Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The expansion is to boost it to 133% FPL... more than half the states will not expand Medicaid...
Health-exchange subsidies start at 100% FPL...
The media keeps reporting "millions" that will not qualify for subsidies or medicaid without their expansion... I don't see how other than being single and/or without children... is that what the media is culling their numbers from? Are they looking at BELOW 100% FPL, single (over the age of 26) and/or without children, and uninsured? Current FPL is around 12k a year... If minimum wage is $7.25/hour... a full-time job for one person on minimum wage will give you $15k a year... if two people are part-time or one full-time job then they would qualify for the subsidy at least... so the "millions" must be a single part-time worker (over the age of 26) who works 29 hours a week with no children and cannot earn more than about $7.75/hour... The only other thing I can think of is the subsidy costs too much to be affordable but with so many states boasting about their low premiums, that shouldn't be an issue, right? Are there "millions" to begin with? I find that number suspect...
I do see a problem for states that do have Medicaid expansion... if more than half are not expanding medicaid, the states that do expand medicaid have no leverage to keep federal assistance in the expansion in future years... That means their residents will be hit with higher taxes which may be problematic in states with no income tax (looking at you Florida)...
I am curious as to why the media thinks there will be "millions" left out... seems to me its just pro-Obamacare propaganda that keeps getting rehashed over and over without anyone challenging it...
I am curious as to why the media thinks there will be "millions" left out... seems to me its just pro-Obamacare propaganda that keeps getting rehashed over and over without anyone challenging it...
Maybe the millions that have jobs but can't afford the insurance the job offers ?
From what I understand these are the people that are SOL when it comes to Obamacare and subsidies.
That $16K I put in. What if their employer had insurance. Then they would not qualify for a subsidy.
You can bet that no job has $10/week premiums. Not even Walmart offers that. Walmart only contributes $200 towards an employee's premiums and that is if the employee qualifies for health insurance.
The working poor with employer provided health insurance are the ones that will end up with no health insurance at all.
The ACA does not allow a company to offer same contribution to employees to shop in the exchanges but they can refuse and shop if its cheaper. This was done in senate committee when buying across state lines if it was cheaper was not allowed in the bill.
People who can't afford insurance now through their job will still not be able to afford insurance because they won't get subsidized premiums. What they get are tax credits to be used in April 2015 to reduce their income. But that won't help them get through the year. What they can't afford they still can't afford.
I just put $16K for a single person into the Kaiser calculator.
Comes to $10/week premium
$539/year for the individual with $3000/year subsidized.
$10/week for someone making $16K a year is doable.
I played around with the calculator, using $15K income, looking for the worst possible outcomes.
When I came to a result I thought was sufficiently egregious I stopped tweaking the calculator.
In a state not expanding Medicaid, a 64-year-old who uses tobacco (or claims to) would face a premium of $4,827 per year, or 32.18% of their household income.
It says that alternatively they could buy catastrophic coverage with max $6,350 out of pocket (41.66% of income).
Since neither of these options is affordable, can they avoid the individual mandate penaltytax, or do they HAVE to either choose one of the above or pay the penaltytax?
I played around with the calculator, using $15K income, looking for the worst possible outcomes.
When I came to a result I thought was sufficiently egregious I stopped tweaking the calculator.
In a state not expanding Medicaid, a 64-year-old who uses tobacco (or claims to) would face a premium of $4,827 per year, or 32.18% of their household income.
It says that alternatively they could buy catastrophic coverage with max $6,350 out of pocket (41.66% of income).
Since neither of these options is affordable, can they avoid the individual mandate penaltytax, or do they HAVE to either choose one of the above or pay the penaltytax?
WhoTF could afford that?
I HIGHLY suggest that person quit smoking then. If they quit smoking then their YEARLY premium drops to $300 dollars a month! This is a tool I use.
Smoking causes so many chronic health problems that smokers should feel blessed that the ACA even covers them at all. Smokers under your exact scenario still get a $5,000 dollar subsidy. My step-father's mother just passed this year at the age of 65 from lung cancer. She smoked most of her life and just didn't quit in time for her body to heal. Thank goodness that CANADA'S(!!!!) healthcare system paid ALL of her end of life medical bills while she live in FLORIDA! I can only imagine what the total cost of her medical care and hospice stay would have been if she didn't have Canada's universal health insurance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
