- Thread starter
- #51
Defining Affordable . . .
- Thread starter somarco
- Start date
Political feasibility vs. printing presses. I'll bet on printing more money.
This whole law was centered on lower income families, I just don't see how the law, or how the Queen's interpretation of the law will leave these families uninsured or overpaying.
This whole law was centered on lower income families, I just don't see how the law, or how the Queen's interpretation of the law will leave these families uninsured or overpaying.
I want to start my response with something that will be funny to many of the regulars on this forum. Someone contacted me, worried that Bill (YAgents) and I were fighting. LOL. Quite the contrary. Bill and I are great friends and have never had a harsh word between us. We talk on the phone, email, we've met each other for coffee and attended meetings together, and most of all we extend a helping hand to each other often. Right now, nothing is more helpful than helping each other (and all of you) understand this gargantuan law, especially points that are so vitally important like this one. Working out the details together is like iron sharpening iron to help each other succeed. So, when we go back and forth like this, it's a struggle to tie down an issue, not a fight.
Bill, you're right about the intent of health care reform. Covering families, particularly low-income families was their goal. However, they painted themselves into a corner with the issue of no subsidies for dependents who are eligible on an employer's plan where the employee-only premium is "affordable". The last post you put up from NAHU said they thought children would not qualify for subsidies in that case, but perhaps spouses would, but they would get back to you with a clarification. I would really like to hear that clarification from NAHU, because this is important to all of us.
The way the spouse issue came about was the new IRS ruling for employers - the one that you (Yagents) posted a few days ago. In that ruling, that was aimed at employers, they provided a safe harbor from the employer play or pay penalties. They also included a little provision that said that employers were not allowed to make children ineligible for their group plans. The reason the IRS did that is because employers were thinking they would be able to send spouses & kids to the exchange for subsidies, (and skirt the issue of dependents not qualifying for subsidies if they were eligible for group plan where the employee-only premium was "affordable") if the employer simply made their group plan for employees-only and said that spouses & kids were not eligible. Well the IRS closed that loop hole. The reason the IRS closed the loophole for kids and not for spouses is because some group plans don't want to cover spouses that are eligible for their own employer's plan or another plan, so it's already legal for those group plans to say that spouses are not eligible for the group plan if they are already eligible for another plan.
So.... that's why the NAHU said that perhaps spouses could get subsidies and not kids, but they would have to get a clarification. The quote from NAHU on your recent post says:
I can't answer some of your questions yet, we are waiting for more guidance. But, see below for what I can tell you.
Can an employee get on a group plan that's "affordable", and the rest of the family receive "subsidies" on the exchange based on their lower family income? No. There may be an opportunity for a spouse to do so but not the children. It is unclear at this point exactly how the calculation for the spouse's subsidy would be made.
Read more: Defining Affordable . . . - Page 3
Can an employee get on a group plan that's "affordable", and the rest of the family receive "subsidies" on the exchange based on their lower family income? No. There may be an opportunity for a spouse to do so but not the children. It is unclear at this point exactly how the calculation for the spouse's subsidy would be made.
Read more: Defining Affordable . . . - Page 3
So, Bill, let's get an answer on this, because it certainly is a very important issue.
And, while we're talking about this issue, I must say that I expect HHS to try to change it so that families are not blocked from subsidies if one parent's group plan is affordable based on the employee-only premium. It's just that it adds $150 to $500 billion to the price tag and makes the CBO have to recalculate. However.... since the Dems seem to be much more skilled at ramming things through than the Repubs, it's quite possible that this will be changed.
We'll remain friends as long as you keep sending me those monthly payments
I'm assuming NAHU is awaiting more HHS guidance, so.....we'll have to wait til that time.
Only issue I would take to task is the intent of the law. I do not believe that the intent was to "cover families, especially low-income families was their goal." If that was their goal all they had to do was expand medicade eligibility. Their goal was a to control the healthcare delivery system.
- Thread starter
- #57
Alibamacare DID expand Medicaid, at least until SCOTUS gave states an out.
This grand and glorious political scheme to appease the moocher class was never about taking the existing system and improving it. Rather, it was all a vote buying scheme that has (at least partially) succeeded.
Alibamacare was supposed to be funded mostly by the pocketbooks of others.
Tax the insurance carriers.
Tax the drug companies.
Tax the DME manufacturers.
Tax employers for non-compliance.
Tax the scofflaws.
Tax the high income folks with "Cadillac" plans
Tax the medical providers by lowering reimbursements if the treat Medicare patients.
Tax the old people on Medicare by limiting access to health care.
John Mackey is right. Alibamacare is Fascist health care.
Whole Foods CEO: Health care law 'like fascism' - Washington Times
Only in theory.
Medicaid is a joint venture between states and the feds. If the states refuse to expand Medicaid, what happens then? Does DC print more money?
Eventually (sooner rather than later) that approach will crash and burn.
- Thread starter
- #59
This it not a R or D problem. States can't spend like the feds. Half a dozen states are virtually bankrupt already.
The fed money is only temporary. Smart guv's will recognize that eventually the state will have to pony up their share and states can't print money or run deficits.
For anyone who may be reading this thread, the question we had about "affordability" on group plans being based on self-only or family premium, was answered by the IRS yesterday (1/30/2013). Thanks to the posters who gave us links to the definitive answer by the IRS. See the following thread
Obamacare Glitch
Obamacare Glitch
Similar threads
