No subsidy for you.

[PhilFish]

In many families today, the concept of a dual income is not foreign, but common. It's likely that in many families both mom and dad work.

Taking into consideration a combined earnings of say 90K or 100K...it becomes readily apparent that the subsidy does not come in to play (in a hypothetical 2 parent, 2 kid scenario)...and in fact, at this level of income drops to zero.

Compound the consideration with the fact that the kids may be in or nearing college, varied expenses, a mortgage, and the desire to save money...and the impact of having to enroll in the exchanges becomes stark, and disconcerting.

Here's the Kaiser foundation calculator for play and reference

Not a glaring concern where one spouse or the other is insured. But I imagine the impact of a full on premium rather than the copayment coupled with employer contribution that much more concerning to the average family's pocketbook and planning.

But then, what if the employers opt to drop coverages or raise deductibles/contributions substantially? a bona fide concern.

 

[Figjam]

In many families today, the concept of a dual income is not foreign, but common. It's likely that in many families both mom and dad work.

Taking into consideration a combined earnings of say 90K or 100K...it becomes readily apparent that the subsidy does not come in to play (in a hypothetical 2 parent, 2 kid scenario)...and in fact, at this level of income drops to zero.

Compound the consideration with the fact that the kids may be in or nearing college, varied expenses, a mortgage, and the desire to save money...and the impact of having to enroll in the exchanges becomes stark, and disconcerting.

Here's the Kaiser foundation calculator for play and reference

Not a glaring concern where one spouse or the other is insured. But I imagine the impact of a full on premium rather than the copayment coupled with employer contribution that much more concerning to the average family's pocketbook and planning.

But then, what if the employers opt to drop coverages or raise deductibles/contributions substantially? a bona fide concern.

...employers have been making these changes for years relative to compensation packages - Employees can change employers with better compensation options, no?

 

[PhilFish]

...employers have been making these changes for years relative to compensation packages - Employees can change employers with better compensation options, no?

sure have. but where an individuals out of pocket increases significantly...these factors do warrant increased consideration, no? and, the employment environment is not one these days where changing employers is done at the snap of a finger.

 

[Marcus Aurelius]

...employers have been making these changes for years relative to compensation packages - Employees can change employers with better compensation options, no?

Yeah, like it's easy just to get a better job on a whim, right?

 

[Figjam]

Yeah, like it's easy just to get a better job on a whim, right?

...who said anything is life is easy or free? BUT - you do have a choice...

 

[Figjam]

sure have. but where an individuals out of pocket increases significantly...these factors do warrant increased consideration, no? and, the employment environment is not one these days where changing employers is done at the snap of a finger.

...they absolutely warrant consideration - depends on what one does whether it is a problem or not - if you are an electrical engineer with a background in power engineering let me know - we cannot fill all the consulting spots available...

 

[PhilFish]

...who said anything is life is easy or free? BUT - you do have a choice...

well, healthcare may be free....given the right subsidy...

just sayin.. (devil's advocate n all...)

 

[Minotaur]

In many families today, the concept of a dual income is not foreign, but common. It's likely that in many families both mom and dad work.

Taking into consideration a combined earnings of say 90K or 100K...it becomes readily apparent that the subsidy does not come in to play (in a hypothetical 2 parent, 2 kid scenario)...and in fact, at this level of income drops to zero.

Compound the consideration with the fact that the kids may be in or nearing college, varied expenses, a mortgage, and the desire to save money...and the impact of having to enroll in the exchanges becomes stark, and disconcerting.

Here's the Kaiser foundation calculator for play and reference

Not a glaring concern where one spouse or the other is insured. But I imagine the impact of a full on premium rather than the copayment coupled with employer contribution that much more concerning to the average family's pocketbook and planning.

But then, what if the employers opt to drop coverages or raise deductibles/contributions substantially? a bona fide concern.

That calculator has screwed many a people up. It has been out there a long time. My advice is don't go by that. After you sign up (don't even bother clicking subsidies) just get to the offerings to have a clearer picture. If you can't get in do what Bo did and just call. Too many wild tales right now to base it off anything except the actual offers from Insurance companies.

 

[PhilFish]

That calculator has screwed many a people up. It has been out there a long time. My advice is don't go by that. After you sign up (don't even bother clicking subsidies) just get to the offerings to have a clearer picture. If you can't get in do what Bo did and just call. Too many wild tales right now to base it off anything except the actual offers from Insurance companies.

oh, i'm not looking. and while appreciated, it does not belie the point that as income goes up, subsidies go down, and at particular thresholds disappear all together. point being....even at a higher income, the impact can be severe.

 

[Minotaur]

oh, i'm not looking. and while appreciated, it does not belie the point that as income goes up, subsidies go down, and at particular thresholds disappear all together. point being....even at a higher income, the impact can be severe.

We got an Obamacare compliant private policy months ago that was cheaper than the group work plan so hang in there.

 

[PhilFish]

We got an Obamacare compliant private policy months ago that was cheaper than the group work plan so hang in there.

still not looking, but thanks all the same.

i'm speaking in generalities..the middle earner gets slammed.

 

[ITALIA]

Yeah, like it's easy just to get a better job on a whim, right?

Happens all the time but now a person has the option of doing something they may have wanted to do all the time except afraid of losing health insurance, start a business, become an entrepreneur.

 

[PhilFish]

Happens all the time but now a person has the option of doing something they may have wanted to do all the time except afraid of losing health insurance, start a business, become an entrepreneur.

not many can afford to take such a risk. in the example in my top post...a family, with two kids has little in the way of money to spare to withstand a premium charge, let alone leap into self employment. too much at risk... and too much dependent on steady income

 

[Figjam]

well, healthcare may be free....given the right subsidy...

just sayin.. (devil's advocate n all...)

...r-i-g-h-t

 

[RickWA]

not many can afford to take such a risk. in the example in my top post...a family, with two kids has little in the way of money to spare to withstand a premium charge, let alone leap into self employment. too much at risk... and too much dependent on steady income

Not to worry. That's when folks simply clamor for more state-funded operations...university education and the like. It's a federal enterprise growth spiral. That's how it's intended.

 

[ITALIA]

not many can afford to take such a risk. in the example in my top post...a family, with two kids has little in the way of money to spare to withstand a premium charge, let alone leap into self employment. too much at risk... and too much dependent on steady income

You're such a pessimist. It isn't for everyone but the option is there now for some. No pain no gain. No risk no reward.

 

[PhilFish]

You're such a pessimist. It isn't for everyone but the option is there now for some. No pain no gain. No risk no reward.

I guess. But at it's core the question is, is the premium amount some families may incur such that it will impact finances significantly? my view is yes. very much so,

 

[PhilFish]

Not to worry. That's when folks simply clamor for more state-funded operations...university education and the like. It's a federal enterprise growth spiral. That's how it's intended.

well, after all the clamor about raising up the middle class... I think it runs counter that they shoudl have to bear the brunt of PPACA premiums sans help (subsidy)

 

[RickWA]

well, after all the clamor about raising up the middle class... I think it runs counter that they shoudl have to bear the brunt of PPACA premiums sans help (subsidy)

Agreed. And, believe me, state remedy will be forthcoming.

How's that song go? The hip bone's connected to the...back bone - etc, etc.

 

[bdtex]

In many families today, the concept of a dual income is not foreign, but common. It's likely that in many families both mom and dad work.

Taking into consideration a combined earnings of say 90K or 100K...it becomes readily apparent that the subsidy does not come in to play (in a hypothetical 2 parent, 2 kid scenario)...and in fact, at this level of income drops to zero.

Compound the consideration with the fact that the kids may be in or nearing college, varied expenses, a mortgage, and the desire to save money...and the impact of having to enroll in the exchanges becomes stark, and disconcerting.

Here's the Kaiser foundation calculator for play and reference

Not a glaring concern where one spouse or the other is insured. But I imagine the impact of a full on premium rather than the copayment coupled with employer contribution that much more concerning to the average family's pocketbook and planning.

But then, what if the employers opt to drop coverages or raise deductibles/contributions substantially? a bona fide concern.

The individual mandate penalty is not enforceable:

‘‘(g) ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURE.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The penalty provided by this section
shall be paid upon notice and demand by the Secretary, and
except as provided in paragraph (2), shall be assessed and
collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under
subchapter B of chapter 68.
‘‘(2) SPECIAL RULES.—Notwithstanding any other provision
of law—
‘‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In the case of
any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed
by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any
criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
‘‘(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.—The Secretary
shall not—
‘‘(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property
of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the
penalty imposed by this section, or
‘‘(ii) levy on any such property with respect to
such failure.’’.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf