General Discussion

Last edited Sun Mar 31, 2013, 08:32 AM - Edit history (1)

So I was right about the Medicaid stuff and you can't answer my question about the assets.

Anyway, now you want to talk about the subsidies. There is a large swath of people who will struggle to use their insurance with subsidies through an exchange.

Here's a more accurate example:

for a family of three at $39,060 income (200% of 2013 FPL).

The subsidy will provide these limits:

Premiums - max 6.3% of income = 2460.78

Other Out-of-pocket expenses = 5950.50

That is a total of $8,411.28 that the family could pay, out of their $39,060 income.


This is based on a link here: http://101.communitycatalyst.org/aca_provisions/subsidies (there is a ton of info on that site about many aspects of the program)


Employer coverage provided outside of the Exchange for low-wage workers, as described in the article you posted in the OP, tend to be very minimal in coverage with high deductibles, copays, etc. The benchmark plans through the exchange are not exactly great coverage from what I can find, and better plans with lower deductibles, copays, co-insurance, etc are more expensive and the difference is not subsidized.

This is still not 'affordable' to many people in many situations. If one family member has a major emergency or serious illness, these amounts may be prohibitive, or may still result in serious debt. If unexpected expenses come up, car repairs for example, that could mean no money for copays for office visits or meds. $30 or $50 or $100 is not always there when you need it at such wages.

“People who cannot afford coverage” are defined as those who would pay more than 8% of their household income just on premiums. Just think, being low-wage, living month to month, how important that 8% of your income may be. A whole lot of America lives that way. Their whole lives. Because wages suck (and that's a whole nother thread)

There are millions who will fall through the cracks. Some will get no insurance at all. Others who, in some nominal way, have 'insurance', will still be unable to access affordable health care in many cases, which has been a major problem all along.

As for the neo-liberal comment – those subsidies you refer to are ultimately not going to subsidize health CARE. They are going to subsidize mostly for-profit INSURANCE and other highly profitable health industry companies. They are tax dollars subsidizing a for-profit industry, in order to...what...reward it for making our health care system one of the worst in comparable nations in both cost and outcomes? If you don't see how this fits with neoliberalism, just read the first paragraph on the wiki page about it. “...increasing the role of the private sector in modern society...”

It is unconscionable that with all the wealth in this country, we can't manage to wrangle some to provide basic public health, something done successfully and efficiently in nations much poorer than ours.

We are 30 steps behind where we could be. This set of laws may take us 3 or 4 steps forward in the most superficial sense. But given the depths of the problems, the inequalities, the inefficiencies, the needless layers of waste and profit, it's more like 1 step forward, 2 steps back.


edited: since this thread got kicked back up, my original example (now removed) wasn't precise, as I was using older FPL numbers from memory - there is a new example above based on 2013 guidelines.