Community Chat

[terrier3]

On 10/10/2014 Georgie the 5th said:

On 10/10/2014 terrier3 said:

On 10/10/2014 Georgie the 5th said:

Verifying income is a fraud prevention action.

You tell them upfront when you sign up for the insurance what you anticipated your income would be in 2014.

They are now auditing to make sure that number is correct.

If your income goes up or down, you are asked to call the exchange and update your information.

I read it to also prevent someone making (for example) $5 million/yr from benefitting from the same rate as someone making $50,000/yr.

Absolutely.

You read correctly!

[minkbunny]

If I understood correctly the other night, the ACA does not ask about assets but merely income. So a very wealthy person with a lot of assets but little or no income could still qualify. Is that right?

[moonstone dunes]

Yes, they (Exchange) can call or email you for supporting documentation throughout the benefit year. My exchange account for 2014 was established online so the only emails I got were notices to check my online account. When I logged in I would find letters requesting updated information including tax information, requests from HHS regarding changes, etc. For 2015 it seems the tax documentation is requested upfront. My only .02 is to avoid having an automatic premium deduction from your bank account.

[PAX]

On 10/10/2014 minkbunny said:

If I understood correctly the other night, the ACA does not ask about assets but merely income. So a very wealthy person with a lot of assets but little or no income could still qualify. Is that right?

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/features/insuring-your-health/2013/070213-michelle-andrews-answers-...

[minkbunny]

Thank you Georgie for the link -

from the article

Assets would not be counted, except for any income that's generated from the assets," says Mark Luscombe, a principal federal tax analyst at CCH, a tax and business information publisher.

So, if a person (such as the one in the article had a large stock portfolio that was not generating more income than the allocated limits, they would qualify). Much as if one owned lots and lots of land or had a lot of gems in the safe or gold or silver bars laying around.

[PAX]

On 10/10/2014 minkbunny said:

Thank you Georgie for the link -

from the article

Assets would not be counted, except for any income that's generated from the assets," says Mark Luscombe, a principal federal tax analyst at CCH, a tax and business information publisher.

So, if a person (such as the one in the article had a large stock portfolio that was not generating more income than the allocated limits, they would qualify). Much as if one owned lots and lots of land or had a lot of gems in the safe or gold or silver bars laying around.

Or if someone owned a house and a car but had limited to no income, that person would not have to sell their assets. Can you imagine the outrage?

[minkbunny]

On 10/10/2014 Georgie the 5th said:

On 10/10/2014 minkbunny said:

Thank you Georgie for the link -

from the article

Assets would not be counted, except for any income that's generated from the assets," says Mark Luscombe, a principal federal tax analyst at CCH, a tax and business information publisher.

So, if a person (such as the one in the article had a large stock portfolio that was not generating more income than the allocated limits, they would qualify). Much as if one owned lots and lots of land or had a lot of gems in the safe or gold or silver bars laying around.

Or if someone owned a house and a car but had limited to no income, that person would not have to sell their assets. Can you imagine the outrage?

If those who need the subsidies are being helped, I am very happy for them. To have no insurance would be very scary to me. I just wanted clarification. I actually do know a lot of people who would be very wealthy if they sold off their assets, without doing so their income is rather limited. Thanks again.

[terrier3]

On 10/10/2014 minkbunny said:

If I understood correctly the other night, the ACA does not ask about assets but merely income. So a very wealthy person with a lot of assets but little or no income could still qualify. Is that right?

Yes.

Just as wealthy people can also collect unemployment insurance.

The only test is how much do you expect to claim as income on your federal taxes in 2015. You can keep your house, your summer house, your car, your stock portfolio, etc. and get a tax credit if you will be claiming less than 400% of the federal poverty level based on the size of your household.

I don't think that many wealthy people will quit working to get a break on their insurance. If a wealthy single person is living off savings from a savings account and has less than $11,000 (approx.) in income on their taxes...they will automatically be assigned to Medicaid.

Do you know many wealthy people who want to be on Medicaid? I don't.

Another example - A stockbroker usually earns $100,000 in a year but is fired from his job in June. He had made $50,000 that year to date and doesn't know if he will be back to work within that year. He can refuse COBRA and within 60 days from firing, he can apply and receive insurance through the exchange. $50,000 a year for a family of 4 would entitle him to a tax credit to help with his premiums. If he gets another job within that year, he must inform the exchange and let them know what his wages are. His credit will be adjusted (or may entirely disappear). If he doesn't let the exchange know...he will just have to pay back the credit on his taxes at the end of the year.

Logically speaking - people don't quit working or generating income (rental income is included as income) to get a break on insurance.

[minkbunny]

I don't anybody, wealthy or poor, who wants to be on Medicaid.

[terrier3]

On 10/10/2014 minkbunny said:

I don't anybody, wealthy or poor, who wants to be on Medicaid.

Very good point!

I think the idea is that you shouldn't have to sell off everything you worked for and saved for all your life if you find yourself w/o insurance and with limited income.