Skip to comments.79% of Obamacare Enrollees Qualify for Subsidies
Posted on 01/14/2014 5:04:53 AM PST by PROCON
Nearly four in five Americans who have enrolled in Obamacare need taxpayer-funded subsidies to pay for their premiums. According to the White House, 79% of those enrolled in Obamacare need subsidies because they cannot otherwise afford the premiums that have, in some cases, nearly doubled. Only 21% did not need subsidies.
As Businessweek noted, people "earning up to four times the poverty rateas much as $96,000 a year for a family of four"can get Obamacare subsidies from the federal government.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I don't think that even with a 'pub Senate in November we can undo this monstrosity.
percentages of people that are succeeding, glitching, getting, not in system ...
The law apparently is the law and people apparently ARE signing up and it is apparently slow going but it IS going.
New bumper sticker:
“Honk if I’m Paying for Your Health Insurance”
Considered a roaring success by Dems.
This is exactly what they wanted. America on welfare.
And (many of) those who had insurance that they paid for had it taken away.
Pretty silent ride you’ll have there...
“I don’t think that even with a ‘pub Senate in November we can undo this monstrosity. “
I figure if Pubbies pick up all 16 Democrat seats and keep all of theirs AND that they’d all vote to override a presidential veto we’re still roughly 5 votes short of the 67 needed.
Honk if I'm paying for your health insurance...
How to break a bank in a few easy steps
I guess not.
social workers must be making visits and telling people, "Y'know ... they're going to drop your card unless you sign up for this new plan ..... no, it won't affect your coverage ... etc. "
That's all the proof I need to know that what I've been saying all along is true: Obamacare is nothing more than one giant wealth redistribution scheme with the Government choosing winners and losers.
Are you a taxpayer: YOU LOSE!
I don’t think the subsidy pays for everything. I think they still have to pay something.
And you are dealing with people who are used to paying for nothing. As a matter of fact, they wanted an Obamacare check every month.
Same goes for ZERO we need to expel his sorry Butt. . . . .
To the extent Obamacare was actually designed, it was allegedly intended that the majority of subsidies for lower income people would be covered by having those who do not qualify for them pay "a little extra" on their premiums - with some random "government" money (read: taxpayer funds) thrown in for good measure.
I'm no mathemagician, but the 21% cannot subsidize the 79% without their rates being something on the order of four times what they would be if they were not required to subsidize others.
So yes, it IS going...
...straight down the financial crapper.
Side Note: In other words, it is going exactly as the Obamites want it to go - so that in a couple of years they can jump in and "save" us with a "single payer" system.
The bottom line is, the old "flawed" system had myriad fewer problems than Obamacare has, and will continue to have.
I'm no mathemagician, but the 21% cannot subsidize the 79% without their rates being something on the order of twice what they would be if they were not required to subsidize others
I told you I wasn't a mathemagician.
And the insurance companies are lining up for their bailouts, too. The best way to kill ObamaCare is to refuse to subsidize the insurance companies that got in bed with Obama and Pelosi because they had written in these bailout provisions.
Call/email your Congressman and tell him to defund the insurance companies.
Not all of them though. I think they factored that in when planning this slice of hell. Subsidies go all the way up until an income somewherein the 80k range if I am not mistaken.
According to my sister who makes about $22k a year, she will still have to pay over $100 a month which is $100 a month over what she pays now...which is nothing because she has no health insurance. And her meds will cost more (?). So she isn’t happy.
State partially controlled Medical Insurance is Socialism, where competition is allowed.
State totally controlled Medical Insurance is Communism, where competition is not allowed.
Socialist Medical Insurance constitutes a partial violation of US Anti-Trust Laws.
Communist Medical Insurance constitutes a full violation of US Anti-Trust Laws.
Senator Harry Reid supports a single payor Medical Insurance system, totally controlled by the US Federal Government.
Is it Catch 22 that if you get a subsidy on Obamacare you have to claim it as income on a Fed tax return?
well, DUH! It’s only attractive to those seeking freebies.
“Nearly four in five Americans who have enrolled in Obamacare need taxpayer-funded subsidies to pay for their premiums”
Also consider, there is a cut before the subsidies kick in wherein those people are shunted off to Medicaid! Medicaid is paid for by the taxpayers entirely!
“As Businessweek noted, people “earning up to four times the poverty rateas much as $96,000 a year for a family of four”can get Obamacare subsidies from the federal government.”
er strik that last phrase, they get their subsidies from the taxpayers.
They’re getting the low hanging fruit, people who wanted insurance but for whatever reason did not have it before. These people are liabilities. They won’t be funding and supporting the system, they’ll be a drain on it.
After these people, it’s all up hill. Getting people to sign up, to pay the bill, is going to be harder and harder.
More like "harsher and harsher", because they're going to start using the stick to force people to sign up.
Of course- benefits from Fedgov are taxable income, with the exception of EITC.
...and the kicker of this is the person who will be honking at you will probably be driving a nicer car than you...
“The law apparently is the law and people apparently ARE signing up and it is apparently slow going but it IS going.”
But only with huge government subsidies.
“I figure if Pubbies pick up all 16 Democrat seats and keep all of theirs AND that theyd all vote to override a presidential veto were still roughly 5 votes short of the 67 needed.”
The minute Harry Reid pulled his stunt and with Obama deciding which laws to obey, we need to get the majority in both houses, create our own rules and then tie up every agency with litigation so they cannot move.
If the 2014 election is anywhere near that sweeping, and we can unequivocally point to Obamacare as the reason, I think we'll be able to pick up those additional votes, should it come to that. There's a lot of what-ifs between here and there, though.
As the only reason someone would use those awful web sites is to get a subsidy, I’m surprised it isn’t 100%.
Anyone who currently receives employer based healthcare and makes an amount of money that makes them eligible for subsidies should probably expect to be tossed into the exchanges this fall. Why wouldn’t a company get rid of that expense if the gov is promising to pick up the tab. I think they will do what Walgreens did, and create their own company specific exchange plan.
No, it ends with the deficit becoming unmanageable and the economy breaking down. Once the EBT cards start flashing NO FUNDS, the wholesale riots and looting begin and then the massive marauding of the nearby wealthier areas will start, spreading out from there. Local control within the cities will be lost and the President will declare martial law and step in. Then the real distribution and government clampdown will begin.
This will end badly. Very badly. Violently.
Look to the Russian revolution starting in 1917 for a template. The Romanovs (previous long term government) are gone, the Provisional Government (interim, mostly ineffective, GOP era) has collapsed, the Mensheviks (current establishment GOP fellow travelers) are still squabbling but the Bolsheviks (hard-left Democrats) are now the ones really in control of the central ruling core and functions of the country,... and their final consolidation of power has begun and effective opposition is fragmented.
Ahh, but the 21% are not subsidizing the 79% on their own. We're ALL subsidizing the 79%. Even those of us who have employer-provided health insurance.
The way it was explained to me was that I might as well go for the subsidy
If my wife and I make over X amount this year I will have to reimburse our government for the amount of the subsidy. No penalties ....no interest.
My income has varied a lot in the last 5 years, I may be a long way from qualifying but who knows ?
If this was based purely on 2013 income I doubt we would qualify
but with no penalties why not use some of my money during the year and then write the government a check when I know what my situation is ? Also I have a lot of deductions so I will be looking at the base line and trying to adjust the numbers on my taxes so that we do not cross the threshold
From what I've read, in order to get the subsidy you have to buy the policy via the exchange. If your income drops enough to put you in the subsidy range, I would think that is a qualifying event to purchase on the exchange. There are 2 ways to take the credit. You can take the advanced credit that goes directly to the insurance companies to help pay the premium or you can reconcile the difference when you file your taxes.
I spoke with a young man today who said at 23 and single it would cost him over 20K a year to sign up. At the hourly wage where he was living, that would have left squat to live on, not counting any subsidy.
“If this provision were read literally, no “qualified individuals” would exist in the thirty-four states with federally-facilitated Exchanges, as none of these states is a “State that established [an] Exchange.”
The federal Exchanges would have no customers, and no purpose. Such a construction must be avoided, if at all possible.” - U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman, a Clinton nominee, in his ruling on the lawsuit Halbig v. Sebelius, which challenged the legality of subsidies issued by the federal exchange.