The 5-4 decision released yesterday by the Supreme Court on the Affordable Care Act would be comical if it didn’t have such far-reaching consequences. Here we have a majority of the supposedly preeminent minds in American jurisprudence using the most tortured logic imaginable to uphold the ACA as constitutional.
The whole thing hinges on this question: If you don’t buy health insurance, you will be required to pay an extra amount of money to the IRS; is that amount of money a “tax” or a “penalty”? The answer to that question affects two things:
- Whether the Anti-Injunction Act bars the suit, and
- Whether the Affordable Care Act is constitutional.
The Anti-Injunction Act says that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person … so that those subject to a tax must first pay it and then sue for a refund.” So if the consequence of not purchasing health insurance is a tax, the suit is thrown out, and the court has no further comment on its merits. But if it’s a penalty, then the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply and the court can rule on the merits of the case.
However, when it comes to whether the ACA is constitutional, having a penalty for failure to purchase health insurance would make the Act unconstitutional because the Congress has no enumerated power to require individuals to purchase anything. But if it’s merely a tax, the Congress would have the power under their taxing authority to impose it (provided it’s not a “direct tax,” but that’s a subject for another time).
It would appear to any reasonable observer that there are only two possible outcomes: Either the consequence of failing to purchase health care is a “penalty” — in which case the Act is unconstitutional — or it’s a “tax” — in which case the suit is barred and there can be no ruling on its merits. The seeming nail in the coffin for the ACA is that fact that the Act itself calls the consequence a “penalty” in no uncertain terms.
But thanks to the ingenious invention of the majority of the court, the Government can have it both ways! Yes, remarkable as it may seem, the court found that the Act provides a “penalty” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act, but a “tax” for purposes of the Constitutional question.
…Congress did not intend the payment to be treated as a “tax” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit. […]
The Affordable Care Act describes the “[s]hared responsibility payment” as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s power to tax. In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach, “[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application.”
So the “functional approach” is applied to the Constitutional question, but Congress’s “intent” is applied to the Anti-Injunction Act question. The logical gymnastics boggle the mind.
It only gets worse if you actually read the whole ruling (read it here). A plain reading of the Act makes it clear that the “shared responsibility payment” is a “penalty” by any definition, yet the majority of the court takes pains to try to paint it as a tax from a “functional” standpoint. But their explanation exceeds all limits of credulity. To quote the court’s dissenters, “to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it.” That amounts to the judicial branch imposing a tax where one did not previously exist. They conclude: “Imposing a tax through judicial legislation inverts the constitutional scheme, and places the power to tax in the branch of government least accountable to the citizenry.”
Whether or not the next election results in a new president and/or Congressional majority that will repeal the health care act, the precedent set by the court in this case is troublesome. It appears that future unconstitutional acts passed by Congress will not be struck down by the Court when challenged, but rather rewritten by the Court and magically converted into constitutional acts. That prospect is truly frightening in its implications.
They put the issue back where it belongs – in the political arena. I have no problem with that – in fact – I commend the Justices.
It’s already been through the political arena. The question before the Court was whether this law is constitutional. It clearly is not. The Justices, just like Major League Baseball umpires, don’t always get the call right. In this case, the Justices in the minority were correct: the law is unconstitutional and should have been struck down in its entirety. Congress does not have the enumerated power to force people to buy health insurance, and they should not be able to apply a penalty by getting the courts to declare it a “tax” for constitutional purposes. This was a tremendous overreach by the Courts.
CJ: Exactly. When the court can take the word penalty and substitute tax … a ver slippery slope. That is what Peoria County tried to during the asphalt issue whnthey tried to substitute a word … Judge Mihm to his credit said … the substitution was not legally allowable. A can of worms has been opened.
And now, the Obama Administration owns this massive regressive tax as being in the people’s best interests.
It is a cost shift … the people who were not paying for insurance … are still not paying for insurance … the people who are paying for their insurance are now paying more.
Insurance is based on risk levels … no matter the type of insurance you are attempting to purchase.
Now, those who are healthy will be paying more for those who make poor health choices, poor lifestyle choices, and pre-existing conditions howeve acquired or developed and so on.
A friend, who is single, who pays for his own health insurance has had his health insurance premium ‘TRIPLE’ in cost since Obamacare was passed. He has had no health events during this time period.
It is only affordable for those who will not be paying … another government intrusion.
I say Bravo to the SCOTUS. At least the 5 that got it right. CJ, I usually agree with you on almost everything but you are dead wrong on this one. I think the legal minds on the SCOTUS have a bit more knowledge on the law and the Constitution, then you or I do.
I’m glad insurance companies will no longer be able to rip people off like they have been doing for decades.
I only repeated what the four dissenting “legal minds on the SCOTUS” said themselves.
Look, I’m not saying universal health care is good or bad–I’m only talking about the reasoning behind this ruling from the court. I think the precedent set is dangerous.
If universal health care is a good idea, let’s pass a Constitutional amendment giving Congress the power to establish and regulate it. That puts the issue back where it belongs, in the political arena.
This was a Chief Justice John Marshall moment as in the case of Marbury v. Madison and CJ Roberts was going to right the image of the court and steer away from perceived political rulings and narrow the Congress’s power to make use of the Commerce clause for any future purpose.
I pay my own insurance and I hope to God that they put a cap on what insurance companies can charge. Mine hasn’t tripled like Karrie’s friend, but Jeez. And though I haven’t used it in a decade (minus the dentist visits) now that I have I’m sure it will go up again.
Chef Kevin, that is ONE of the problems with ObamaCare: there is NO cap on what insurance companies can charge. ALL that is regulated is how much of a profit (percentage-wise) they can make. So, the more insurance companies are REQUIRED to pay for (like ALL birth control pills/devices for EVERY woman, regardless of her income), the more they can charge for all premiums.
The reality is that we already have government sponsored health care…it’s called Medicaid/Medicare. And the government ALREADY mandates expenses via both programs. What happens when an uninsured person shows up at the OSF ER? They still get treatment. Who pays for it? The rest of us who HAVE insurance. Is this a perfect plan? Absolutely not. But there are millions of hard working families like mine who have family members with chronic medical conditions who have had to make enormous sacrifices in the name of health care. No more pre-existing condition clauses! No more lifetime caps! Remember back in 1996 when the Kennedy-Kassebaum Act was passed and everyone thought the sky would fall? IT DIDN’T. COBRA, Family Medical Leave…all part of Kennedy-Kassebaum.
I’d also like to say that since ACA was enacted on 9/23/2010, our insurance premiums HAVE NOT INCREASED. My husband works for one of the 2 biggest employers in this area and in all the years he worked there leading up to ACA the increase in our portion of the premium was greater than any cost of living raise he received. Until ACA passed. Our premium has not increased.
The SCOTUS made the right ruling and threw ACA back to the people.
Cap insurance prices then see what good bennies you get. I think we should put a cap on what restaurants can charge and then sit back and see how good the food offerings will be.
I love reading all the nay sayers here. We are all doomed because AHCA was upheld. There are problems with the act but we now are on the road to healthcare coverage for everyone in this, the world’s richest and most powerful country on Earth and yet this country lacks in many fields, health is one of them. If you listen to our Republican friends, the woorld is going to end and all taxpayers, including the middle class are doomed. Since when have republicans been concerned about the working American in this country? What is THEIR plan if they repeal it? none. They don’t have one.
Remember (or maybe you don’t) but when Medicare was made law, the republicans predicted doom and gloom. Same with SS. So far, what little of the Act that has been enacted to dated has help my family. My son got to remain on my policy and I couldn’t be rejected or penalized because of a prior condition. If you all think this is going to put a rise in insurance, well, maybe, but really, when has health insurance never gone up and up? I’m glad it was upheld because of all the ass chapping this has done to the Right, doctor’s will be busy for months curing that rash.
And there is already a “cap” on restaurants. It’s called; Charge too much, go out of business.
Emtronics, you’re right! If a restaurant charges too much, it will go out of business. But the SCOTUS didn’t just rule that EVERY American MUST eat all of their meals at a restaurant! Instead, it says that ALL Americans (or at least those who file an income tax, since that is the only way it can be enforced)MUST BUY insurance from a limited number of suppliers. Insurance companies are rejoicing today; ObamaCare just handed them a blank check.
and I agree with that. Right now many people who work and can afford health insurance (usually the young) don’t but when they do get sick or injured, society picks up the tab. Do you realize that people now on aid that have medical cards have to also work? Now they will have to pay a small percentage to support their “free” medical. This program will save $400 million in 2013 alone. Insurance companies stand to reap the business and this should lower policies. At least that is how a good Capitalist explains the market on everything else.
This Act will be a benefit and 10 years from now, providing the Right doesn’t destroy it, people will look back and wonder how this all transformed as for once, the poor and the rich will get the same medical care. If you think that is happening now, you are dead wrong. Just look at all those neat new exsclusive hospitals they are building on Rt91. And doctors? They are so afraid of this program? Just drive down Knoxville and look at the palaces these doctors call offices. They are not suffering but now they may not charge $16,000 to take out your appendix. Hospitals? Gee OSF has to keep re-in vesting in itself and building just to hid the huge profit overflow and to keep their non profit status.
Any rate, so if you all are fearing the new Act (it’s not Obamacare, that’s a Fox News line) then will someone please post what the Republican alternative would be? It can’t be the same old same old as medical care right now is rising all the time and anyone who does have insurance through an employer or even independently knows it has gone up and up every single year. EX: when my son was born in 1982, the bill for all, hospital, doctors, OB, etc etc was around $12,000. My son and his wife just had a baby in February. So far the bill is well over $45,000. And you all want the status quo? Not me. I welcome change that I can believe in.
I don’t understand why people think it’s so bad to have government run health insurance. Like the government can’t do anything. You all cheer the military. Gov’t run. Congress has Gov’t health care. You all love the Interstate road system. Gov’t run. If a tornado or a flood or earthquake, you want FEMA. Gov’t run. You all love bridges. Gov’t funded. National parks. Gov’t funded. But you all freak out if you think this government who everyone depends on anyway tells you have to be responsible and take care of your health.
Do you really believe that the people who are a drag on the system right now are going to rush out and buy “affordable” health insurance? Do you really believe the drug dealers showing up in the emergency rooms full of bullet holes are going to buy health insurance? Or the illegal immigrants? How about the 27 year old that is a barrista at an independent coffe shop? Think he’s going to be able to afford “affordable” insurance? Ok, let’s assume he does. How much will “affordable” insurance cost him? Low-cost “catastrophic” insurance will no longer be an option—he’ll have to buy the insurance that pays for EVERY woman’s birth control, AND the up-to-26-year-olds on their parents’ account. So, what, $100 per month, if he’s lucky? OK, that’s $1,200 per year that you’ve just taken out of his wallet—and the local economy. So, what is he NOT buying now? He’s going to have to go to FEWER movies, FEWER dinners out. He’ll buy LESS beer, pizza, electronics, clothes, gifts, etc. Now, multiply that by EVERY person that is working for a small company. What do you think is going to happen at the restaurants, retail stores, and manufacturing plants? More layoffs. Just what we need!
Forget it AnneC We are doomed. I started drinking. No telling you.
The budget office’s estimate of the cost over the next decade of Obamacare’s “coverage provisions” — basically, the subsidies needed to make insurance affordable for all — is about only a third of the cost of the tax cuts, overwhelmingly favoring the wealthy, that Mitt Romney is proposing over the same period. True, Mr. Romney says that he would offset that cost, but he has failed to provide any plausible explanation of how he’d do that. The Affordable Care Act, by contrast, is fully paid for, with an explicit combination of tax increases and spending cuts elsewhere. So the law that the Supreme Court upheld is an act of human decency that is also fiscally responsible. It’s not perfect, by a long shot — it is, after all, originally a Republican plan, devised long ago as a way to forestall the obvious alternative of extending Medicare to cover everyone. As a result, it’s an awkward hybrid of public and private insurance that isn’t the way anyone would have designed a system from scratch. And there will be a long struggle to make it better, just as there was for Social Security.
Thanks to Blue Ollie…
And we know how well Social Security is working and the expansion of benefits to those who ‘feel’ they are entitled without paying into the system.
Health insurance … one of many facets is about actual risk … and if there is to be a leveling of what can be charged regardless of an individual’s health choices (use of tobacco, alcohol, drugs, etc.) … then the healthy will be subsidizing those individuals who want to eat, drink and be merry without be responsible.
All insurance is based on risk and yes, there are exceptions to the rule, nevertheless, those who act responsibily should be rewarded for being responsible.
All this talk about rights … what happened to a citizen’s duties to be responsible?
I have seen reports here and there, that many aspects of the Affordable Care Act were taken from a Health Care Plan that Gov. Romney got passed in Massachusetts. If this is truly the case, why is he so against this plan that has a lot of HIS fingerprints on it? Just wondering.
Obama will be retiring in January. Obamacare will go with him.
Dennis in Peoria wrote: I have seen reports here and there, that many aspects of the Affordable Care Act were taken from a Health Care Plan that Gov. Romney got passed in Massachusetts. If this is truly the case, why is he so against this plan that has a lot of HIS fingerprints on it? Just wondering.
Because the “Affordable” Care Act is extremely unpopular.
David P. Jordan writes that “the ‘Affordable’ Care Act is extremely unpopular.
So extremely unpopular that it’s… a coin flip. About half and half, down partisan lines:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/78031.html
We already have government-mandated auto insurance. Sure, it’s theoretically easy to opt out of that by not owning a car… but come on, my fellow Peorians, how easy is it to really “opt out” of auto ownership in a city like ours?
So we have one mandated insurance market that advertises on the radio and TV all the time about how much cheaper your premiums will be with them and how much better your benefits will be. And now we have another mandated insurance market where apparently the sky will fall because insurance premiums are going to go straight through the roof. How, with the free market system we have in this country, can these two markets be so similar and yet so different?
Looks like Emtronics has drunk the Obama-Pelosi Kool-aid.
Looks like “point of order” drinks the kool-aid of Fox News as does Jordan. Unpopular? Yep They use that word about 50 times a day on Fox. Keep saying it and people start to believe it. The Act is about 50 50 when it comes down to it. Obama 2012!! Anything is better then the magic underwear Mitt Romney.
Sterling wrote: We already have government-mandated auto insurance.
We don’t need another mandate to buy something either, but the argument is about Constitutional authority. The requirement to have auto insurance is from the state, not the federal government. In regards to auto insurance, the individual has far more control of their driving habits than their health. No death panels determining whether your car can have this or that done to it to keep it going. And when the car goes bad, people get a new one. Health care is far more intrusive, especially when the federal government increasingly involves itself.
Death to Obamacare…America must survive as a free country!
Driving is NOT a right in any state. Apples and oranges
Healthcare is not a right in any state . The Supreme Court just said it ( in the court case) was a benefit not a right.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78080.html
All I can say is more goverment is not the Answer . The saying “I am from the federal government and here to help” is so spot on (joke).I have Local Goverment health plan by the state of Illinois and it is a mess, big f**k@@g mess. Our former gov stealing funds from the accounts of our LGHP system 3 times did not help! I understand the state is a big mess but if the state and our local contacts with goverment does not work now how will a bigger federal system be better? Tax,penalty or what ever you call it, it is still money still out of someones pocket, nothing is free for anyone. Someone pays the freight.Our system is screwd up now so more political hacks will not make it better.
Martin. what exactly is more government? Like when you call 911? Or when you want the Interstate roads updated and repaired? The military? FEMA when the flood or storm wrecks your house? Civil defense? Clean air and water? Food inspections? Agriculture where they discover ways to grow better crops? But you object when for the first ti8me in this country’s history, sans Medicare, healthcare is being tried to the masses so all people have access? Wouldn’t it be nice not to have a fundraiser at the local bar for someone that needed cancer treatments or a transplant? Yep, nobody wants more government only when they don’t need government.
Martin is right: “…nothing is free for anyone. Someone pays the freight.” With ObamaCare, those who choose to live healthfully will be “paying the freight” for those who do not. Smokers, heavy drinkers, those who live on Twinkies and Big Macs, those who don’t choose “safe sex”, those who think “exercise” is walking from the dinner table to their power lounger in front of the TV, will be SUBSIDIZED by those who choose to follow a more healthful path. WHY are we rewarding the irresponsible, while penalizing the responsible?
“More government” = new programs, new federal employees more of our Tax money out of our pockets without our choice, new hoops to jump if and when we need healthcare (federal aproval). If more goverment is the answear then all of our problems are solved? No! There is a ballance for goverment and private. Private and us (taxpayers) support goverment. As I said someone pays the freight no one gets a free ride.
and Emtronics, How praytell do you fund it? another $4.2 million people will enter the “public aid system” immediately. State has $8 billion in back logged bills. You already complain about the welfare recipients pulling money from out pockets. Now people who sneak into the country when he have proper ways to apply for citizenship get better health care than working citizens. Well, until that system collapses. Jobs everyone screams. The businesses are now going to have to pay more taxes, so in order to survive they will lay off employees or at best not hire anymore. Large companies have already studied Obammacare. It is cheaper for them to pay the “fines” than it is to pay for employee’s health care. So more into the system. Furthermore, do some research on the president you praise so much to see what type of campaign contribution will grant your business an exemption from the entire process.
Romney did something similiar in Mass. it was developed by both sides of the aisle. The cost killed the budget in Mass. If Obama care truly mirror it then it should have learned from the experiment. Ramming through a huge piece of legislation and calling it a pile of gold bricks has left a huge mess.
And yes the Republican have had a plan, surprisingly it was never brought to the floor under Pelosi and it addressed many of the flaws that we would not be facing now. Sing it’s praises in ignorance and then wonder why everything from toilet paper to cherrios jumps in price to pay for it, oh, and you better start learning Chinese, because that will be the national language once China pulls in its US loans.
We all already pay for healthcare because of people who don’t make right choices and we pay more now because of people who can’t afford insurance. That is why it costs $30k to have a baby at OSF. We have always paid for people who didn’t have coverage and that doesn’t count those on aid. If people who work have to buy a policy, then those people will be contributing to the total cost of healthcare instead of just playing the odds. One part of the Act that went into effect where people could get on insurance of their parents till age 26 has saved $400 million so far. The repeal of the Bush tax cuts would easily pay for the rest of the bill. Wait and see. Nobody is going to be kicked out of their insurance and finally people who are irresponsible will be required to pony up for a change. If you say healthcare will go up, well, maybe. but without this Act, healthcare will continue to rise unabated like it has for the past 20 years.
By the way, this whole healthcare plan was developed by Republicans years ago. Do you think Romeny had an original thought? He took the blueprint and mandated it in his state of MA.
All this gloom n doom about health care before the act is even fully implemented (2014). I say we wait an see how it all shakes out before getting all worked up. ‘Obamacare’ is not what I wanted but it satisfies most conservative requirements (despite what they say here and on tv). I am willing to give it a try.
These health exchanges have existed for a long time… government employees have been using them for years. They work.
I agree with Mahkno. My sentiments exactly. Could have saved myself some time.
Our tax code is riddled with choices whereby if you don’t do something, choosing a different course of action, that you end up paying MORE.
Choosing not to buy health care is not inaction. If you choose not to, you are choosing to invest/spend that money somewhere else.
Mahkno, “Choosing” is the key word in your statement. Will I or most americans be able to keep what we have and we pay for now? Or will we be forced out. I for one don’t want to wait an see how it all shakes out. Heck it was passed by congress and the excuse was they needed to approve it so we would know what was in it. I for one want all the cards on the table now. Just don’t pee on my boots and say it is rain.
Martin, if there was no Obamnycare, would you or I be able to keep what we have and pay for now? There is a real crisis of insurers and employers dropping coverage and costs skyrocketing. There is a very real possibility that without it, you or I could be forced out. I don’t want to wait to find out. Something needs to be done. I prefer single payer but conservatives prefer a private insurer marketplace allowing competition to force prices down. That marketplace is central to ‘Obamnycare’.
As far as having cards on the table… the cards were and are all on the table. There have been no surprises for anyone paying attention. The business about reading the bill is a bunch of BS. Go read the law…
How it shakes out for you specifically? I don’t know your situation and I can’t read tea leaves. Change is going to come to your insurance with or without ‘Obamnycare’.
My family’s corporate supplied health care… might go away, but that really depends on how things shake out. Without Obamnycare, I think the writing is on the wall, that they would drop it eventually.
Mahkno, Look to my previous posting. I look for the State of Illinois to drop our LGHP and other state run plans for Obamacare. And yes I think we could keep our Local Goverment Helth plan (LGHP) it was and is fully funded by members paying in to and has a positive ballance. Blago took $$$ 3 times out of our funds for who knows what. Now the state has blocked future fund robbing. And for cards, the fine points and other details are yet to be set.
This has nothing to do with healthcare, but I am curious. St. Louis gas prices today were $2.91 and then when I got to Peoria they were $3.55. Why the big discrepancy? Are Peoria gas stations gouging the citizens? I also noticed in Lincoln the other day that gas at the Pilot station was $2.23 and across the street at the BP gas station it was $3.39. What is going on? Isn’t there any group looking out for the citizens on price gouging such as this?
State plans are on the chopping block, with or without Obamnycare.
So what if they drop it, if you can get a better and cheaper plan elsewhere, shouldn’t you?
Employers offer health plans as a recruiting and retention incentive, not because they feel some obligation to pay for your well being. If employees can do better elsewhere, there is little reason to retain it.
re: Blago. Sounds like having the State of Illinois get out of the health insurance business might be a good thing.
re: cards; those details that are left to be set are not a function specifically of the health care act, but rather an administrative decision by the dept/bureau that is created to oversee it. Don’t like how it is administered, fire the guy and hire someone else. Repeal is an extreme response for something not yet fully implemented.
cttsp5—2 words: Illinois taxes. There is a FEDERAL tax on each gallon of gas. Most states charge an additional tax per gallon. Illinois has made gasoline more expensive by instead charging a PERCENTAGE of the (your)COST of a gallon of gas—a sales tax rather than a per gallon tax. So, the more gas costs you, the more the state charges you in taxes! I think LOCAL sales taxes are also in effect on gas, which is why it’s generally a few cents cheaper in Chillicothe than it is in Peoria.
Peoria also has it’s own gas tax, that is supposed to be used for repairing roads. Much like the garbage tax, it lines someone else’s pocket. Gas was far cheaper across the river. I avoid buying gas in Peoria almost 100% of the time. So yes you are gouged here. Look at the gas prices in the older sections of town vs. what one pays out in the newer sections of town. The older sections pay more per gallon for the same chain gas. Course the majority of the council benefits from the northern gas discount.
Mahkno is right, don’t leave the sinking ship, see if it floats just a little longer before drowning. No life boats will be deployed or even running the bilge pumps. Nothing to see here, take no action, you’re not actually shark bait yet….
The ship isn’t sinking. Just listing because everyone without a clue has rushed to the side to see what might happen.
Checking for details has it right. Questions are the enemy of the Obama administration. We can’t have the peasants questioning our authority!!!
AnneC: Questions are the enemy of the Obama Administration? What about if you questioned Bush? If you did, they called you anti-patriot. Where were you then? Like when Bush wanted to privatize SS? And you are right about peasants questioning. Nobody on the Right wants educated people asking questions.
Yeah, Hope & Change and It’s STILL all Bush’s fault. *Yawn*
So why won’t Obama&Co. answer the questions the American people have about the product they are being FORCED to buy? MY neighbor, who is an independent contractor, wants to know—in dollars and cents—what “affordable” insurance will cost him. No one is willing to give him any answers. Big secret. He’ll tell you after his election when he has more flexibility.
They are answering questions. A good answer was submitted on the PJS web site today. And yes, it was Bush’s fault and to expect Obama to fix the mess he got in a few years that took Bush 8 years to screw up isn’t going to happen and I sure as heck am not going to vote for the party that screwed this country in the first place. Here below is part of it.
“..here is how the tax credit works..This is an excerpt from …TREASURY LAYS THE FOUNDATION TO DELIVER TAX CREDITS TO HELP MAKE HEALTH INSURANCE AFFORDABLE FOR MIDDLE-CLASS AMERICANS August 12, 2011. Where do you get your research….Fox blondes, I’d imagine or Rushbo? And 400% of the poverty level for a family of three is about 90 thousand, so most of us in the middle class would qualify..
Eligibility
Household income must be between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level.
Covered individuals must be enrolled in a qualified health plan through an Affordable Insurance Exchange.
Covered individuals must be legally present in the United States and not incarcerated.
Covered individuals must not be eligible for other qualifying coverage, such as Medicare, Medicaid, or affordable employer-sponsored coverage.
Credit Amount
The credit amount is generally equal to the difference between the premium for the benchmark plan and the taxpayers expected contribution.
The expected contribution is a specified percentage of the taxpayers household income. The percentage increases as income increases, from 2% of income for families at 100% of the federal poverty level (FPL) to 9.5% of income for families at 400% of FPL. (The actual amount a family pays for coverage will be less than the expected contribution if the family chooses a plan that is less expensive than the benchmark plan.)
The benchmark plan is the second-lowest-cost plan that would cover the family at the silver level of coverage.
The credit is capped at the premium for the plan the family chooses (so no one receives a credit that is larger than the amount they actually pay for their plan).
Special Rules
The credit is advanceable, with advance payments made directly to the insurance company on the familys behalf. The advance payments are then reconciled against the amount of the familys actual premium tax credit, as calculated on the familys federal income tax return. Any repayment due from the taxpayer is subject to a cap for taxpayers with incomes under 400% of FPL. The caps range from $600 for married taxpayers ($300 for single taxpayers) with household income under 200% of FPL to $2,500 for married taxpayers ($1,250 for single taxpayers) with household income above 300% but less than 400% of FPL.
The proposed regulation provides that a taxpayer is not required to repay any portion of the advance payment if a family ends the year with household income below 100% of FPL after having received advance payments based on an initial Exchange determination of ineligibility”