Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

“There’s no surer way to destroy a man than to force him into a spot where he has to aim at not doing his best, where he has to struggle to do a bad job, day after day.”* [Darleen Click]

ObamaCare wants you to know that you need to start planning to lower your income for 2014 if you want to qualify for those sweet, sweet “subsidies” (aka as other people’s money)

People whose 2014 income will be a little too high to get subsidized health insurance from Covered California next year should start thinking now about ways to lower it to increase their odds of getting the valuable tax subsidy.

“If they can adjust (their income), they should,” says Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow with the Kaiser Family Foundation. “It’s not cheating, it’s allowed.”

Under the Affordable Care Act, if your 2014 income is between 138 and 400 percent of poverty level for your household size, you can purchase health insurance on a state-run exchange (such as Covered California) and receive a federal tax subsidy to offset all or part of your premium. […]

If your income is higher than 400 percent of poverty, you can purchase a policy on or off the exchange, but in either case, you won’t get a subsidy and the policy must provide certain essential benefits that many low-cost individual policies lack today, such as maternity care.

For older people, getting below the 400 percent poverty limit could save many thousands of dollars per year.

Take, for example, Jacqueline Proctor of San Francisco. She and her husband are in their early 60s. They have been paying $7,200 a year for a bare-bones Kaiser Permanente health plan with a $5,000 per person annual deductible. “Kaiser told us the plan does not comply with Obamacare and the substitute will cost more than twice as much,” about $15,000 per year, she says.

This new plan, Kaiser’s cheapest offering for 2014, would consume about 25 percent of their after-tax income. The new plan still has a $5,000 deductible but provides coverage for things her current policy does not, such as maternity care, healthy child visits and coverage for dependents up to age 26. Proctor has no use for such coverage, since her son is 30. […]

For people in their early 60s, “it’s a huge cliff,” going from 401 to 400 percent of poverty, Pollitz says. That’s because insurers can still charge older people more than younger ones.

For younger people, moving below the poverty threshold has a much smaller impact because their premiums are lower to start with.

Progressivism is the New Feudalism. FORWARD!

*quote from The Story of the Twentieth Century Motor Company

4 Replies to ““There’s no surer way to destroy a man than to force him into a spot where he has to aim at not doing his best, where he has to struggle to do a bad job, day after day.”* [Darleen Click]”

  1. McGehee says:

    For older people, getting below the 400 percent poverty limit could save many thousands of dollars per year.

    No, it couldn’t. The savings should be reckoned as the reduction in premiums paid as a result of the subsidy minus the lost income as a result of seeking the subsidy.

    In more than a few cases that will result in a negative savings — as in, they’ll have even less money after paying their subsidized premiums, than they would have had after paying an unsubsidized premium out of an unreduced income.

    Only a confirmed low-income -information voter would fall for that.

  2. happyfeet says:

    death panels fuck yeah

    faster please

  3. Squid says:

    Just pay the 1% penalty tax individual collective responsibility share doubleplus goodpay whatever the hell it’s called, and work like crazy to get this monstrosity overturned before it kills us all.

  4. Ernst Schreiber says:

    “There’s no surer way to destroy a man than to force him into a spot where he has to aim at not doing his best, where he has to struggle to do a bad job, day after day.”

    Let me guess, Bob Michel? No? Howard Baker?
    Bob Dole?
    John Boehner?
    Then it must be Mitch McConnell.

    I’ll gladly cave to you next Tuesday, for a pass today

Comments are closed.