This is PRECISELY why extending the 8.5% cap on health insurance premiums all the way up the income ladder makes sense even if it means rare cases of fairly well-off people receiving nominal subsidies.
For instance, on average nationally, a 64-yr old couple earning $270,000/yr would receive...$7 per month. Of course the vast majority of those folks have employer coverage to begin with. Plus, they’re already paying more than that in surtaxes to help pay for the subsidies anyway.
(Part of the ACA funding comes from small surtaxes on income over $200K if you’re single or $250K for married couples).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Powerful. I’m reminded of @ZachWahls famous speech a decade earlier.
The part at the beginning about people “not getting it” also reminds me of something I seem to recall @GovHowardDean saying when he signed the first civil union bill into law (I could be getting this wrong):
As I recall, he said something along the lines of “Lots of people say they’re not comfortable with same-sex couples; I’m not sure I’m entirely comfortable with it either, but it’s not my job to be comfortable, it’s my job to do the right thing.”
Absolutely agree. However, pretending that partisanship hasn't *directly* & *massively* impacted policy decisions is just as bad as "hoping the other side dies".
The Trump Admin decided it would be fine to downplay the pandemic because it would be "relegated to Dem states." 1/
Once that was set by Trump, most GOP officials started parroting it & the die was cast.
Health officials track COVID based on geography, pop. density, age, gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic levels, etc.
"Partisan lean" SHOULDN'T have to be on that list...but it is now. 2/
Having said that, even if you don't care if MAGA dies of COVID on a pure human/decency level, you should still want them to get vaccinated if only because it'll take longer to reach herd immunity (especially for those who *can't* get vaccinated for medical reasons) otherwise.
Four years ago I posted my (now sorely outdated) list of 20 changes to the #ACA I'd make If I Ran The Zoo (yes, I understand how awkward that title is at the moment): acasignups.net/18/02/12/updat…
📣 Under the #AmRescuePlan, #ACA enrollees who ALREADY receive financial subsidies will see *extra* savings of up to $3,000/year or more on avg....
...and enrollees who AREN'T currently eligible for subsidies would see savings of up to $17,000/year or more. That's not a typo. 2/
📣 Expanded #ACA subsidies under the #AmRescuePlan are *retroactive* to the beginning of 2021, which means *current* enrollees will receive the extra subsidies dating back to Jan 1! They may be applied to future premiums *or* as part of a tax refund next year. 3/
I realize most people won't slog through the entire post, but I strongly urge folks to do so & to share widely...especially this summary which simplifies things as much as possible.
TL;DR: CBO score of the House version: $46.5B to subsidize 14.2 million people.
The $6.3B in "clawback waivers" have nothing to do w/subsidizing healthcare coverage in 2021/beyond, since recipients get to keep that $ whether they enroll in coverage in the future or not...it's effectively just an additional "direct payment" for several million people.
📣 HEALTHCARE TWITTER: Does anyone happen to know how much excess #ACA APTC subsidies were clawed back by the IRS in *prior* years, and how many enrollees/households it was clawed back from? Thanks!
I know the CBO is projecting the waiver of the 2020 clawback included in the #ARP to be around $6.3 billion, but they don't indicate how many policyholders/enrollees would get to keep the excess subsidies. I'm trying to get an idea based on prior yearly data.
This is from 2015, but it probably doesn't have much relevance for 2020 due to premium and enrollment changes since then: khn.org/news/for-many-…