U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [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)
View Poll Results: Retired- under 65? Do you get Obamacare Subsidies?
Yes and I am proud of it 28 31.46%
No, I am paying for the insurance without help 30 33.71%
My ex employer pays for my health insurance 21 23.60%
What is Obamacare? 10 11.24%
Voters: 89. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-20-2017, 07:55 AM
 
Location: Knoxville, TN
1,341 posts, read 615,804 times
Reputation: 2987

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ektalure View Post
Self employed and retired at 61. Even though we were promised that I could keep my insurance we lost it and was also promised that I could keep my doctor and lost him too.

So we were forced to go on the exchange and did not want to take the subsidies at all. I looked back and realized that no one read the plan before they voted on it, we were told that we have to pass the bill before we know what is in the bill. We were told that our premiums would go down. We were lied to just to get this bill passed.

So as everyone takes their mortgage deduction, their deduction if they have children etc. I took the subsidy because that is the way they wrote the bill. If they didn't want me to take it because of my net worth than don't offer it to me and certainly don't write it into the bill.

I want the ACA repelled and replace with insurance that I choose to have. If I want a bare bones plan with a high deductible or the plan our Senators and Congressmen have that should be my right. And please no exclusions like if you belong to a union, are a member of Congress, if you are a public employee. Why should a certain segment of our society be exempt from having insurance like they are with the current ACA plan, if it was great wouldn't everyone want it?

What plan does Congress have that you do not have access to? My understanding is that Congress must get their coverage on the same ACA exchanges as everyone pursuing individual coverage. The difference, and special treatment, is that they get to keep the employer subsidy that they got before the ACA. They are employed by a large organization that provides health insurance (US Government), so technically, they should not even have to use the exchanges. A special provision was passed to force them on the exchanges, but it let them keep their employer subsidies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-20-2017, 08:10 AM
 
35 posts, read 18,017 times
Reputation: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goin' Coastal View Post
ACA tax credits are not considered income and are not taxed.

See healthinsurance.org/FAQs
Interesting.... I did ACA just one year, and got audited by the IRS because I owed over $2,000 tax on ACA subsidiaries... my CPA confirmed it. Perhaps the rules have changed (I really don't care, as the guv'ment will find some way to screw things up). Also, at the time, if I showed no income, I couldn't get ACA, as they deemed if I could not pay the premiums (they used MAGI), yet I couldn't go on Medi-whatever, because of the level of tax-sheltered investments....
After dealing with such incompetency, it was shown to be more cost-effective and less aggravating just to go get my own health care insurance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2017, 08:14 AM
 
2,952 posts, read 1,652,641 times
Reputation: 5292
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty View Post
My biggest complaint with the current system is a result of my being a part-time resident of a state other than my home state-of-residence.

In my home state, I'm covered. Out of state, I am "out of network." ER visits are covered, but everything else is "out of network" even though my insurance company is nationwide. I could not find any insurance plan where I'm in-network while out-of-state (my vacation home).

My hope is this "feature" is changed in TrumpCare.
Try Aetna 'multi-state platinum" but its expensive. But not as expensive as a hospitalization.

If you have warning you can always go home for care.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2017, 08:46 AM
 
Location: Haiku
4,229 posts, read 2,623,525 times
Reputation: 6272
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty View Post
My biggest complaint with the current system is a result of my being a part-time resident of a state other than my home state-of-residence.

In my home state, I'm covered. Out of state, I am "out of network." ER visits are covered, but everything else is "out of network" even though my insurance company is nationwide. I could not find any insurance plan where I'm in-network while out-of-state (my vacation home).

My hope is this "feature" is changed in TrumpCare.
Get BCBS - its network of docs is nation-wide so you can be in-network in any state. We have it for exactly that purpose - we live in two different states.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2017, 09:29 AM
Status: "0-0-2 Game On!" (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: The beautiful Rogue Valley, Oregon
7,343 posts, read 15,410,733 times
Reputation: 9563
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyronSubotnick View Post
Interesting.... I did ACA just one year, and got audited by the IRS because I owed over $2,000 tax on ACA subsidiaries... my CPA confirmed it. Perhaps the rules have changed (I really don't care, as the guv'ment will find some way to screw things up). Also, at the time, if I showed no income, I couldn't get ACA, as they deemed if I could not pay the premiums (they used MAGI), yet I couldn't go on Medi-whatever, because of the level of tax-sheltered investments....
After dealing with such incompetency, it was shown to be more cost-effective and less aggravating just to go get my own health care insurance.
Pretty sure the subsidies are NOT taxable - however, if you earned more than the amount you originally stated you would for purposes of determining the subsidy amount, you can be forced to repay some of the subsidy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2017, 09:29 AM
 
Location: Southern California
372 posts, read 450,628 times
Reputation: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyronSubotnick View Post
Interesting.... I did ACA just one year, and got audited by the IRS because I owed over $2,000 tax on ACA subsidiaries... my CPA confirmed it. Perhaps the rules have changed (I really don't care, as the guv'ment will find some way to screw things up). Also, at the time, if I showed no income, I couldn't get ACA, as they deemed if I could not pay the premiums (they used MAGI), yet I couldn't go on Medi-whatever, because of the level of tax-sheltered investments....
After dealing with such incompetency, it was shown to be more cost-effective and less aggravating just to go get my own health care insurance.
When signing up for tax credits through an exchange, to receive premium assistance for the coming year, you have to estimate how much income you'll have for that coming year. Tax credits given monthly (to decrease the monthly premium) are calculated based on that amount you provide when you enroll.

In one scenario, you may end up making more money than you'd previously estimated, so that would result in your getting too much money in tax credits throughout the year. As a result, you'd have to pay back that amount in tax credits at tax time. That payback was capped at $2500 at one time.

As far as your second issue, I think this may be what occurred: In states where Medicaid was expanded, people who have little or no income may qualify for Medicaid rather than ACA tax credits; Medicaid provided in those states is income based, not assets based. It sounds like you may live in a state where Medicaid was not expanded, so your assets were considered despite your showing no income for that year. That could be why things rolled out for you as they did.

I'm no expert, though, and if anyone's interested, I hope others will come along to clarify or correct.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2017, 02:48 AM
 
Location: On the road
6,038 posts, read 2,935,793 times
Reputation: 11629
Quote:
Originally Posted by aquietpath View Post
It's not Uncle Sam that is paying your health insurance; it's taxpayers....most of whom do not have a million dollars or more in assets. It's time your 'sweet deal' ends.
So how far do we take this logic?

People with substantial assets can get tax breaks for owning a home. Given most people paying for their tax breaks don't have a million dollars or more in assets, should this "sweet deal" end just because the receiver of the tax benefits has a greater net worth than the majority paying taxes that cover it?

A couple making 90k and living on investment income can pay $0 in fed income taxes because they fall into the 15% tax bracket, despite possibly having net worth in the millions. Should we start means testing on federal income taxes to determine applicability of tax brackets, based on net worth instead of only income? Other tax payers without million are covering thousands of dollars in taxes these scum aren't paying.

I'm sure I can think of a dozen other examples (children? gambling losses?), bottom line our system provides many benefits to people with high net worth that comes at expense of money in Uncle Sam's pockets, thus covered by others without millions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2017, 02:50 AM
 
Location: On the road
6,038 posts, read 2,935,793 times
Reputation: 11629
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbieHere View Post
In the ER forum, they brag about both husband and wife retired early, have more than a million, maybe two million, in their 30s, eat caviar and travel often. They also have a blog on how to retire early. You can see if everybody who is doing this, nobody will pay into the system. Heathy young bodies.
Is this really a reasonable concern?

I'd put the chances of everyone figuring out how to accumulate millions by their 30s and retire early at somewhere between zilch and nada.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2017, 02:50 AM
 
72,235 posts, read 72,198,066 times
Reputation: 49760
Quote:
Originally Posted by lieqiang View Post
So how far do we take this logic?

People with substantial assets can get tax breaks for owning a home. Given most people paying for their tax breaks don't have a million dollars or more in assets, should this "sweet deal" end just because the receiver of the tax benefits has a greater net worth than the majority paying taxes that cover it?

A couple making 90k and living on investment income can pay $0 in fed income taxes because they fall into the 15% tax bracket, despite possibly having net worth in the millions. Should we start means testing on federal income taxes to determine applicability of tax brackets, based on net worth instead of only income? Other tax payers without million are covering thousands of dollars in taxes these scum aren't paying.

I'm sure I can think of a dozen other examples (children? gambling losses?), bottom line our system provides many benefits to people with high net worth that comes at expense of money in Uncle Sam's pockets, thus covered by others without millions.


i agree . folks always want "the sweet deal " to end on the things that do not effect them or beyond the point that it does . even just not getting your social security taxed because you utilized roths is one of them . whether you pre pay the tax on your income that goes in to your retirement plan or not should have no bearing on anything else other than taxes on that money .

the fact your social security gets taxed or not should not be based on the retirement vehicle you picked . they make you add back in tax free muni interest , why not roth money too .it is not like it is being taxed again . if you want to talk not making sense , that certainly is a point ..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2017, 02:56 AM
 
Location: On the road
6,038 posts, read 2,935,793 times
Reputation: 11629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Themanwithnoname View Post
If your dumb enough to
The sweet, sweet irony.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


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 > Retirement
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top