Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiddlywinks
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
The situation where the guy earns $8,000 per year and the premium would end up costing him 50% of his income is FALSE. Anytime the premiums end up being over a given threshhold (I think it's currently 9%) that person can apply and will get exemption from needing to purchase the plan.
|
Hence, leaving him without any insurance.
I'm not sure why this is a "good thing" to you.
That was my whole point that went entirely over your head. How is the person in the state with no Medicaid expansion going to pay for their insurance? They get no subsidies. No Medicaid. But they can pay 50% of their income towards buying insurance through an exchange. For 7 million of the poorest working Americans, that is their only option for insurance. These are the people earning minimum wage at part time jobs. The ones whose hours have been reduced. Whose employers do not offer insurance.
It seems to me that the most humane option is to plug the Medicaid gap by allowing those earning under the poverty level to get subsidies. Why punish the working poor for being "too poor"?