No public option but an individual mandate: how I may oppose health care reform

the financial hardship opt-outs better be no less than 500% of the federal poverty level or I will urge everyone I know to oppose health care reform.



Anything less than 500% without a public option or other methods of making health coverage affordable would hurt many working Americans.

means Republicans will win in 2010 and 2012. The Dems will not get my vote if that's the best they can come up with.

And when Obama needs my vote in 2012, I'll do what he did over the summer - I'll ask some RW neighbors of mine who I should vote for and how I should go about doing that.

I'll be following his example - just as he thought it necessary to be so bipartisan over health care.

$100,000 a year is approximately the 80th percentile. The top 20% of taxpayers can afford to buy medical coverage.

And medical coverage is a priority for us.

If we were to adopt single payer tomorrow, and implement a flat income tax to pay for it, the tax rate would be some number larger than 17%, and probably over 20%.

We're having this debate *because* medical costs are unreasonable. Nevertheless, it costs what it costs.

but the Finance bill still NEEDS to be reconciled with the other Senate bill...

And then that has to be reconciled with the House final bill

Senate Finance Committee
America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009

Exemptions will be granted for financial hardship, religious objections, American Indians, and if the lowest cost plan option exceeds 8% of an individual’s income or if the individual has income below 133% of the poverty level.



Senate HELP Committee
Affordable Health Choices Act

Exemptions to the individual mandate will be granted to residents of states that do not establish an American Health Benefit Gateway, members of Indian tribes, those for whom affordable coverage is not available, those without coverage for fewer than 90 days, and those with incomes below 150% FPL.



House Tri-Committee
America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009
(H.B. 3200)

Doesn't say...

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm

who all have insurance with their jobs anyway. A mandate on people at 500% of poverty or more would be a joke.

Meaning 50% of Families of Four earn less than that.

http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/ib261/

That article discusses subsidies for families at 300% of poverty and 400% of poverty. Many families at that $73,000 mark are at 400% of poverty. And you're worried about families earning $100,000 at 500% of poverty? They are fine and will be fine. The subsidy is what you need to worry about. Mandate or no mandate, the ability of families to get health coverage, whether from a public or private provider, will depend on the subsidy.

I might end up supporting 400% or even 300% if we can get good subsidies but the bills passing committee in Congress are at 133%, 150%, etc.

The 133% and 150% are for adults to qualify for free Medicaid.

The subsidies are up to 400%, I think Kennedy had them at 500% for a while. Baucus had them down at 300%, which is really not enough. I think they convinced him to increase it, but wouldn't swear to that.

I really wish this debate would be about affordability and mandates and subsidies because even a public option is not going to be affordable if people are expected to pay the full cost with no subsidy.

I thought you were concerned that people at 500% of poverty would be mandated as if that would be a hardship on them or something.

"Exemptions to the individual mandate will be granted to residents of states that do not establish an American Health Benefit Gateway, members of Indian tribes, those for whom affordable coverage is not available, those without coverage for fewer than 90 days, and those with incomes below 150% FPL."

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm

I personally don't care one way or the other about the mandate. But if you're going to mandate people between 150% and 500% of poverty, then the issue becomes the subsidies. And those with incomes below 150% of poverty should be included in Medicaid so that the mandate becomes irrelevant to them. We keep focusing on issues that aren't going to be that important in the long run.

Senate Finance;

phased-in $750 per person annual penalty for no coverage in 2017.
exceptions; coverage can't cost more than 8% of income, if you already have coverage in some other form, or any other kind of undefined financial hardship.

Senate HELP;

$750 per person annual penalty
exceptions; not required by people in states which don't create an "insurance gateway", not enforced if the gap is less than 90 days, not if affordable insurance is unavailable.

HR3200;
2 1/2% of AGI penalty
exceptions; dependents, religious exceptions, financial hardship.

133% and 150% are the points at which you can get coverage for free. 300% and 400% is the point at which those bills phase out subsidies.

Given the rest of the benefits of the plans in congress, that seems reasonable to me.