Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness > Health Insurance
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-26-2020, 04:07 PM
 
Location: So Ca
26,739 posts, read 26,828,098 times
Reputation: 24795

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
If we got rid of lawyers and insurance, you wouldn't need the insurance.
And employer based health insurance.

As more Americans lose their jobs due to the pandemic, they also lose their health insurance tied to their employment. NPR dives into the origins of employer-based health insurance in the U.S....

ABDELFATAH: So let's back up. In the 1940s, the government indirectly incentivized employers to start offering health insurance to workers. And the IRS made it tax-free, making it much cheaper for employers. But by the 1950s, after a decade of growth in the industry, the IRS was like, wait a minute. We made this tax-free. What were we thinking?

ARABLOUEI: So the IRS and the courts both started to chip away at the tax-exempt status.

MORONE: And the Eisenhower administration says, no, we are going to lock this into place.

ABDELFATAH: Congress went for it. And with that, it was decided once and for all. Employer contributions to health insurance would be tax-free.

MORONE: And that was the moment Eisenhower locks the employer-based system into place.


https://www.npr.org/2020/10/07/92128...nce-in-the-u-s
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-26-2020, 11:59 PM
 
208 posts, read 119,196 times
Reputation: 599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariadne22 View Post
This is true only for the under-65 in states which have expanded Medicaid through the ACA. Although some Republican states relented and eventually adopted Medicaid expansion, twelve states have not and the asset test remains.

https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-b...teractive-map/

You are in California. Of course, California expanded Medicaid - so the asset test would not apply for the under-65 on Medicaid.

At age 65, a Medicaid insured automatically becomes a dual eligible for Medicare-Medicaid. In many states, the asset test is reinstated:Also, see Spousal Impoverishment Rules - also at the above link - for more wonky detail.
Which is why I put this in the paragraph underneath the part you quoted:
A a
Original Medicaid counts assets so if you qualify for original Medicaid your assets will count. I should have said Medi-Cal as I only speak regarding California’s Medi-Cal system. I was just being lazy using Medicaid.
Original Medicaid-Cal is for those up to 21 and 65 and older if they meet eligibility requirements.
Others may also fall into the original Medi-Cal program depending on circumstances.
It’s very complicated with multiple layers.

Last edited by Irishgirlyc58; 10-27-2020 at 12:11 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness > Health Insurance
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top