstark has been trying to provide evidence that ACA will be net positive on the budget. I want to believe him until there is evidence otherwise.</p>
<p>Speaking of tax-deferred accounts: Hey preironic, if you are in fact just above subsidy level, you might want to take a look at sheltering some of your income. Your insurance premiums are $15,000 a year, but if you could bring your income down to below subsidy level, your premiums would be about $5700 a year.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s what I thought. Isn’t that beyond the standard practice in determining aids of any kind? That’s what I was asking in #7106. I think LF needs to apologize to me then.</p>
<p>I have a sister who is an unemployed millionaire. I thought about whether she would be eligible for subsidies, but I know she needs to pay property taxes on the home she paid $2mill for, so that means she will need to realize about $20K in income to do that, right? Add her living expenses for herself and her son still at home, and then I don’t know whether she could stay within eligibility limits.</p>
<p>A question: Which is cheaper for the government? Insuring a healthy young adult via Medicaid, or via the maximum subsidy for a private policy on the exchange? I do not completely understand how Medicaid works. I know if the gov’t is subsidizing a monthly premium on the exchange, then the gov’t will be out-of-pocket $1k+ per year, even if the subscriber never goes to the doctor. If that person were covered under Medicaid, does it cost the gov’t anything if that person never goes to the doctor? This is a scenario in which I can see exaggerating your income to stay off Medicaid could cost us more.</p>
<p>Texaspg, this video on How We Pay For Obamacare just came out on Healthcare Triage:</p>
<p><a href=“How We Pay for Obamacare: Healthcare Triage #6 - YouTube”>How We Pay for Obamacare: Healthcare Triage #6 - YouTube;
<p>Bay, the way it works; if she need $100K to live on, she may get it by generating taxable income of only about $10K if she sells securities that appreciated 10%.</p>
<p>Bay, Does you sister get umployment benefit? How does the extended unemployment benefit work? Do they exclude the assets? I think everyone should get the regular unemployment benefits that they paid into millionaires and non millionaires. But not the extended benefits.</p>