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.
Let me clarify that I have no problem with ANYBODY using the ACA. I DO have a problem with those who take the subsidy who have adequate resources to not need the subsidy.
Not me ..I didn’t get it but the aca subsidy would be a rebate of taxes on money I earned.
If I can legally use the laws and tools left in place for that purpose to keep more of what I earned I certainly will ..but like I said I draw the line at medicaid health insurance
I live in a neighorhood of 60’s era homes in the Bay Area. Most of my neighbors are in their seventies and original owners. Paid off homes worth north of $1.5M. Many live in their paid off homes with only social security as income. They should probably qualify for ACA right? But what if they sold their homes and are now renting? Should they suddenly be considered ineligible? Their net worth didn’t change.
Btw, I’m not suggesting I’m one of those people. Just pointing out the problem with looking at assets.
I assume you've owned this house more than one year and I assume this is your principle residence.
If so, Single persons can exclude up to $250,000 of the gain for federal tax purposes. Married couples get an exclusion for $500,000 gain.
If your gain is above those amounts, I'll be blunt: You've got no business being on medicaid or getting subsidies to help pay for your ACA premiums.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cabound1
Ok, here’s the problem with that.....
I live in a neighorhood of 60’s era homes in the Bay Area. Most of my neighbors are in their seventies and original owners. Paid off homes worth north of $1.5M. Many live in their paid off homes with only social security as income. They should probably qualify for ACA right? But what if they sold their homes and are now renting? Should they suddenly be considered ineligible? Their net worth didn’t change.
Btw, I’m not suggesting I’m one of those people. Just pointing out the problem with looking at assets.
Wait ... forget the hypothetical (as 70-year-olds would be on Medicare, most likely) ... so YOU, Cabound1, expect to make many many HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS off the sale of your home.
But somehow taxpayers should still pay for your Medicaid?!!
How on earth does that make sense? Totally agree with jkgourmet on this one. Geez.
Wait ... forget the hypothetical (as 70-year-olds would be on Medicare, most likely) ... so YOU, Cabound1, expect to make many many HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS off the sale of your home.
But somehow taxpayers should still pay for your Medicaid?!!
How on earth does that make sense? Totally agree with jkgourmet on this one. Geez.
Where did I say it made sense? Does anything our lawmakers do ever make sense? They make the rules, I play by them.
Your problem should be with them, not me. They don’t want to count assets in part for the reason I explained.
And btw, because this is my only residence, and i don’t intend to go live under an overpass, it’s really not a windfall....it’ll be rolled over into the next place.
Wait ... forget the hypothetical (as 70-year-olds would be on Medicare, most likely) ... so YOU, Cabound1, expect to make many many HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS off the sale of your home.
But somehow taxpayers should still pay for your Medicaid?!!
How on earth does that make sense? Totally agree with jkgourmet on this one. Geez.
It totally makes sense because the government removed asset test from medicaid.
ACA has no asset test.
Not everyone is cash rich. The money is all in the home which they lived in for 50 years.
No one is breaking the law here because this is how the law works.
There is no cheating or scamming.
These programs..ACA and medicaid do NOT count assets.
Which is why I said just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should ...I think it is pushing the envelope to far going to Medicaid ...but this is a moral issue I have.
We had a huge write off from closing our LLC which we made a lot of money from .
Technically it left our taxable income so low that we actually qualify for the scrie program in nyc where we are exempt from rent increases .
We actually had no increase for 2021 anyway but we did qualify if there was one ..but I wouldn’t do it just on moral grounds
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
34,773 posts, read 58,219,184 times
Reputation: 46266
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMSRetired
It totally makes sense because the government removed asset test from medicaid.
ACA has no asset test.
Not everyone is cash rich. The money is all in the home which they lived in for 50 years.
No one is breaking the law here because this is how the law works. There is no cheating or scamming.
These programs..ACA and medicaid do NOT count assets.
and... A(?)CA Removed all 'Affordable HC' options for many of us.
I had (4) $300/month options BEFORE A(?)CA, Zero after A(?)CA. Rate immediately went to $1700/ month, eventually $2700/ month. That was no longer 'affordable' so we went without HC, and after a few yrs... used several other options (international care and Health Care cost sharing), none of which was too 'comforting' / i.e. going without HC coverage in USA can become a quick trip to poverty.
Which is why I said just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should ...I think it is pushing the envelope to far going to Medicaid ...but this is a moral issue I have.
We had a huge write off from closing our LLC which we made a lot of money from .
Technically it left our taxable income so low that we actually qualify for the scrie program in nyc where we are exempt from rent increases .
We actually had no increase for 2021 anyway but we did qualify if there was one ..but I wouldn’t do it just on moral grounds
I assume you've owned this house more than one year and I assume this is your principle residence.
If so, Single persons can exclude up to $250,000 of the gain for federal tax purposes. Married couples get an exclusion for $500,000 gain.
If your gain is above those amounts, I'll be blunt: You've got no business being on medicaid or getting subsidies to help pay for your ACA premiums.
I am Not in favor of using Medicaid , but you do realize one can have millions and if a retirees income is below iirma thresholds , 75% of Medicare part b costs are funded with taxpayer dollars since the base level for Medicare has us paying only 25%.
We pay-in over our careers for part A not part B .
Part b premiums are based on income when you are on Medicare
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.
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.
Totally agree with jkgourmet on this one. Geez.
