How an additional $1,000 in income can cost you $6,420 more in premiums in CA
Calculator:
http://www.coveredca.com/calculating_the_cost.html
Number of people in the household 2
Annual household income $62,000
Age of the first adult 55
Age of spouse 55
Estimated monthly silver plan premium (without subsidy) $1,026
Estimated tax credit from the government $535
-------------------------------
Your estimated monthly silver plan premium $491
Run the same scenario, except income goes up by $1,000 to $63,000:
Number of people in the household 2
Annual household income $63,000
Age of the first adult 55
Age of spouse 55
Estimated monthly silver plan premium (without subsidy) $1,026
Estimated tax credit from the government $0
-------------------------------
Your estimated monthly silver plan premium $1026
Your premium jumps from $491 to $1026 per month.
$1026-491=$535
$535x12=$6420
You have to spend $6420 more per year on premiums because your income went up by $1,000.
The additional $1,000 puts your over the threshold so you are no longer eligible for subsidies.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Have a look at this tax calculation table from 2011. See where it says "of excess over"? If you go through and check the figures, you'll see that you pay 0% up to $325, then 10% from that to $1038, then 25% from that to $3204. There is no point at which you pay the higher percent on your total adjusted gross income -- only on the excess.
If you thought a bonus lowered your after-tax pay to less than what it would have been without the bonus, either you were doing the figuring wrong or there was some other factor you weren't taking into account.
you are so right, what happened?
Uniquely American Solution - What is it ? Why is it being pushed?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6289091&mesg_id=6289091
IMHO this was a MAJOR disappointment from the Dems who once again blocked discussion of a national, not for profit HC system in favor of keeping the for profit system alive. This was not Obama's plan, he was just following along to keep the for profit system afloat.
And of course we hear talk of the deficit and I agree we need to do something, but it is Medicare that is the elephant in the room and the Dems did not address the issue sufficiently. The Repubs did not derail the issue the Dems did when they allowed no discussion to advance the issue. Obama said in a speech before the AMA that we we would not have a SP system because we would not allow a socialized system of HC... WTF? Does he think people are that stupid that they cannot differentiate between a socialized system such as the UK and a SP system as they have in Canada? All of the major candidates jumped on board to the Hacker plan to keep the profit in the system and the even the "liberal" media played along.
From the above link ...
"...In early June, a memo circulated from the Herndon Alliance and Lake Research Partners telling advocacy groups and other interested parties precisely what words they should use to counter Republican messages as health reform’s verbal war begins. The Herndon Alliance, which calls itself a non-partisan coalition, has partnered with some 200 organizations, including former single-payer advocates, think tanks, foundations, advocacy groups, businesses, and health care providers. The Alliance claims to “provide value-added services to partner organizations”—i.e., helping them develop communications strategies. Lake has worked closely with the Alliance in crafting messages its partners can use. She has counseled the Alliance’s partners against using the term “universal coverage.” Maybe that’s why it’s not talked about much anymore. Similarly, she tells activists never to say “Medicare for all.” Instead, they should say “choice of public and private plans.”
...Lake says that frame is “so effective” because it taps into the public’s key expectations for health reform, such as the choice of keeping your current plan and doctor—the president uses that one; affordability (paying less and getting more)—lots of groups are using that one; and finding a uniquely American solution—insurance companies and Sen. Max Baucus have used that one. But wait a minute. Didn’t the phrase “uniquely American solution” surface with Bill Clinton? In the early 1990s, as Clinton began to craft his plan based on managed competition, he framed it as his “uniquely American plan.” How many uniquely American plans can there be? ..."
I cannot tell you how many times I've been distracted by reading info and not gone back to the OP to say thanks.
Rules and subsets of rules is this one -
It is a fact that people were told that should the cost of their employer-provided insurance exceed 9.5% of their income, they would definitely be eligible for help.
This was especially good news to families, or even to just married couples, where one person's "pre-existing condition" pushes their premium skyward. For instance, if you are a healthy 32 year old, and you are the employee at a company where insurance is provided, and yet on account of having a child with diabetes, your insurance premium takes up more than your 9.5% of your income, you were hopeful that assistance would be provided to you. Or you are healthy and your rate under the insurance is one thing, but your spouse's pre-existing condition ups the premium. So you expect relief. But wait - that relief will not be yours.
Yes, it turns out that buried in the 2,000 pages of legalese that makes up the ACA, is the statement that the 9.5% situation is based solely on the person covered by the employer, and does not extend to including costs creating by other members of the family. Then your premium will be quite excessive in terms of cost - but since (as in the examples described above) the majority of that cost comes from your child's or spouse's end of the premium, you get no help in paying for that exorbitance!
I just read yesterday in "The Press Democrat" here in Santa Rosa, Calif., that of all the provisions in the ACA, that is the Number One change cited as being needed to occur immediately. And that even some Dem legislators believe it should be changed.
But there is no possibility of any changes to be forthcoming. (At lest according to yesterday's article in "The Press Democrat."
Democratic leadership is so scared that the whole thing would be thrown out were the ACA to arrive on the floor of Congress so that changes might happen that they won't for allow the possibility. And Republicans who are aware of how disastrous this clause is are wanting the whole thing scrapped. and that is all they aim for, - so I guess people will just have to "suck it up" and suffer.
Predicted that this kind of thing would happen...
