House votes to repeal medical device tax

[chanel]

The House voted Thursday to repeal the Affordable Care Act’s tax on medical devices and its restrictions on health savings accounts — adding one more targeted repeal vote to the record just weeks before the Supreme Court might decide the fate of the whole law.

The vote was 270-146, with 37 Democrats joining the Republicans to pass the legislative package.

The bill would pay for the $29 billion cost of repealing the device tax by requiring low- to middle-income individuals who buy subsidized coverage in the Affordable Care Act’s health exchanges to pay back the full amount of any overpayments they may receive.

Read more: House approves bill to repeal medical device tax - Matt DoBias - POLITICO.com

Can someone explain the bolded line to me? They need a new law to make people PAY BACK OVERPAYMENTS? Do they expect to make $29 billion in MISTAKES? Good grief.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The House voted Thursday to repeal the Affordable Care Act’s tax on medical devices and its restrictions on health savings accounts — adding one more targeted repeal vote to the record just weeks before the Supreme Court might decide the fate of the whole law.

The vote was 270-146, with 37 Democrats joining the Republicans to pass the legislative package.

The bill would pay for the $29 billion cost of repealing the device tax by requiring low- to middle-income individuals who buy subsidized coverage in the Affordable Care Act’s health exchanges to pay back the full amount of any overpayments they may receive.

Read more: House approves bill to repeal medical device tax - Matt DoBias - POLITICO.com

Can someone explain the bolded line to me? They need a new law to make people PAY BACK OVERPAYMENTS? Do they expect to make $29 billion in MISTAKES? Good grief.

I had to read that a few times. I'm hoping there's a coma or period missing.

The bill would pay for the $29 billion cost of repealing the device tax. by requiring low- to middle-income individuals who buy subsidized coverage in the Affordable Care Act’s health exchanges to pay back the full amount of any overpayments they may receive..-

like they were getting 29 billion in taxes, but now want the over payments returned. But the returns are completely different.


or

You are correct and we have already wasted 29 billion in over payments, that people were able to cash.

 

[chikenwing]

Well the Feds are the model of efficiencies. Just one more example of why smaller Gov. will be better.

 

[midcan5]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/u...peal-tax-on-medical-devices-clears-house.html

The above may help make a bit of sense. This is another example of who do you believe given the unknown. One side says one thing the other something else - that is the nature of partisan politics when it touches money, aka taxes.

 

[chanel]

Thanks midcan. Do you know if the subsidies will come in the form of a check or a direct payment to the exchange or simply a tax deduction? The devil is in the details.

 

[Greenbeard]

Can someone explain the bolded line to me? They need a new law to make people PAY BACK OVERPAYMENTS? Do they expect to make $29 billion in MISTAKES? Good grief.

Here's the deal: if you're an individual in an exchange (and most people won't be, most people will still be in employer-sponsored group coverage) and your income is under four times the poverty line, you're eligible for a federal tax credit to help pay for insurance. Once you put a certain percentage of your income towards insurance premiums, the federal tax credit will pay the rest of your way towards the 2nd cheapest silver plan available in your area.

The silver actuarial tier is a step up from what you'd consider the catastrophic coverage tier--bronze--but obviously it's not quite as sweet as a gold or platinum-level plan. If you want a more expensive plan than the 2nd cheapest silver plan--say, a more expensive silver plan or even a gold or platinum plan--you can get it but you're not going to get any extra financial assistance for it. But I digress.

So you'd get an income-based tax credit, which is something you file for around April when you do your taxes. But insurance is expensive and you may very well need that money upfront when you're buying a plan in the exchange. So the tax credit is advanceable, meaning you don't have to wait for tax time to get that money back, you can request to have the money paid directly to your insurer at the time you're choosing an insurance plan.

Several states are doing heroic work right now to ensure that their exchanges will be able to accurately verify incomes in more-or-less real time, all while creating as simple, seamless, and user-friendly an experience as possible on the state's exchange website. But come tax time, there's going to have to be a reconciliation between what you actually made and what it seemed like you were going to make at the time you enrolled in a health insurance plan.

People's incomes fluctuate all the time. Maybe you're an hourly worker and your hours jumped up or fell off. Or maybe you're salaried but got an unexpected bonus. Maybe your marital status or household size changed. There are any number of reasons that the advance payments you got might turn out to be higher or lower than they should've when tax time rolls around and most of them have nothing to do with dishonesty or some lack of "efficiency" or whatever.

But one of the major goals of the ACA is to lower the uninsurance rate, which also means making the whole process of shopping for a plan you like and enrolling in it (including getting those advance tax credit payments if you want them) as hassle-free as possible. Not to mention minimizing any incentives for one to avoid making more money during the year. That's why the legislation's authors tried to protect exchange consumers by putting in caps as to how much a person could be asked to pay back after the reconciliation process at tax time. So when you're choosing a health plan and requesting advance payments, you know that that even if your circumstances change in unforeseen ways your financial liability with regard to the premium tax credit is capped at X amount.

And those caps have been raised now at least once (I think it might be twice at this point) to pay for other legislation. But I don't think there's been any serious movement to eliminate them entirely and uncap a person or family's liability for changes in circumstances during the year.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Can someone explain the bolded line to me? They need a new law to make people PAY BACK OVERPAYMENTS? Do they expect to make $29 billion in MISTAKES? Good grief.

Here's the deal: if you're an individual in an exchange (and most people won't be, most people will still be in employer-sponsored group coverage) and your income is under four times the poverty line, you're eligible for a federal tax credit to help pay for insurance. Once you put a certain percentage of your income towards insurance premiums, the federal tax credit will pay the rest of your way towards the 2nd cheapest silver plan available in your area.

The silver actuarial tier is a step up from what you'd consider the catastrophic coverage tier--bronze--but obviously it's not quite as sweet as a gold or platinum-level plan. If you want a more expensive plan than the 2nd cheapest silver plan--say, a more expensive silver plan or even a gold or platinum plan--you can get it but you're not going to get any extra financial assistance for it. But I digress.

So you'd get an income-based tax credit, which is something you file for around April when you do your taxes. But insurance is expensive and you may very well need that money upfront when you're buying a plan in the exchange. So the tax credit is advanceable, meaning you don't have to wait for tax time to get that money back, you can request to have the money paid directly to your insurer at the time you're choosing an insurance plan.

Several states are doing heroic work right now to ensure that their exchanges will be able to accurately verify incomes in more-or-less real time, all while creating as simple, seamless, and user-friendly an experience as possible on the state's exchange website. But come tax time, there's going to have to be a reconciliation between what you actually made and what it seemed like you were going to make at the time you enrolled in a health insurance plan.

People's incomes fluctuate all the time. Maybe you're an hourly worker and your hours jumped up or fell off. Or maybe you're salaried but got an unexpected bonus. Maybe your marital status or household size changed. There are any number of reasons that the advance payments you got might turn out to be higher or lower than they should've when tax time rolls around and most of them have nothing to do with dishonesty or some lack of "efficiency" or whatever.

But one of the major goals of the ACA is to lower the uninsurance rate, which also means making the whole process of shopping for a plan you like and enrolling in it (including getting those advance tax credit payments if you want them) as hassle-free as possible. Not to mention minimizing any incentives for one to avoid making more money during the year. That's why the legislation's authors tried to protect exchange consumers by putting in caps as to how much a person could be asked to pay back after the reconciliation process at tax time. So when you're choosing a health plan and requesting advance payments, you know that that even if your circumstances change in unforeseen ways your financial liability with regard to the premium tax credit is capped at X amount.

And those caps have been raised now at least once (I think it might be twice at this point) to pay for other legislation. But I don't think there's been any serious movement to eliminate them entirely and uncap a person or family's liability for changes in circumstances during the year.

Since he took office, Obama has added at least 21 new taxes on Americans.

1. As of 2014, a family of two adults who have not purchased Obama-qualified health insurance will pay $190 or 1% of their adjusted gross income (AGI) in increased taxes.

2. By 2016, that number will increase to $1,390 or 2.5% of AGI.

3. If you own a small business with 50+ employees, and don’t offer Obama-qualified health insurance, and at least one of your employees qualifies for a health tax credit under ObamaCare, you’ll have to pay an additional nondeductible tax of $2,000 for every one of your employees beginning in 2014. And, if any one of your employees receives health insurance through the ObamaCare insurance exchange, your tax rises to $3,000 per employee.

4. If you’re one of the “wealthy” Americans making $200,000 annually- $250,000 for a family- you’ll pay an additional tax on your investment income starting in 2013. This will mean that your top tax rate on investment income would rise from 15% on long-term capital gains to 23.8%. For dividends and other investment income, the top rate would rise from 15% to 43.4%.

5. ObamaCare also includes tax hikes for the following: Medicare payroll tax, Health Saving Account withdrawals, companies that manufacture medical devices, people who suffer from serious medical conditions and itemize their medical expenses on their tax returns, people with special needs children, retirees who get drug benefits as part of their pensions, charitable hospitals, companies that develop new drugs, and health insurers, among others.
“Trickle Down Tyranny,” Savage, p. 76-77.


So.....should I remove "companies that manufacture medical devices,..."?


BTW....do you work for the government?