Reply #208: You may be right about that and it may be something which changed because I know,

[laughingliberal]

at one point, it was 17% for those in the individual market and I do apologize for missing that. I know, at one point, the Senate bill was on track to allow a multiplier of 5 for age and it was reduced to 3. So, thank the stars for small favors.

This does not change the fact that those who are priced out will still be without insurance. Our last premium (before we had to drop it and take our chances) was $1200 per month which constituted 25% of our income at that time (back when we still had some income).

Most of the uninsured are uninsured because they can't afford the insurance. It's good they won't be fined for this but they still won't have insurance. My hypothetical couple in their 50's with income of $58,280 per year and a premium of $1200 per month (and I know some this age whose premiums are as much as $2000) won't qualify for a subsidy. They won't be fined if they don't get insurance but they won't have insurance. If they opt to buy insurance at that premium, I can't think it won't be a hardship if they are still paying for housing.