Posted on 12/11/2014 9:34:32 AM PST by Citizen Zed
Taxpayers who obtained health insurance through the Affordable Care Act Marketplace may be in for a big surprise at tax time."
As part of the Marketplace, eligible taxpayers had the option to receive a subsidy to help pay their monthly health insurance premiums. This subsidy was paid directly to the health insurance carrier and was considered an advance of the premium tax credit. Eligibility for the subsidy was based on estimated household size and income.
Generally, individuals and families with estimated household incomes for the year between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level for their family size were eligible for the subsidy:
One person: household income between $11,490 and $45,960.
Family of two: household income between $15,510 and $62,040.
Family of four: household income between $23,550 and $94,200.
Olson cautioned, "If the actual 2014 household income exceeds these amounts, and a subsidy was granted, the subsidy will need to be repaid on their 2014 federal tax return."
(Excerpt) Read more at m.wptz.com ...
I think this variation is robbing Paul and then pretending to be Paul’s benefactor by passing a bill to give him his money back, a little bit at time
translation: Don’t you dare look for a job or try to improve your income next year.
As a paid seasonal tax preparer, I THANK GOD that the ‘Marketplace’ (aka subsidized insurance through the malf’d web site of Kathleen Sebelius’ imagination) got only to the 6-7 million that they claimed. Doing their taxes and their EITC with the potential of credits vs. debits of the subsidies is going to be a task and a half, especially with the 1095-As! Of course, excepting for the people who come in with the Box 12 ‘DD’ indicator on their W2s, it won’t be until next year that we will require proof from the non-work insured about their monthly ACA-level insurance coverage for all members and possible dependents within the tax family.
And YES, ‘Tax Language’ is a required course, acronyms and all!
You should go to www.askgruber.com
I think the law just needs to be changed to any subsidies given to the insurance companies that wasn’t supposed to, gets repaid by the insurance companies and then they can go after the taxpayer for the overpayment. Since these scumbag insurance companies were all for ACA and pushed it so hard. Let them suck on it.
Here is an email
I wrote him: This is a letter I wrote the author :
ME: I am reading your book Priceless By John Goodman and enjoying it. It is thoughtful. I am an older women with income property investments, own my own home, I work in health care, part time as a private practitioner and part time in a large healthcare complex.
One thing that seems clear about the current health care debacle is the control the health care industrial complex and the government will have over my assets. And there seems to be no way around it. Tell me if I am wrong to believe this. It will help me sleep at night.
I am being told that I must have Medicare and an insurance overlay or pay penalties. I pay extra for the overlay. If for some reason I cannot pay for the overlay, and require care I will be put on Medicaid, and given care and my assets forfeited to the state/healthcare complex.
Now I understand that this has been a way to manage folks with small assets, in our community giving a house to the town for taxes and bills has been common for years. Our towns use to let the elderly live in their houses until after the death, then foreclose.
However the current combination of insurers, healthcare entities, and government can provide a very different picture. The government has opened a window to previously untapped assets, older people who have previously been able to cover their healthcare insurance, keep their assets intact and provide a boost for the next generation.
It seems to me that all the government/insurer axis needs to do is change the insurance price point depending on the financial needs of the insurer or healthcare institution. Less people able to afford, more assets turned over.
The other part, is how prices in healthcare do not reflect reality but instead, a very unrealistic and non market based assumption. I see it in my own pricing for services in the market.
Now I am not opposed to paying for my own healthcare, but I damned sure refuse to be subjected to or pay unrealistic, manipulated and dictated prices, which affects everything from equipment, prescriptions and services.
Both these issues combine to provide a perfect storm of assets to be sucked out of the middle class. I would really like your opinion here. You have a reasoned free market perspective. You are also a good writer, rare in economics. Thank you for your time.
JGoodman: You have provided a very good description of both problems.
ME: And my attorney tells me that there is no way to shield my assets from the government/medical/industrial complex. Very painful to hear.
Some consumers take themselves out of the market with healthcare medical bill sharing, I could do that and if they will have me, that will probably be my choice. I am not sure that the complex's reach won't make that a futile gesture though.
Thank you for confirming what I have tried to talk to people about to no avail.
Interesting that my acquaintance who has lives a rather dissolute life, who never paid off anything including her student loans, owes tons on her house, with a low payment, will be able to keep her house, and I would lose mine. Painful.
Theft.
It’s always theft.
In my view, Medicare (assuming you’re eligible) is too good to turn down. It’s financially unsustainable, but that’s no different than SocSec.
But the deal is going away. Locked out from services that will not be available. At any price. Medicare is changing big time. Read the book!
Right now only the wealthy can comfortably circumvent it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.