You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #47: The way I read the bill people at over 400% of the poverty level do not qualify for subsidies [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. The way I read the bill people at over 400% of the poverty level do not qualify for subsidies
Edited on Thu Nov-12-09 06:51 PM by laughingliberal
Hoping this will change but that is the limit of income eligibility for help in the Senate version. The most generous subsidy was in one of the House bills and helped people at up to 500% of federal poverty guidelines. I used the 400% figures in my post as I believe it is the one most likely to make it in. Baucus' bill only allowed help for those at up to 300% of federal poverty guidelines.

The public option may help some but, as it stands now, so few will be eligible to enroll the risk will not spread wide enough to bring premiums down by much.

I'm as hopeful as anyone that we can get some benefit out of this. But, for the most part, I've resigned myself to my husband and myself trying to hang on til we are eligible for Medicare. He could make it. He's 62. Me? 54. Not eligible til 66 years and 2 mos old. A long way to go.

edited for typo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -When Social Security passed in 1935, it wasn't perfect ProSense  Nov-12-09 10:55 AM   #0 
  - Dang.  jobycom   Nov-12-09 10:57 AM   #1 
  - Beautiful.  Tommy_Carcetti   Nov-12-09 10:58 AM   #2 
  - Good history lesson. Huge shifts/Immediate Breaks don't often happen in US. "Checks and Balances"  emulatorloo   Nov-12-09 10:59 AM   #3 
  - Bury the facts. n/t  ProSense   Nov-12-09 11:23 AM   #11 
  - It still is not perfect. Hell it is barely solvent at this point.  leeroysphitz   Nov-12-09 11:00 AM   #4 
  - no comparison  optimator   Nov-12-09 11:01 AM   # 
  - "SS isn't a private corporation" Neither is SCHIP  ProSense   Nov-12-09 11:03 AM   #7 
  - SS didn't mandate payments to private corporations. & it was transparently straightforward.  Hannah Bell   Nov-12-09 04:20 PM   #43 
  - But it originally did NOT require people to invest their money with private, predatory corporations  T Wolf   Nov-12-09 11:01 AM   #5 
  - So the insurance companies that people have to pay right now to get coverage are not private?  ProSense   Nov-12-09 11:05 AM   #10 
     - You are willing to accept the "next to nothing" just for a "win"  MNDemNY   Nov-12-09 11:34 AM   #17 
        - There is a lot more in the bill that is good than some DU'ers want to admit.  emulatorloo   Nov-12-09 02:05 PM   #27 
           - Will you support this bill with the Stupak language intact?  MNDemNY   Nov-12-09 04:16 PM   #42 
              - Stupak won't be in any bill sent to the Oval Office.  MilesColtrane   Nov-12-09 11:54 PM   #54 
  - That was before the corporations owned the country  liberal_at_heart   Nov-12-09 11:02 AM   #6 
  - Social Security is a bill that only helps the corporations  Winterblues   Nov-12-09 11:05 AM   #8 
  - Did it mandate that we purchase our retirement benefits from a privately owned cartel?  Toucano   Nov-12-09 11:05 AM   #9 
  - But it did not set back womens' rights 50 years, now did it?  MNDemNY   Nov-12-09 11:26 AM   #12 
  - Does it upset you that much that people are disappointed with the bill?  PVnRT   Nov-12-09 11:28 AM   #13 
  - She and her co-horts are only interested in a "win" for the administration.  MNDemNY   Nov-12-09 11:32 AM   #16 
  - Not at all. I'm really happy it passed.  ProSense   Nov-12-09 11:35 AM   #18 
     - so happy are you willing to let the Stupak amendment become law???  MNDemNY   Nov-12-09 11:43 AM   #22 
  - It is not that this bill is not "perfect".  MNDemNY   Nov-12-09 11:31 AM   #14 
  - What was different--you had real Democrats with spines who  OHdem10   Nov-12-09 11:32 AM   #15 
  - No, but when it was passed it had sufficient benefits and no critical defects  Political Heretic   Nov-12-09 11:37 AM   #19 
  - Quit making exuses.  Shagbark Hickory   Nov-12-09 11:39 AM   #20 
  - Pure nonsensical spin  ProSense   Nov-12-09 11:43 AM   #23 
  - That summary badly glosses over what really happened.  Xithras   Nov-12-09 11:39 AM   #21 
  - "The original 1935 bill was so poorly written...."  ProSense   Nov-12-09 11:44 AM   #24 
  - And you're ignoring mine.  Xithras   Nov-12-09 11:54 AM   #25 
     - You're contradicting yourself  ProSense   Nov-12-09 11:59 AM   #26 
        - There is no contradiction in my statement.  Xithras   Nov-12-09 02:22 PM   #28 
           - "If todays bill fails, introduce a new one tomorrow." What?  ProSense   Nov-12-09 02:57 PM   #30 
              - As I said, a failure of leadership.  Xithras   Nov-12-09 03:17 PM   #31 
                 - " a failure of leadership"  ProSense   Nov-12-09 03:21 PM   #32 
                    - Most people? Hardly.  Xithras   Nov-12-09 03:31 PM   #35 
                       - "Polls here on DU "  ProSense   Nov-12-09 03:33 PM   #37 
  - That's why the health care bill in Congress, if it passes, will work.  backscatter712   Nov-12-09 03:26 PM   #34 
  - "Administration should have engaged in a far more comprehensive...aid to the poor and unemployed"  ProSense   Nov-12-09 02:23 PM   #29 
  - K&R  SIMPLYB1980   Nov-12-09 03:23 PM   #33 
  - A few differences  laughingliberal   Nov-12-09 03:32 PM   #36 
  - "if the HCR is not a success pretty early after implementation it is unlikely to get 'fixed.'"  ProSense   Nov-12-09 03:47 PM   #39 
     - I suppose it may be a rousing success right out the barn door  laughingliberal   Nov-12-09 06:20 PM   #45 
        - Actually, this isn't quite accurate  ProSense   Nov-12-09 06:40 PM   #46 
           - The way I read the bill people at over 400% of the poverty level do not qualify for subsidies  laughingliberal   Nov-12-09 06:50 PM   #47 
              - It has nothing to do with subsidies.  ProSense   Nov-12-09 06:55 PM   #48 
                 - I don't see where the insurer has any obligation to cap my premium.  laughingliberal   Nov-12-09 07:06 PM   #49 
                    - It's in the bill.  ProSense   Nov-12-09 07:08 PM   #50 
                       - I would love to think it is in the bill  laughingliberal   Nov-12-09 10:24 PM   #51 
                          - The credits don't have anything to do with the cap. They are separate issues. n/t  ProSense   Nov-12-09 10:27 PM   #52 
                             - Then find me the section that states the insurance company has to limit my premium to a percentage  laughingliberal   Nov-12-09 10:38 PM   #53 
  - Not a fair comparison, Social Security was a new program  dugaresa   Nov-12-09 03:42 PM   #38 
     - The public option is a new system. n/t  ProSense   Nov-12-09 03:48 PM   #40 
        - however i am currently covered under a bad employer based option  dugaresa   Nov-12-09 04:02 PM   #41 
           - Larger employers will be given access.  ProSense   Nov-12-09 05:37 PM   #44 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC