Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In states without Medicaid expansion a 40 year old single childless person earning $17,000 a year would pay $53.00 (pre-tax) a month for a Silver level plan.
Either way, if I was earning 17k a year, then absolutely Canada would be the better country to reside. But it isnt like people are without affordable health insurance in that bracket.
Why would a system that has just gone through a massive overhaul need to be "reformed again?" Its called allowing the system to develop and start to work. Bankruptcies will go down rapidly as a result, the example is out there for us to see.
How does it work if you are unemployed? Or working two jobs just to make 17k a year?
How does it work if you are unemployed? Or working two jobs just to make 17k a year?
Both cases it is still based on income. So in the case of someone who is unemployed it would be based on their unemployment compensation. So it would vary by state because unemployment insurance compensation has different caps in each state (I can work up an example if you are interested in a particular state)
In the case of the person working two jobs, it would still be the $53.00 a month. It doesnt matter how you arrive at that number. If that person dropped one of those jobs though, they would most likely qualify for Medicaid and pay nothing in premiums, but that is a whole other topic.
Yes, we all know it exists. But isn't that the same as people writing off a good university program because the city is too cold in the winter? That happens all the time as well.
I was going to reply to Yvanung but I read your response and thought there wasn't much to say
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack
It's probably related to the fact that the U.S. is more of a natural "rival society" for Anglo-Canada than it is for Quebec.
Could be - I wouldn't dismiss this observation outright.. For Quebec is France considered a "rival society" - I take that somewhat as a given but just curious about your perspective.
In states without Medicaid expansion a 40 year old single childless person earning $17,000 a year would pay $53.00 (pre-tax) a month for a Silver level plan.
Either way, if I was earning 17k a year, then absolutely Canada would be the better country to reside. But it isnt like people are without affordable health insurance in that bracket.
Why would a system that has just gone through a massive overhaul need to be "reformed again?" Its called allowing the system to develop and start to work. Bankruptcies will go down rapidly as a result, the example is out there for us to see.
Er, no. There is no evidence of the ACA/Mass. system reducing bankruptcies to reasonable levels (near 0) that I have seen. What is the evidence you can cite of bankruptcies being eliminated in Massachusetts? There has been a reduction, but it is nowhere near the 0.05% Canadian levels, and never will be.
And maybe $17K is too high, but there is definitely a level at say $15K in the half of the states that did not expand Medicaid where there is no subsidy and a silver level plan would cost $300 a month.
Additionally, as I mentioned, there is still a $1,000 or $2,000 deductible with a silver level plan. There are still $50 co-pays. Being covered by insurance in the U.S. is nowhere near like getting one of those neat little cards that cost nothing per month in Canada. As I cited, medical bankruptcies are just as likely to happen to people who are fully covered in the U.S.!
Because even when you have coverage in the U.S., you're still paying literally thousands of dollars per year for health care that isn't covered by your plan. Even after you pay for the plan monthly, and even after your taxes are sucked up by the government going to who know's what.
Even when you win, you often lose, in the U.S. health care system.
Er, no. There is no evidence of the ACA/Mass. system reducing bankruptcies to reasonable levels (near 0) that I have seen. What is the evidence you can cite of bankruptcies being eliminated in Massachusetts? There has been a reduction, but it is nowhere near the 0.05% Canadian levels, and never will be.
And maybe $17K is too high, but there is definitely a level at say $15K in the half of the states that did not expand Medicaid where there is no subsidy and a silver level plan would cost $300 a month.
Additionally, as I mentioned, there is still a $1,000 or $2,000 deductible with a silver level plan. There are still $50 co-pays. Being covered by insurance in the U.S. is nowhere near like getting one of those neat little cards that cost nothing per month in Canada. As I cited, medical bankruptcies are just as likely to happen to people who are fully covered in the U.S.!
Because even when you have coverage in the U.S., you're still paying literally thousands of dollars per year for health care that isn't covered by your plan. Even after you pay for the plan monthly, and even after your taxes are sucked up by the government going to who know's what.
Even when you win, you often lose, in the U.S. health care system.
This whole post made me laugh so hard. Now I get where you are coming from man, you just make sh*t up and roll with it to get a reaction. Okay I am guilty, took the bait and put together a thoughtful response. Got me man, gotta hand it to ya!
So a person who makes 17k qualifies of a subsidy but if you make less (15k) all of a sudden the premium jumps up to $300 a month? Now that one was funny, I love it! Just in the very far fetched case you are serious, every citizen in the nation qualifies for a subsidy through the federal exchange, no matter if their state expanded Medicaid or not. That is what that big (Maybe minor under the rock you are living) supreme court ruling was upholding a few months ago. LOL.
every citizen in the nation qualifies for a subsidy through the federal exchange, no matter if their state expanded Medicaid or not. That is what that big (Maybe minor under the rock you are living) supreme court ruling was upholding a few months ago. LOL.
Because the ACA envisioned low-income people receiving coverage through Medicaid, it does not provide financial assistance to people below poverty for other coverage options. As a result, in states that do not expand Medicaid, many adults will fall into a “coverage gap” of having incomes above Medicaid eligibility limits but below the lower limit for Marketplacepremium tax credits.
----/---- CONCLUSION:
Massachusetts' health reform has not decreased the number of medical bankruptcies, although the medical bankruptcy rate in the state was lower than the national rate both before and after the reform.
Now I get where you are coming from man, you just make sh*t up and roll with it to get a reaction.
Yeah that's like, totally it, man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by edwardsyzzurphands
Just in the very far fetched case you are serious, every citizen in the nation qualifies for a subsidy through the federal exchange, no matter if their state expanded Medicaid or not.
Oh, really? Because it sounds like you have no idea what you're talking about.
Here is a calculator for you as well, from the site you quoted above (KFF)
Punch in the numbers or ask a 3 year old to do it for you and see what you get. 15k, single filer, no kids, etc.....Then post that $300 premium after subsidies in a state that did NOT expand medicaid.
Here is a calculator for you as well, from the site you quoted above (KFF)
Punch in the numbers or ask a 3 year old to do it for you and see what you get. 15k, single filer, no kids, etc.....Then post that $300 premium after subsidies in a state that did NOT expand medicaid.
You are either not very bright, or just not getting this. Poor scissors shouldn't play with blimps.
The SCOTUS decision did not change ACA at all. It just let it remain law as written. Now go use your calculator and in put $10,000 in income with no kids in Alabama. No subsidy at all.
Quote:
You are not likely eligible for financial help through the Health Insurance Marketplace
In addition to Medicaid, the Federal government provides financial help to some people who qualify through the Health Insurance Marketplace. However, based on the information you provided, you would not be eligible for this type of help. Because your income is equal to 86% of the poverty level, you are not likely eligible for tax credits in the Marketplace. This financial help is only available to people who make between 100% and 400% of the poverty level.
... any questions?
Quote:
Your cost for a silver plan: $244 per month ($2,929 per year)
in premiums (which equals 29.29% of your household income).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
