With all of the $10 talk, let's remember one other thing. There are NO monthly subsidies.

[Xithras]

I see a lot of talke about "$10 an hour" employees, so it's important to point this out.

Under the Senate bill, a 21 year old single working adult making $10 an hour, or $20,800 per year, will need to pay about $219 a month for coverage in most areas. The HCR bill supporters are quick to point out that the subidies will cover $1,384 a year of this, leaving the worker with only $104 a month owed. Sounds great, right?

Except that it doesn't work that way.

Under the Senate bill, the worker would be expected the pay the $219 a month out of pocket as a whole, which works out to more than 12% of his pretax income. After taxes are calculated out, this is more than a TWENTY percent reduction in monthly takehome pay.

Would our $10 an hour worker get his money back? Sure, probably. Part of it anyway. At the end of the year when that person did his taxes, a $1,384 tax credit would be applied to his return. A tax credit. If he balanced his taxes well (remember, no kids, joint filing, or EIC here), he should get that all back at the end of the year. If he didn't and he owed taxes (which I did for many years in my early 20's), he'll only get the part of the subsidy back that exceeds his otherwise-owed taxes.

Either way, the result is the same. The poor $10 an hour worker would be forced to "underwrite" the governments $115 monthly share for 11 months of the year, until the IRS "generously" refunds it annually. While getting the money back is a good thing, that's still $115 a month LESS that the worker would have available for food, rent, gasoline, etc. And that $115 is still ON TOP OF the $104 a month he's expected to absorb permanently. This bill wouldn't add a $104 monthly burden to his budget, it would add a $219 a month burden.

[leftstreet]

1. This worker would be better off to quit his job and get Medicaid

Hey....maybe that's the Super Secret Chess Plan for single payer!

:mad:

[Bluebear]

16. It will cut down on the number of unemployed, brilliant!

Can you believe this shit?

[Klukie]

2. Thanks for the info

[jody]

3. Our government would not lie to those who work and sweat for their daily bread -- would it? n/t

[sandnsea]

4. That is wrong

The exchange will calculate the worker's share and the worker will pay that to the exchange. The exchange then pays the premiums to the different insurance companies with premium and tax subsidies.

The end of year tax credits are for workers who don't qualify for subsidies.

And really, I think that $10 worker would qualify for medicaid, that's 133% of poverty in most places, or pretty close.

[Xithras]

9. Not for a single adult. And not everyone gets the Exchange.

$20,800 ($10 an hour) a year is 192% of poverty for a single 21 year old adult with no dependents.

On Edit:

And many (most?) workers won't qualify for the Exchanges. A stocker making $10 an hour at Walmart would be expected to shoulder the full load, because Walmart's expensive & crappy health plan precludes their employees from qualifying.

Besides, there's a huge question about how the Exchanges would be set up anyway. They'd be established and run by the states (sorry poor Texans!) according to their own rules and guidelines. It's also been pointed out MANY times that the verbiage within the Exchange code contains a requirement that all state Exchanges be self-supporting without federal assistance. Everyone assumes this means a tax on insurers, but the text doesn't actually require that. States are FULLY within their legal rights to charge broker fees, levy additional taxes, or apply surcharges to Exchange plans for the USER, to recover lost revenue.

In establishing an Exchange under this section, the State shall ensure that
such Exchange is self-sustaining beginning on January 1, 2015, including allowing the Exchange to charge assessments or user fees to participating health insurance issuers, or to otherwise generate funding, to support its operations.

[sandnsea]

28. Yes they would qualify for subsidies

and they would be able to go to the exchange if their insurance cost more than $2080 a year or didn't meet federal standards. Plus, if Walmart tried to play any kind of part-time games, etc., they would be fined.

http://health.newamerica.net/blogposts/2010/health_reform_the_finishing_touches-28883

[Xithras]

29. No subsidy. Tax credit. That's my whole point.

Yes, they'd get their annual year-end subsidy, but they still have to pay for the whole thing out of pocket first.

[sandnsea]

33. No, Subsidies

Employers who do offer coverage are also subject to a penalty on behalf of workers who become eligible for subsidies because they make less than 400% of FPL, and:

1) their employer-sponsored insurance is unaffordable (more than 10% of their incomes would go to their share of the premium);

2) the employer-sponsored insurance does not meet federal standards of coverage; or

3) they are not eligible for employer-sponsored insurance, such as employees who are subjected to a waiting period.

[laughingliberal]

58. I believe the fine is $750 per year per employee. Lots cheaper than providing benefits

Walmart, in fact, came out in support of this provision.

[Hello_Kitty]

43. I keep getting $19,200 and 177% FPL for $10 an hour.

$1600 a month x 12 = $19,200. No big diff but I'm assuming a 40 hour week.

[YankmeCrankme]

46. Multiply 52 weeks by 40 hours and you get 2080.

You're using 4 weeks per month, but there are extra days in all months except February. That's the difference.

[Hello_Kitty]

47. Ah, I see!

:blush:

[kath]

65. Sure is complicated, w/ multiple levels of bureaucracy. SIngle payer would be a HECK of a lot

simpler.

I wish I lived in a civilized country.... sigh...

[NYC_SKP]

11. Now you've gone and ruined a good outrage OP with facts.

For shame!

:P

[Jamastiene]

18. There you go with the Medicaid exaggerations again.

Medicaid is not as readily available as you claim. Even a family that makes a little over $2500 PER YEAR (much less $10/hour) cannot get Medicaid in Alabama, among other states. Single people are even worse off than family. Medicaid is not some poor person's lotto. I'm sick of seeing people outright lie about who is qualified for Medicaid. I guess all single poor people would be doing ourselves a favor to go jab our eyes out so we can actually qualify for Medicaid to fit your fantasy version of it.

[sandnsea]

27. They Are Going To Change It

And yes, a family making $2500 a year qualifies for Medicaid in Alabama unless there are other circumstances that you haven't mentioned.

But part of this bill is increasing the availability of Medicaid to adults.

I am sick of seeing people outright lie about what is in this bill for no other reason than to support their pre-conceived hatred of anything not sanctioned by Nader and Michael Moore.

[Jamastiene]

53. And States Are ALREADY Working On Enacting Laws To Bypass It.

It carries no weight whatsoever. It is a pipe dream. States who had strict unreasonable Medicaid restrictions before will get them back by enacting laws exempting the state. A lot of people are going to get their hopes up just to have them dashed.

[laughingliberal]

59. No kidding! The governor here is talking about abolishing Medicaid here

We would be the first state ever to opt out of Medicaid. But that's always been an option for the states. Just none ever did it. And, BTW, this is not due to HCR. Our state is broke and we seem to be under a nice austerity program. Funding for education has been slashed to unreasonableness, funding for mental health is going bye bye, and he's talking about doing away with Medicaid, here.

[kath]

66. In many states, a single person with no dependents can NOT get Medicaid. No way.

And in many places, it's nearly to impossible to find doctors who take Medicaid, because the reimbursement rates are unbelievably low.

Just love your hatin' on Moore and Nader. :eyes:

[kurtzapril4]

90. That would be my state!

Illinois. Single poor people w/o children do not qualify for Medicaid. We're not worthy....cuz we haven't bred. We made the decision to not have children we couldn't afford..and here is how we're rewarded for it.

So, if I was a poor single person with children....I would qualify. However, since I don't have children, I don't. Even though I will cost the state a whole lot less than someone with children.

I made $2900 last year. I have multiple sclerosis. I can't get medicaid, or medicare. I'm not handicapped enough....yet. This bill will change not one damn thing health-wise, for me. Except, now I will be forced to pay for something I won't be able to use.

Thanks, Obama! And thanks to his loyal camp-followers, too!

[jeff47]

78. The bill makes it possible...

...but it's up to the states to actually change it.

You want to bet how many "Red States" will actually change it?

[JoeyT]

84. They may qualify for Medicaid in Alabama

but they ain't going to get it.
I've known people that applied for Medicaid that only had part time jobs making minimum wage and were turned down over and over. Owning a car prevented one from getting it, though I'm not sure why and they wouldn't explain it to her. Others were just denied without explanation. It's a lot harder to get Medicaid in a neo-con state than people seem to think it is.

[juno jones]

100. The car was probably worth too much.

Income testing is where they get you. You aren't allowed assets over a certain very low amount, even ones you've worked hard to earn. Being single/childless also makes it harder if not impossible


I'm waiting to find out what kind of paperwork and income testing is going to apply to the subsidies and 'expanded to 133%'
medicare I'm supposed to be qualifying for.

[TransitJohn]

87. Yeah they'll change it

by giving everyone ponies. Do you believe that, or are you catapulting the propaganda? This insurance giveaway sucks for the poverty stricken and the lower and middle classes, plain and simple. Corporate profits uber alles.

[Hello_Kitty]

36. No, the worker doesn't qualify for Medicaid anywhere. $10 an hour is 177% FPL with no dependents. nt

[Political Heretic]

40. I swear to god, DU needs a six week education course on Medicaid.

Thanks for your point. I'm constantly stunned at how out of touch so many DUers are. And I believe "They have medicaid!" is the cry of the rich (or you can use the euphemism "upper middle class" if you must) and privileged who simply have no clue what they are talking about.

The like talking about Medicaid because its fire-and-forget. "They" have medcaid. Problem solved. Now I don't have to be inconvenienced by these pesky simpleton serfs and their problems. Let them eat cake.

Problem with medicaid (one of about fifty critical problems) is that you can be desperately back breaking-ly poor and still not qualify, depending on your context.

[Jamastiene]

54. Thank you.

I'm so glad I am not the only one who noticed that.

[Solly Mack]

61. +1

[Kltpzyxm]

96. +1000

[readmoreoften]

69. +1

[DesertFlower]

76. here in arizona, if you make more than $860 a month

you do not qualify for medicaid.

[quinnox]

5. So then the best bet for this worker would be to pay the fine

They would be better off to pay the fine and skip the insurance all together.

Edit: And hope they don't get sick!

[polpilot]

6. We can 'fix it' LATER. Go to Afghanistan..get OUT later! F*** it up...Fix it later!

[Fumesucker]

7. Don't you know that $10 an hour is big money in the New America?

People should be *grateful* to make $10 an hour and happy to support insurance company executives making hundreds of times that.

[ncteechur]

8. Would you please provide the page or section of the bill that says that?

It is not that I doubt you but I want to read it myself.

[Xithras]

14. Page 237 on..

Subtitle E, Part I, Subpart 1

SEC. 1401. REFUNDABLE TAX CREDIT PROVIDING PREMIUM ASSISTANCE FOR COVERAGE UNDER A QUALIFIED HEALTH PLAN.

(a) IN GENERAL.—In the case of an applicable tax
payer, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax
imposed by this subtitle for any taxable year an amount
equal to the premium assistance credit amount of the tax
payer for the taxable year.

There's a lot more there, but this is the meat of it. The "subsidy" is a year end tax credit.

[havocmom]

51. Thank you. I would send you roses for posting that

Good to see some here get their assumptions handed to them with a quote from the bill.

[Mojambo]

10. I'm single and make 10 bucks an hour.

I simply cannot afford to lose a hundred bucks a month, no matter what or when I get it back.

The poor are getting royally fucked here, but that really isn't anything new.

[Gravel Democrat]

12. squeeze play

New Word: Squozen

[Leftist Agitator]

63. "New Word: Squozen"

We've squozen our whole supply! To the lemon tree!

[SoCalDem]

13. Single Mom with one child @ $10 hr.. read it and weep...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x468622

SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) JWed Mar-21-07 04:09 PM
Original message


A single mom with one child can live easily on $10 an hour

IF they can both eat on $2.88 a month and no one gets sick...or the car does not break down..and she drives with no car insurance..and the kid never outgrows clothing or shoes

[Emit]

15. Xithras, can you please provide a link that supports your claim?

Thanks.

[laughingliberal]

19. I believe that's what this is:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7941841#7941932

You may search at this site for the section of the bill cited in the post:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:5:./temp/~c111AjXU0T::

You will want bill #3590 and pick the version 'as passed by the Senate.'

[stray cat]

17. So the person is better off with the current system without health care?

so the GOP is right - they are defending the poor?

[Xithras]

21. Depends on their health, really.

The average healthcare outlay for a healthy 21 year old is about $400 a year. Your average 21 year old will see zero financial benefit from having health insurance. This has been pointed out many many times during this whole discussion. For the typical, average person, health insurance doesn't become a financial boon until they either have kids or hit their mid 30's (both of which cause significant rises in healthcare costs). For nonparents and the younger poor, health insurance is only a hedge against a statistically unlikely health disaster (it happens, and there are many horror stories, but the odds are small for any particular individual).

So, yes, you COULD argue that most 21 year olds are better off under a pay-as-you-go system. I certainly was. The vast and overwhelming majority of young adults are.

As for the GOP, they're defending their corporatist masters, just as they do every day.

[ourbluenation]

37. 21 year old can be on his parents plan now up until what? 27 yers???

[Xithras]

38. Only some of them.

IF the parents have insurance (you're boned if your parents are retired, dead, or on Medicaid).

IF the parents are willing to pay the premium for their adult child (most poor arent).

IF the adult child meets the requirements for adult coverage for the offered policy. For my current health plan, that means full time student who is claimable as a dependent, unmarried, and without children. There is also nothing stopping insurers from withdrawing adult child coverage completely...the bill merely mandates that any policies that cover dependent adults be extended to age 26. No policy, no mandate.

[kath]

67. So, if your your young adult is out of school and can only find a crappy job with no benefits, s/he

is just shit-out-of-luck?

Lovely. :eyes:

[Xithras]

85. Yes. The coverage for the 26 and unders is just for students and dependents.

It simply extends existing coverage to 26, nothing more. EXISTING coverage, as any parent who has put a kid through college can tell you, comes with all sorts of strings and only covers young adults who can qualify as dependents or students. You cannot just randomly call up your insurance company today and extend coverage to your 21 year old kid. You won't be able to AFTER this passes either.

[lumberjack_jeff]

72. Of course. We're all better off without insurance, until the day something sucky happens. n/t

[NotThisTime]

89. What about that random 21 or 28 year old? I was that person.... My 1st year bills went over 100K

A perfectly healthy, well educated, 28 year old who got sick and whose bill went up to 100 grand the first year, my bills haven't been less than 25 grand a year since, and last year went back up to 100... My Husband at the age of 43 was healthy as a horse until the day he wasn't the year before last... his bill for multiple life saving surgeries? Close to 150K. Thankfully we don't have to pay above the reasonable & customary charges or we'd have been broke a long time ago..... Now just imagine if we'd had no insurance? Hard to imagine, and at the age of 21 I never once dreamed I'd be so damn sick so soon in life.

[Maru Kitteh]

22. None of them seem to want to talk about that. If they get cancer, or kidney disease, or hit by a bus

I guess when they go home to die slowly or end up in bankruptcy and lose decades of their life's savings - they'll just thank God that the GOP saved them from having to buy any coverage - even if it was fully, or damn near fully subsidized.

[Fumesucker]

24. Get sick enough where you can't keep your job and the same thing happens..

Even with "subsidized" premiums you're still going to end up with no place to live and no medical care unless you have other people helping you out.

And people making $10 an hour mostly don't have any savings to lose.

[Hello_Kitty]

35. Glad you mentioned savings.

Because many of the people wagging their fingers at the $10 an hour worker to pay 20% of her take-home pay for insurance premiums will be the SAME ones who admonish her for failing to save for a rainy day or a nest egg.

[kath]

68. yep. Health care should NOT be tied to employment.

I'm sick of living in a country that is so far behind other developed nations in SOOOOOO many ways.

[Cleobulus]

44. And the HCR will prevent this how? n/t

[girl gone mad]

56. That happens to insured people.

All of the above happened to my insured neighbor.

Most people don't have much in the way of life savings to lose, btw.

[Hun Joro]

57. What difference would that make?

If you can't afford the premiums, you can't afford the premiums and you certainly can't afford the copay. You're just screwed if you get sick and that's all there is to it.

[laconicsax]

75. False choice.

Under the current system, we can't afford it.
Under the proposed system, we still can't afford it, but are required to pay anyway or face a penalty.

I think the problem with this health plan was well articulated here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoSnqofelsQ

[jeff47]

79. They are better off because the plan has to have a mandate

In order for health insurance to work, you need healthy people in the pool to pay for the sick people. And the pool has to be as large as possible in order to spread the costs over the most people.

Now, those of you who are too intelligent to be in Congress will realize that the best way to do this is single-payer, where everyone's taxes pay for everyone's health care. It would be the largest possible pool.

Unfortunately, most people in Congress aren't too intelligent to be there, so the bill has mandates as a band-aid.

[Individualist]

20. K&R

[beac]

23. I understand your point and realize the average American doesn't pay attention to their taxes until

tax time rolls around, BUT that $10hr worker and EVERY worker should be making sure their withholding is as accurate as possible so that they aren't having the government hold extra money all year only to return it after April 15th the next year.

This is a pretty easy process and you can do it online:

http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=96196,00.html


I've used the calculator several times b/c of self-employment income in addition to regular job issues and I've found it to be very accurate. I recommend everyone take a few minutes to make sure they are getting the biggest paycheck possible (and/or to avoid nasty surprises down the line, as with my situation.)

[NYC_SKP]

25. Excellent point. Take extra deductions on W-4 to get largest paycheck, lower refund at end of year.

Thanks!

[beac]

31. It's a good little tool that the government doesn't publicize much. Maybe

Obama and the Dems SHOULD start talking about it to help undercut this particular talking point.... Hmmmmm.... I might just call my congressman tomorrow and suggest it!

[Xithras]

32. Which isn't always so simple.

I know a person, right now (student in my class) who is working three barely above minimum wage jobs to keep her head above water. Why three? Because none of them give her more than 15-20 hours a week, so she has to juggle jobs to keep herself working enough to survive. She's a 19 year old part time college student living on her own. She has NO idea how many hours each job will give her next week, much less for the rest of the year, so there's no way for her to predict her income. If she can't predict her income, she has to make sure her deductions are high enough to cover any possible taxes due at the end of the year.

I agree that everyone should have an updated W-4 on file with their employers, but having a properly adjusted W-4 assumes that you have a stable job with predictable hours and a projectable income through the end of the year. Most poor people do not have these. It's financially safer for them to have their taxes over-deducted and get a refund, than to risk having too small a withholding and a large tax liability at the end of the year.

[emmadoggy]

101. Exactly.

We (my hubby and I) have a similar situation. My husband's job pays a base wage and then he make a sales commission on top of that. Since, in his business, that varies widely from month to month depending on the time of year, and also depending on the economy, his income is hard to pin down not only from year to year, but month to month. For 2009, due to the economy, his income went back to his 2006 level.

Then there's my income (school), which is a little over $9/hr. However, I only get 27.5 hours a week, 9.5 months/year. During those 9.5 months I am working, I regularly lose hours due to early outs for in-service days, no-school days, snow days, or late starts (weather-related). For some of that, I know ahead of time, but for others I don't. For example, next week I know that I will only have 19 hours instead of my "usual" 27.5. My income is different every month.

Frankly, we use our refunds each year as our "float" to carry us through the leaner months. It rarely lasts the whole year.

[PA Democrat]

64. W-4 affects withholding for federal income taxes only.

Low income people are paying little to no federal income tax as it is, and changing withholding may still not cover premiums especially for older workers buying individual policies.

I hope I am missing something here, but I think this is going to be a problem for many of the people that this legislation is supposed to help.

[pnwmom]

26. The House is working on changing this in the reconciliation package,

from what I understand.

[Political Heretic]

41. I wasn't aware they were talking about changing to a direct subsidy?

Can you clarify or confirm?

[slipslidingaway]

30. knr nt

[MineralMan]

34. That's silly. The employee can fill out a new W-4 and claim an extra

deduction or two to compensate for the anticipated tax credit. It's so simple. Everyone does this.

For example, my wife has a part time job. She put 0 down on her W-4, so they withhold more from her paycheck. That compensates for income she earns as a contract writer.

Manipulating deductions is standard stuff, and the HR people can predict the effect.

[Fumesucker]

39. So you have to game the system in order to make it work?

That's pretty fucked up.. :crazy:

Not everyone knows how to do that, or even *to* do it in the first place.

[Hello_Kitty]

42. And if you miscalculate you end up owing money at the end of the year.

Low wage people don't have that kind of wiggle room.

[havocmom]

52. Or if the person doing payroll miscalculates...

The poor get all sorts of problems they didn't do to themselves. Sloppy payroll wonks can cost workers a lot of heartache.

[readmoreoften]

70. And what about employees, at Starbucks for instance, who never know how many hours they'll work?

18?
34?

The schedule changes weekly and depends on managers. So how are these people going to "anticipate" anything?

[TornadoTN]

91. I suspect the answer will be "they will have to average out their hours monthly"

Which is ridiculous, because when I was in my early 20's and in college, some weeks I could have as many hours as I wanted and the next I might have 12. Some months would be better than others and there's no way I could depend on being able to meet a health insurance payment some months.

This tax credit bullshit is ridiculous.

[Raineyb]

45. Even worse than the discussions had been. Can you believe that there are people

trying to make those concerned about this to be selfish assholes?

[readmoreoften]

71. +1.

[New Dawn]

48. K&R - and keep in mind that many people do not even earn $10 per hour.

[Orangepeel]

49. that person wouldn't be helped by the Senate bill, but wouldn't be hurt either

It sucks that they won't be covered like they should be, but they won't be forced to do anything.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/summary-presidents-proposal.pdf

The Senate also includes a “hardship” exemption for people who cannot afford insurance, included in the President’s Proposal. It protects those who would face premiums of more than 8 percent of their income from having to pay any assessment and they can purchase a low-cost catastrophic plan in the exchange if they choose.

[TornadoTN]

97. And we are calling that "reform"?

Low-cost catastrophic plans are at least something, but they still won't get any help when they get sick, injured, or just need a check-up.

I really want to get behind this bill, but I just can't bring myself to do it.

[AzDar]

50. K & R

[troubledamerican]

55. YAY -- we WON -- LOL

Don't forget the excise tax.

Is Obama a Cheney Sleeper Cell?

[Digit]

60. So what about the people over age 55 but less than 65?

Who also make $10/hr or even (gasp) $12/hr?

They are screwed.

[juno jones]

102. And pre-existing conditions? It's OK to charge 3X

If $100 ain't there, $300 ain't either.

[Nikki Stone1]

62. IMPORTANT

.

[mtnester]

73. Wondering where my sister is going to find that extra 219 a month up front the first year

and my brother

Oh I know, NOWHERE

Got cable? They don't
Got beer, wine, cigarettes? They don't
Got a car payment? not anymore, their cars are DECADES old, but they have liability (can't drop it, illegal to do so)
Got new clothes? They don't..my sister is wearing the same stuff she wore in the 80's with repairs, and always shops the resale shop when she has to..underwear is the only thing she will buy new for herself and her child.

To find 219 a month, someone will have to go hungry. Literally. Hungry. Cause the elctric, gas and rental company want their money or you will get cold or be homeless...so the food budget is the only place you have left. And if you are mostly on food stamps? NOW where does the money come from? The gas budget that gets them to work? Hmm..probably not.

Oh wait, if they both quit their shitty ass jobs and maybe THEN they can get insurance? Maybe?


FAIL.

[Ignis]

74. K&R for a view from the ground rather than an ivory tower. (nt)

[DesertDiamond]

77. So if my gross pay is $1600/mo, minus taxes and this insurance...

If I am paying, say 20% in taxes total... I'll have to live on $1061 a month??? That is just not survivable.

[laconicsax]

80. Yep. You're screwed.

I hope it'll change.

[TornadoTN]

92. I'm not holding my breath

The loudest people championing this are the ones with employer-provided plans that have no grasp of the reality of many peoples situations, especially the ones that are supposedly targeted for this bill.

I'm lucky to have good insurance, but I have a younger brother that's trying desperately to find a job with insurance, and he will be in this boat. He's in his early twenties, just got out of college, and will be destroyed by this with his hourly retail job that he works now.

[laconicsax]

93. Well, he's in good company.

I'll be in the boat with him.

[TornadoTN]

95. I feel for you, I really do. I just don't get how this plan is being sold today

I hear people who were against it, now shouting down anyone who dares speak about these real issues. Up is down, night is day.


I have no faith that anything in this bill will be "fixed' or "improved". Sure, there are a few good things in this bill, but it's really not the savior plan that it's being sold as and there's a lot of problems, as we both know, that have not been addressed and are being completely ignored.

[laconicsax]

99. It's being sold on empty promises and half-truths.

Empty promises like, "pass it now, fix it later" and half-truths like, "it's better than nothing."

For me, I see the four years before the bill would take effect as the only good part. It'll be four years in which my situation may improve to a point where the mandate won't make things worse.

[h9socialist]

81. Still . . .

. . . as a long time supporter of single payer and medical socialism, I can tell yo that the same problem would arise under a more left-wing plan. UNLESS, you're willing to restructure the tax system towards HEAVY PROGRESSIVITY. I'm all for that -- but I don't underestimate what a heavy lift that would be on top of healthcare reform. We may have to settle for one miracle at a time.

[freddie mertz]

82. K & R for a most informative post and thread.

Yesterday I had a long discussion with a former student of mine who was unemployed and has epilepsy, which comes with a heavy need for medicine.

She couldn't afford COBRA and couldn't qualify for ANY HC aid anywhere... they actually told her the only way she could get on Medicaid was to get pregnant..wihch would require stopping her medicine, and probably kill her.

The Evil.

The Horror.

[LynneSin]

83. Or he could just be covered under his parents plans

Since until he is 26 years old he can still be claimed by his parents.

Which is what my nephew will be doing for the next 5 years probably.

[Xithras]

86. No, he couldn't.

Once more, the current bill merely extends the CURRENT upper limit on adult-child healthcare coverage, which currently times out at about 24, by two years. Those plans ONLY cover dependents and college students. I've never seen one that didn't require at least a half-time college enrollment. They also invariably cut off if the person is married, has a child, filed his/her own tax return, or violates one of dozens of other "rules".

There is also currently NO requirement in the HCR proposal that insurance companies even OFFER these policies. It merely says, "If you offer them, you must offer them to age 26". There isn't a thing in this bill to prevent every insurance company in America from announcing tommorow that "We will no longer cover adults over the age of 18 as dependents." If they don't offer the coverage, they aren't required to extend it.

Of course, all of this also assumes that the parents are going to be willing to foot the premiums anyway. Even if they were to amend the bill to fix every one of these problems right now, you still have to deal with the FACT that very few parents are going to be willing to pay out of pocket for insurance to cover their adult, working offspring. Especially as the parents wouldn't qualify for subsidies (the subsidy would be based on the parents income, not that of the adult-child).

[jody]

88. Thanks for your Herculean effort to clean out the Augean Stables.

:thumbsup:

[TornadoTN]

94. My 23 year old brother checked on this - he's SOL

He just graduated college and is working two part-time jobs since he can't find a full time job in this economy (especially one that offers benefits). Since he graduated, he was dropped from my parents insurance since he no longer qualified as a student.

He found out that under this plan, there is no obligation for my parents insurance company to bring him back on board, even if he re-enrolls. It's only if he was on my parents plan while he was doing his undergraduate work and since he's graduated, tough luck. Throw on the fact that he filed his own income taxes, he also ineligible from that respect.

So now he's still trying to find a "real" job or be faced with watching his a chunk of his paycheck go to health care insurance under this proposed plan. Since he only works two part time, retail jobs, his checks aren't that much and he will definitely feel the pinch. He knows the value of insurance but it's extremely hard & frustrating for him to look at the way this plan is being sold and then find out the realities of it. Being told that he *might* get a tax credit is little consolation to him, when he has bill each month.

[juno jones]

98. Kick.

Thanks for the info.

[laconicsax]

103. Kick