<p>The taxpayers pay either way.</p>
<p>^ I read about that yesterday. He is an idiot. Who in their right mind wouldn’t want insurance that only costs $21 for a whole year?!?!?!</p>
<p>Whose fault is it, if they didn’t read the ACA bill? I suppose you’ve figured out that some of us on this thread would find a way to be as informed as possible, if that were our elected responsibility. Even if the media printed some article. Or someone or other had some anecdote they felt should sway us. Ha.</p>
<p>@dietz199
</p>
<p>There’s no “hold” on the individuate mandate. The IRS just released the regulations on the maximum penalty for 2014 this past week, see: <a href=“IRS Issues Updates on Individual and Employer Mandate Compliance - California Healthline”>http://www.californiahealthline.org/articles/2014/7/25/irs-issues-updates-on-individual-and-employer-mandate-compliance</a></p>
<p>Calmom: this sounds like an ‘on hold’ situation to a non lawyer, average consumer type of person…</p>
<p><a href=“http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304250204579433312607325596”>http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304250204579433312607325596</a></p>
<p>Okay, that link seems to route to a subscription only article which is strange because when simply googled it works. That said…here is the same info</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/12/white-house-delays-individual-mandate-for-millions-of-american-until-after-the-midterms-and-the-president-is-out-of-office/”>http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/12/white-house-delays-individual-mandate-for-millions-of-american-until-after-the-midterms-and-the-president-is-out-of-office/</a></p>
<p>
</code></pre>
<p>
</p>
<p>Try reading the entire article or finding a source better that “The Blaze”. “Everybody” is subject to the mandate and will pay a penalty if not insured, but there are some exceptions to “everybody”. Some are built into the law itself: people who can’t afford insurance, undocumented immigrants, etc. The article you are reading is about a rule that will allow some people who who were already insured before ACA, but whose policies were cancelled and who would have to pay more under ACA, to buy the “catastrophic” coverage that under-30’s can buy, if they fill out an application form attesting to the hardship. Here is the letter from HHS that explains it: <a href=“http://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Regulations-and-Guidance/Downloads/cancellation-consumer-options-12-19-2013.pdf”>http://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Regulations-and-Guidance/Downloads/cancellation-consumer-options-12-19-2013.pdf</a> </p>
<p>I’ll tell you a secret, the sort of detail that us lawyer-types understand even if the “average consumer type of person” doesn’t. That WSJ article you linked to – that’s on a page with the word “Opinion” at the top. (You can see that on the paywalled page, but it’s easy to access the full article with a Google search for “ObamaCare’s Secret Mandate Exemption”) When you read “opinion” you will get someone’s over-the-top characterization of something that may be very trivial. In this case, the reason that the HHS letter issued last March got “zero media notice” (according to the WSJ) – is because that is what it is worth. As those of us who understand the metal tiers know, “catastrophic” coverage under ACA is only slightly less expensive and, because of the maximum out-of-pocket limits, is not much less in terms of coverage than a high-deductible Bronze policy. And of course something like two-thirds of exchange buyers are subsidy-eligible. So the number of people who fit the criteria and who also want permission to buy catastrophic coverage instead of Bronze is going to tend to be very small. </p>
<p>You’ve been complaining about losing your old policy and the cost of the new one? Are you hoping to qualify for the exception so that you can buy a catastrophic policy for yourself and family instead of Bronze? </p>
<p>Here, here, calmom.
And I’d point out that we did discuss this some months ago. </p>
<p>Yes, it all did seem eerily familiar to me when I looked it up. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hmmmmm…my story is ‘complaining’ …other stories are facts…thanks for clarifying your position. </p>
<p>And in the end…it all boils down to opinion doesn’t it. After all…it’s what lawyers get paid for.</p>
<p>As for my family…we’ve evaluated the gyrations, contortions and card shuffling which MIGHT allow us to remain a group (unless we luck out and no one asks for recertification)…I’ll keep you posted.</p>
<p>No, editorial opinion is not the same thing as legal or judicial opinion. </p>
<p>It’s pretty easy for a self-employed person to arrange for group coverage. All you have to do is hire a full time employee and provide him or her with insurance. Viola! Your family now qualifies to buy a group policy. </p>
<p>You can’t go on picking one piece of something you don’t t like and basing fuller judgments on that narrow view. Or finding that one aspect of a study that seems to bear up one view and running with it. Especially not when other parts of a study pointed to different conclusions.</p>
<p>It is always easier in life to criticize or dismiss something, than to answer the harder question, "And what is your [better] solution? Always easier to tear down than to build back up. If some leaders want to tear apart a major program, it’s fair to ask those leaders what they think is better. And then take a hard look at that. </p>
<p>Dietz, we have sympathy. But we don’t know what’s going on with some cases here, though we asked. The hairdresser, the neighbor, posters, a few random interviews (that didn’t bear scrutiny) - some are asking us to take all this on face value; someone said it, so it is true. I remember asking for detail a few times and getting snappy retorts. </p>
<p>And then one keeps predicting the sky will fall- a raw prediction medical care won’t be there, when some of us have already mentioned, (some in large detail,) that it has been. Or that rates will go up 50-100%, when that was nothing but some agent chatter, well ahead of filings. And now we look at a report from PwC, that hikes requested don’t even come near.</p>
<p>So how do you want us to think and react? It’s supposed to be a discussion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe somebody who believes the above to be uncharitable, unfair, possibly even wrong, could fact check it? Or at least cast a rosier glow on it?
<a href=“If You Like Your Obamacare Plan, It'll Cost You”>http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-care/if-you-like-your-obamacare-plan-it-ll-cost-you-20140805</a></p>
<p>The article says " It’s all a byproduct of complicated technical changes triggered, ironically enough, by the law’s success at bolstering competition among insurers."</p>
<p>The changes don’t seem so complicated to me: Your subsidy depends on your income, your premium, and the premium of the reference plan-- the second-cheapest Silver plan. If your income doesn’t change, and your premium doesn’t change, but the reference plan’s premium changes, then your subsidy changes.</p>
<p>In order for your subsidy to decrease (when your income and premium remain the same) the reference plan’s premium has to go <em>down</em>. That could happen because the actual premium decreased, or because a new insurer entered the market with a cheaper plan, changing which plan was the second cheapest. </p>
<p>Some premiums are going down for 2015, but that’s not the norm. Most people are going to see their subsidies go up, not down. </p>
<p>Healthcare.gov has all the relevant figures, and ought to do the math automatically at renewal time. They ought to send out an informational email or letter, saying what the subsidy would be if the subscriber renewed. The insurer also could do this. They probably won’t, but they could.</p>
<p>I don’t think this is a particularly big problem. People who are not on top of their taxes discover, at tax time, that they owe more taxes (or less taxes) than they expected. That happens. But there are no secrets here. And I imagine that tax professionals and tax programs are going to be on top of this.</p>
<p>Okay, I agree with all of that except the no secrets part. People are surprised by unaffordable 60-dollar co-pays. The family expecting a 3K refund who finds that Obamacare gobbled it up will be probably be unpleasantly surprised. And, that will happen.</p>
<p>How are they surprised if they read their policy info? Cost of preventative, OV and specialist visits are usually the first digest detail shown for a plan, ime. </p>
<p>OK, I’ll concede that people are surprised by fees and costs. There are lots of things to know, and everyone can’t know all of them.</p>
<p>Some family’s going to expect a 3K refund and not get one. They won’t like it. But prices tend to go up, not down. More families will get an unexpected 3K refund.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a post ACA requirement…so, since the proposed solution is post ACA may I suggest…</p>
<p>Any poster with children under 26 has absolutely no reason to not cover those ‘children’. It is very simple post ACA…no subsidies needed, Voila - one particular 23 year old D is covered.</p>
<p>Remember the guidelines. I’m not adding in my kid who now has employer coverage.</p>
<p>It sees like the “problem” highlighted in the National Journal article has a very simple solution – a written notice sent via email and regular post a few days before open enrollment begins reminding people to check the exchange web site to review available policies and rate changes for the coming year. </p>
<p>But here are the forces that work in favor of the subsidized taxpayers:</p>
<ol>
<li>Each insured person, and each of their insured family members, will inevitably be one year older than the previous year, which will put the household a notch up in premium calculation. (Last year I bought a policy for a 59 year old; this year I will buy for a 60 year old). </li>
</ol>
<p>2.The FPL guidelines rises in relation to economic data, meaning that the threshold for subsidies is pushed up somewhat higher, which in turn impacts the calculation of subsidies. (There’s a sliding scale based on income level).</p>
<ol>
<li>All taxpayers receiving advance premium subsidies are protected by the clawback provisions that limit the amount of money they can be required to pay back to IRS, in direct proportion to their income level – so at the lower end of the spectrum, a family might receive $1000 in excess subsidies over the course of a year but only be required to pay back $300.<br></li>
</ol>
<p>So in order for this scenario to playout, you have to have a family who has no change of income from one year to the next, and a new plan introduced on the exchange at the same metal level that has a lower premium for the coming year for their current age, than their previous plan had a year earlier for the age they were before. </p>
<p>I don’t see that happening in very many states. You really have to hypothesize insurance rates going down across the board to envision a scenario where new entrants to the insurance market are going to be able to significantly undercut the competition. They aren’t selling toasters. They are taking on the risk of paying for people’s medical care, and it costs money to run an insurance company. </p>
<p>Rather than hypotheticals – lets see what actually happens when rates are available. I think it’s unlikely that the differentials are going to be that much. </p>
<p>Keep in mind that the far more likely scenario is that insurance rates go up across the board, but without a recalculation, the subsidy stays level and the insured family receives a notice of rate increase from the insurer. At that point, the rate increase notice gives them the nudge needed to check the exchange and enter updated income numbers, so that they get the full amount of subsidy they are entitled to. Those who simply auto-renew without re-calibrating their subsidy may very well be getting tax refunds the following year, rather than facing any unanticipated tax burden. </p>
<p>The real surprise for CC parents has nothing to do with Obamacare: I have a feeling some parents with kids still in college will be wondering what happened to their tuition deduction come tax time. </p>