Have any of the supporters of this HCR bill lived on $10 /hr? Yeah, didn't think so

[no limit]

If this bill passes a 25 year old single adult making $10 an hour will be forced to shell out about $100 a month. Does DU not understand that someone making that kind of income doesn't have $100 a month that they can pull out of thin air?

http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

$10 /hr is $800 every pay period before taxes. That amounts to $20,800 a year. Under the Obama proposal this person will get $1,400 in subsidies but in the end will still have to shell out about $102 a month for healthcare. That's assuming this person has no pre-existing conditions, if they do the insurance companies will be allowed to charge them 300% more.

Now for all you people that think this is a bill that is better than nothing you need to think about what $10 an hour actually is. If you subtract 15% for taxes (in reality its more than that) that amounts to about $18,000 a year or about $1,500 a month. For someone that has to pay rent, car insurance, heating, water, electric, phone, internet, credit card bills, food, and other every day necessities $1,500 a month is not a lot of money and chances are they come up just enough at the end of the month with no extra money to spare. Now you are going to tell these people that they have to make $100 a month that they do not have appear out of thin air?

This bill is going to end up hurting a lot of people, I've read many stories here of others who would be hurt in different ways. I've posted mine before. If you got a story please post it here.

But anyone claiming that this bill will only help people and not hurt anyone is not being truthful or simply doesn't care about the people that will be hurt. Stop pretending this is a good bill, it's not. And for the people it will hurt the argument that it's better than nothing simply doesn't cut it.

Medicare for all was never on the table, a strong public option wasn't either. What was on the table was a weak watered down public option and even that ended up being scrapped. In fact if this bill came up during Obama's campaign for president candidate Obama would have been opposed to this plan based on what he said on the campaign trail. So why does the majority of DU continue to blindly cheer for this bill without understanding the consequences it will have on millions of middle class americans? Has this really become a sport where you cheer for your team no matter what kind of crap they pull?

[kenny blankenship]

1. Most of them seem to be on Medicare anyway, so the details don't matter a damn to them.

[Raineyb]

193. Medicare is for people over 65. THAT hasn't changed. n/t

[kenny blankenship]

220. Not yet.

Wait a while. Can't do everything at once -phase OUT of Medicare could be next. The subject of the topic header is "supporters of the bill". Around here most of them seem to be Medicare recipients who don't care anything about what's in the bill so long as it passes.

[NYC_SKP]

205. Medicare does NOT cover everything. Apparently, some people think it does.

I just had the problem come up with my mom, who had an abscess removed and an overnight stay was advised, though would not be covered by Medicare.

Her supplemental plan, TriCare, made it a moot point, but absent supplemental insurance, there are countless ways people can go broke under the current system, even if they have Medicare.

God, the ignorance (lack of knowledge) around this subject is deafening.

[Maru Kitteh]

269. And people on Medicare have to buy into it.

If the $10/hr folks can't afford HCR even with subsidies, they sure as hell can't afford to buy into Medicare either.

[kenny blankenship]

272. Once again we have a poster with a reading disability

[martymar64]

287. I guess all of us in that boat will just have to get sick and die, won't we?

That way you won't have to listen to us anymore.

[Skink]

2. Pretty good bet that that person already has employer sponsored HCR.

and might be paying less that what you suggest.

[no limit]

4. People on $10 an hour get employer healthcare? You can't be serious

thank you for proving my point about how the majority of you are totally out of touch.

[Skink]

7. I have it.

years ago I thought I could get away with not paying for it but I eventually signed up for it.

[ProSense]

22. Yes, they do under reform.

An employee earning $10 per hour will likely pay much less than $100 per month. Also, small business will get tax breaks and exemptions so even their employees will benefit.

[no limit]

26. Where is your source for this? I gave you a source for my numbers, you didn't for yours

One of my clients is a local car wash, they let employees purchase insurance through them. I bring this example up because many there get paid around $10 / hr. You know what their cost is to buy in? $40 a week.

So forgive me if I don't believe your numbers, especially when you were proven wrong on your numbers before. But if you got a source I'll be happy to take a look.

[ProSense]

Here

link

So you didn't know what you were talking about.

[no limit]

59. You're kidding right? You link me to the same damn link I posted in my OP?

Here is a link for you:

http://www.realtor.org/small_business_health_coverage.nsf/Pages/health_ref_faq_employer_mandates?OpenDocument

The employer will have a 2% fee for not offering insurance. In the case of someone making $10 an hour that fee is about $400 a year which is much cheaper than buying actual insurance and as a result most employers will go that route.

[Hello_Kitty]

66. Many small businesses will be exempt from the fine anyway. eom

[ProSense]

79. No you're ridiculous. That fee is for small employees

The fee for employers with payrolls above $750,000 is 8%

That $800 will cover 80% of that premium on the individual market.

[no limit]

82. And all $10/hr employees work for employers with payrolls above $750,000

what about those that don't? They dont matter?

[ProSense]

89. They could, but let's use your $400

That reduces the employee's portion to $600 or $50 per month.

The kill the bill advocates are desperate.

[no limit]

92. Your math is wrong

So the fee goes directly back to the employee? If that is true I'm proud of you ProSense, you actually posted something useful that I didn't know.

But $400 a year is not $50 a month, it's $33 a month. So get your math right. That still leaves the person making $10 /hr with a $70 a month bill.

[ProSense]

97. No the fee goes to the exchange. nt

[no limit]

98. Ok, thanks. So the person is still left with the $100 bill. So what was your point?

Do those people not matter?

[ProSense]

107. Do you understand that the a person who is employed

by a company that doesn't provide health care isn't going to be liable for the full premium? Whether through vouchers or penalties, the employee will be covered at the same rate.

The individual is also eligible for a hardship exemption if the premium is more than 8% of his/her income. So the scenario you describe isn't likely. Period.

[no limit]

113. I already disproved your 8% claim, why do you repeat things that you know are not true?

The example I posted in my OP would not qualify for the 8% exemption.

And again, I asked you if the fee the employer pays goes directly in to the employees insurance payment. You said no, it does not.

Finally, even if it did the employee would still be left with $1,000 a year payment if the employer fee is 2%.

If all this is accurate can you please do me a favor and stop repeating falsehoods?

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[inna]

280. That's the poster's MO, don't take it personally -

- or any of her posts seriously. :hi: That's simply what she does. The answer to your last question is "No", btw. :P She really can't. :D


I wanted to comment on the substance of your post above though -

I noticed that you and others have been referring to the House Bill when discussing the employer mandate in this thread. Important and critical distinction - it is the Senate Bill (and Obama's plan - which is pretty much copied after the Senate Bill) that is going to be the basis of any future final legislation. That is simply a sad political reality - the House Bill, while SIGNIFICANTLY more progressive than the Senate bill, is NOT going to be the basis of the final legislation.

In contrast to the House Bill, the Senate Bill does NOT have the employer mandate and does NOT require that employers provide insurance. What it does instead is impose a weak penalty on large companies whose employees use government subsidies to buy insurance. In effect, that gives companies a strong reason to drop coverage altogether - see this thread on weakening employer-sponsored coverage and shifting financial burden to individuals/families for more details.

[jeff47]

326. That's a good thing...

...well, good in the long run.

We need to break this insane link between employment and heath care. The two have nothing to do with each other.

Unfortunately, it appears Congress has selected the 'go through many years of suck' to get there, instead of something like Medicare-for-all.

[Hello_Kitty]

127. Do you understand that we understand that?

The OP is about what the employee pays AFTER subsidies and which is LESS than the 8% cap.

[ProSense]

101. Wrong?

$1000 - $400 = $600

What does your math say?

[no limit]

105. Where did you get $1000 from?

My math is in my OP. feel free to look it over again.

Second you just said that the fee doesn't go to the employee, it goes to the exchange. So the employee is still on the hook for the full amount. Again, what's your point?

[Hello_Kitty]

123. What in Sam Hill are you talking about?

What an employer pays in fines for not insuring their employees has NO effect on what their employees will pay in premiums on the Exchange.

Under the Senate plan according to the KFF calculator:

25 year old making $10 an hour full time - $19,200 (177% FPL)

Total premium plan cost: $2637

Cap on premium as % of income: 5.5%

Person's share of the payment: $1057 (5.5% of income)

Government subsidy (to insurer): $1580


Our 25 year old will be expected to pay $88 a month. His/her employer will not be picking up any of it.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

321. Let's be up front. --->> realtor.org doesn't quite get it done.

Maybe it's just me. :shrug:

[Hello_Kitty]

27. According to the Kaiser calculator it's $88 a month. Less than $100 but not MUCH less.

It is true that the tax breaks may lead more employers to offer insurance.

[ProSense]

46. The calculator does not include the employer portion. It is the full premium. n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

65. That's because it doesn't apply if you get employer coverage.

Click on the part that says "Is employer coverage available?" and it says you only get a subsidy if your premium is 9.6% or more of your income. What you are talking about has nothing to do with the example in the OP, which is of someone who doesn't get insurance through their employer.

[inna]

281. A couple of points:

1) Both you and the OP are formally correct in your calculations WRT the monthly out-of-pocket premiums for someone who makes $10 an hour. The slight discrepancy is due to the fact that you used different assumptions when calculating annual income.
The OP's base number was $20,800 ($10 x 40 x 52) --> according to the Senate Bill, such an individual will have to pay $1,253 a year in out-of-pocket premiums, which equals $104/a month. You started with the lower annual income, and this is why you got $88 instead.
Anyway, you're both right. (And BTW, that amount is premiums only. This person will still have to come up with deductibles and co-pays on top of premiums (if they want to actually *use* their insurance, that is).


2)More importantly... Re. employers' contributions - I just made this point earlier in this thread...

I noticed that you and others have been referring to the House Bill when discussing the employer mandate in this thread. Important and critical distinction - it is the Senate Bill (and Obama's plan - which is pretty much copied after the Senate Bill) that is going to be the basis of any future final legislation. That is simply a sad political reality - the House Bill, while SIGNIFICANTLY more progressive than the Senate bill, is NOT going to be the basis of the final legislation.

In contrast to the House Bill, the Senate Bill does NOT have the employer mandate and does NOT require that employers provide insurance. What it does instead is impose a weak penalty on large companies whose employees use government subsidies to buy insurance. In effect, that gives companies a strong reason to drop coverage altogether - see this thread on weakening employer-sponsored coverage and shifting financial burden to individuals/families for more details.

[polpilot]

157. WHAT A GREAT WIN/WIN BILL!!!!!!! Employees win...Employers win!!

Whee!!!

[Xithras]

194. The small business exemption has already been widely slammed by the business community.

Small businesses are, by definition, small. While the credits will reduce the potential cost of health insurance coverage, the average small business will still end up paying over $6,000 per year for average family coverage for the average employee. That's a HUGE step down from the nearly $12,000 a year I used to spend per employee in my old business for healthcare coverage, but $6k per employee annually is still far beyond the budget of the typical small company. Where is that small corner store, with 5 employees working for just above minimum wage, supposed to scrape up an extra $30,000 per year for healthcare coverage?

The answer is that they won't. For the employees of these small businesses, the only "change" will be a new bill to pay every month.

[Political Heretic]

68. Employers offer it, but on 10/hr few can take it.

Of me and my 10/hr (it was actually 9/hr) friends none had health care, even though our employer offered some amazingly shitty coverage. Couldn't afford to pay for it when you need every penny and are already not making enough to get by.

[Michigan-Arizona]

324. Thank you Political Heretic

Hubby had insurance at work that was so crappy we canceled it & the cost was way to high on $10.00 an hour. You are so correct in your reply!

[Jennicut]

126. I had insurance at a local phone company for a customer service job that was $12.00 an hour.

That was in 2001. I also had it with a group home for boys as a counselor making $10.00 in 1999.

[Hello_Kitty]

129. That was 10 years ago. It's different now. eom

[Jennicut]

145. The job I had was from 2001 to 2007. I doubt that it changed from then.

My husband worked in customer service for Yankee Gas in 2008. He was not working above $15.00 an hour. He had insurance. No union on that side of the company. We have tons of friends in the sucky, low paying jobs of customer service as of 2010 (my husband has a different job now, I left to have my daughters). The all had insurance. They pay was pathetic but we all had Connecticare and then Cigna.

[Hello_Kitty]

160. Everything you said has nothing to do with the OP.

People who have insurance through work are largely unaffected by the bill. The OP is about people who DON'T get health care through work.

[martymar64]

288. You're wrong. The Senate Bill provide companies incentive to drop coverage altogether

The employer mandate is weak to the point of non-existence in the Senate Bill. It will be infinitely cheaper for large corporations to drop providing coverage at all and force all these people onto the "exchange" in a desperate rush for shoddy policies before they get fined from the to-be-strongly enforced individual mandate, our new "life tax".

Just watch. It'll start happening by next year. By then, everybody will be forced into the monopoly, re, exchange.

[Warren Stupidity]

294. Then provide the data that demonstrates that assertion.

[quiller4]

203. I had employer provided health care when I was making $9/hour

working part time for the local council of churches.

[Hello_Kitty]

267. Good for you. The OP isn't about that. eom

[waiting for hope]

320. How much was gas 10 years ago ..?

How much was food? Housing? Bad comparison.

[Warren Stupidity]

293. Provide some data to settle this.

Your assertion is that they do not have healthcare. Provide your data.


Here's mine.
Source: http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf
2005 data.
247.3 million americans have health insurance coverage.
46.6 million americans do not have health insurance coverage.
15.9% are uncovered.

So to start with, the mandate affects around 16% of the population.
67.7 private insurance.
27.3 government insurance.
15.9 no insurance.

"In 2005, in households with annual
incomes of less than $25,000, 75.6
percent of people had health insurance."

75.6% of people with income around the 10/hr level have health insurance.

If you have other data that contradicts this census data, please provide it.

[Hello_Kitty]

11. WTF does that have to do with the OP?

The people getting insurance through work are not those whom the bill targets. As we've been reminded repeatedly, if you already have insurance through work, nothing changes for you.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

17. Um...

the OP is correct -- you appear to be out of touch with the realities of many lower paying jobs.

For that matter, even better paying jobs are often a problem -- my legal assistant sister made 24k and had no health coverage through her employer.

[ixion]

35. When I got out of college, I worked many a $10 an hour job. NOT ONE offered insurance

so I would refute that point.

[Cleobulus]

60. My employer offers it, I can't afford the premiums...

and the deduct is 2,000 and the maximum out of pocket is 5,000 so I couldn't use it even if I took it. I make 10 bucks an hour.

[Saphire]

240. I'm with you. I make $10 per hour, and can't afford what my company

offers. Even if I could, I can't afford to actually USE it!! I have $5000.00 out of pocket before it kicks in, and then it's only 80 percent of approved charges.

I'd fork over 100.00 per month if it covered everything...and I mean everything.

[eridani]

295. If you lived in the Netherlands, that's exactly what you would fork over for EVERYTHING

--well, except dental. The Dutch government, of course, dictates the contents and price of basic comprehensive coverage, and provider costs as well.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

310. Right--I have been unable to find any other country in the world that has deductibles

or premiums that vary by age or state of health.

If premiums vary, they vary by income.

There may be co-pays, but if your co-pays reach a certain level, they either stop (Germany) or you get a refund from the government (Japan).

[Tailormyst]

159. Not alot of 10$h jobs have heathcare...

That's barely more then a walmart job

[Bluebear]

189. LOLOLOL

[L0oniX]

227. ...in bizzarro world. n/t

[Lorien]

257. You'd lose that bet. Most low income wage earners have no benefits

they are either working multiple part time jobs, are self employed, or their employers cap their hours at 38 per week to avoid having them qualify.

[New Dawn]

275. I do not even get paid 10 dollars per hour and there are ZERO benefits!

A large part of the country is just like me, too. BTW, I also have a bachelor's degree.

[kjackson227]

3. Young adults can be covered under their parents insurance...

until age 26.

[no limit]

6. So?

I'm 25, my parents don't think it's their responsibility to cover my insurance costs. I'm sure many non-spoiled americans over the age of 20 are in the same boat. Lucky for you your parents could afford to spoil you, thats not the case for everyone.

[kjackson227]

10. SOOO, there are options for people who will be unable to pay...

but for some reason, you insist on ignoring them.

[no limit]

I have asked time and time again what those options are, never got an answer

maybe you can enlighten me?

What are the terms for getting a hardship excemption?

[frazzled]

70. The answer is: if it will cost you more than 8% of your income, you're exempt

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/February/22/Obama-Health-Care-Proposal.aspx

[Hello_Kitty]

75. And if it's less you're not exempt, even if you don't have the money. eom

[no limit]

77. The answer is the example in my OP isn't exempt. Thanks for proving my point

[frazzled]

178. I was responding to the poster who asked the question, not you

But since we're talking, I think your calculations are a little off on your monthly nut, with regard to taxes. Using just a standard calculator for 2010, assuming you have yourself only as an exemption, take no deductions, and file the short form, your taxable income on a $20,800 salary would be $11,450, and your total federal tax liability for the year would be $900. I can't figure for your state taxes, since I don't know where you live, but let's assume you don't owe any (or it would be very minimal on that salary). So let's say you net closer to $19,500.

Living on $19K a year is indeed very difficult, especially if you live in a large city. Both my kids have done it (I can't compare it to myself, because I was 25 quite a long time ago-before cable even!). What they did was share apartments with roommates, paying closer to $600 a month rent and shared the utility bills. They didn't have cars (used public transportation), so that's one expense saved. I'm not saying you should do that, since you may need a car where you live. (Though it's strange you don't complain about having to pay car insurance, mandated by law). The cable bill you don't need to have. I wouldn't say that about Internet: you should have that. Ours costs $30 per month for DSL. You can watch stuff on Hulu or whatever, or walk down to the corner bar to see a sports game. It's hard for me to tell people you don't need a cell phone, because that's what younger people use. But you should make sure you're getting the best possible rate. I'm not trying to preach here, just trying to relive how one lives when one is young and not earning very much. We've all done it. Food? I hope you're eating in most of the time and cooking. I bet you are, and I bet you're trying to keep your expenses down as much as possible.

Let me tell you what my daughter's insurance cost five or six years ago when she got laid off her job and had to go on Cobra: $650 a month. Obviously, with no full-time job (it took her more than a year to find anything permanent), we obviously had to help her. It was incredibly difficult for us, but we somehow scraped it together as we cut out all things like eating out, etc. Let me tell you about my son's recent insurance lesson. He's a graduate student, so he got the health plan from his university, but he didn't want to pay the extra for dental insurance on his graduate student stipend (he lives on $23K a year but has a high rent, since he wants to live alone at age 25). Well, sure enough he bit down on something and lost a filling ... and it turned out to need an inlay etc. that cost $2600. Oh, how he wished he had signed up for that insurance.

I know $100 a month is a lot on your salary. I'm not unsympathetic about how hard that is. But you can't think of insurance as a luxury. It should come first. I pray you don't need to use it ... but you will be so glad if something happens. Young people today do not complain about a $49 cable bill and $59 cell phone bill and $30 Internet bill and $85 a month for car insurance (I'm just guessing here: slap me if I'm wrong). But being asked to insure yourself for $100, not just for your your own protection, but for the good of society as a whole (we each pay about $1000 a year for the uninsured) ... that seems wrong to me. Yeah, you may have to eat in more or text less or cut out that cable bill for a while. But you will be helping yourself and your country. Okay, now tell me "Old lady, get off my lawn." I can take it.

[Greyhound]

19. Bullshit, absolute, unmitigated bullshit. n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

21. The OP is about what a person making $10 an hour has to pay AFTER the subsidies. eom

[EFerrari]

42. When I was that age, my mother had no insurance. Where is the option?

[kjackson227]

36. I'm not spoiled, I've been working since the age of 19, fyi. But...

Even if I needed my parent's help during that time, I hardly think it would be "spoiling" their adult child by insuring them. Gawd, you are one bitter dude.

[Hello_Kitty]

55. I'm bitter right along with him.

We were promised health care reform and get yet another redistribution of the meager wealth of the working class to the plutocrats.

[Renew Deal]

39. Yes, sucks for you.

Those that can be covered by their parents will. There's nothing offensive about that. And depending on your parents plan, it might be cheaper for you for them to put you on their insurance.

[EFerrari]

49. If you have parents and if they have insurance. There's a plan!

[Luciferous]

276. Exactly!

[Hello_Kitty]

73. I think it's fine for some but I'm concerned it will be treated like college aid.

Where people who are completely estranged from their parents are denied aid because the parents make too much. I'm picturing young adults trying to apply for Medicaid or subsidized insurance and being denied or delayed because their parents have coverage. Remember, most of this stuff is going to be dispensed at the state level.

[Hippo_Tron]

147. Staying on parents plan doesn't = parents paying for it

It means that until 27, if your parents have partially employer funded insurance you can pay that as well. If parents don't want to spoil their kids, then the kids can write them a check for the amount it costs to cover them, which will be less than if they try to buy on the individual market.

A better argument is that some peoples' parents don't have insurance.

[Klukie]

14. do you really think that only young adults are the ones making 10 bucks an hour?

[kiva]

15. And screw those under 26 whose parents don't have

insurance, or can't afford to cover their adult offspring, or those over 26 that are making $10 per hour or less. Is that compassionate liberalism?

[Hello_Kitty]

18. My parents were dead by the time I was 26.

And being able to stay on your parents' plan is great if you are lucky enough to have parents who can afford and are willing to continue insuring you.

[laughingliberal]

122. and if they are not fortunate enough to have parents with insurance? nt

[Bluebear]

192. And if their parents don't have insurance? Or the worker is 60? Or if their parents threw them out?

[Raineyb]

195. Assuming 1. Their parents are alive

2. That said parents are insured.

If there is no plan to be put on I guess they're SOL is that what you're saying?

[Xithras]

207. Yeah, if they're unmarried dependents attending school full time. And the parents are willing.

The HCR bill doesn't require them to do anything but extend any existing healthcare dependent benefits to age 26. My current health plan DOES cover my children until they're 24...if they are my legal dependents (i.e., no income of their own), are attending school full time, are not married, and have no children of their own. The HCR bill extends the upper limit to 26, but changes nothing else. It also does nothing to stop insurance companies from eliminating adult dependent coverage completely, and simply says "if you offer it, you have to offer it until age 26".

That also assumes, of course, that your parents have insurance and are willing to extend it to you. If your parents have a "You're an adult, get the fuck out" attitude like many (mine), it's a moot point. The law REQUIRES parents to maintain insurance coverage for their children only until they turn 18. If the parent is unwilling or unable to continue paying premiums for their adult children after that, the child loses all coverage.

[nashville_brook]

254. my parents were on Medicare by the time I was 18

[Hell Hath No Fury]

5. I am a 49 year old --

living on a little under $10. In San Francisco. With several pre-existing conditions.

I checked myself out on the O plan. I was not a happy camper with what I found. If forced to purchase health insurance under his plam, I would be hurt.

[Cronus Protagonist]

20. I'm already planning on a lawsuit to avoid the fines

I'm assuming I'll be able to get pro bono assistance with that, but in any case, I won't be paying either the Democratic fines or premiums - what can they do? Imprison me?

[county worker]

29. If you are working they'll take it out of your paycheck before you get paid.

That's what happens if you owe taxes and the IRS is supposed to collect the fee I think.

[Cronus Protagonist]

47. Good luck to them on that plan

How are they going to make me earn more money to *have* the cash to pay them? Are they going to make me homeless so I can pay the fines? That's what will happen if they take the cash away from my rent money. They'll push me onto public assistance programs. I'll be homeless, but at least I'll, ironically enough, have health insurance while the lawsuit is in process.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

30. I will be there with you --

I suspect many Americans will be. Keith Olbermann has already said he is going to engage in civil disobedience on this isses. I think this administration is in for a big wake-up call should this pass.

[Cronus Protagonist]

51. It will be like Maggie Thatcher's POLL TAX

Vastly unpopular and scrapped soon after its invocation.

[girl gone mad]

233. It will be like the drug re-importation ban.

Everybody still buys cheap drugs online. I can't imagine many people will actually make the effort to buy these bad insurance policies or that they will voluntarily pay the fines.

[Greyhound]

31. Once millions of us take the same position, I will not be surprised one bit.

We must keep in mind what the overarching agenda is. This is not about health care and it's not even about insurance very much, it is about breaking through The Constitution and enabling through force of law a tax on every citizen, paid directly to a private entity.

Take this little precedent, and combine it with the recent SCOTUS ruling. Now look at some of the other laws and ruling we've been subjected to over the last few decades (treaties, welfare, bankruptcy, etc.). Do you see a pattern emerging?

[Cronus Protagonist]

58. I do, in fact see a pattern emerging. It's a pattern of FASCISM

And here, I honestly thought that voting in Democratics would put a stop to it. Silly me.

[Greyhound]

Why don't more people see this happening right now, right in front of them? n/t

[Cronus Protagonist]

84. It has to be a lack of awareness

I suspect most people think if someone's not wearing a swastika, it cannot be fascism. It's even amusing sometimes to see the teabaggers yelling about socialism while supporting fascism, despite being against this bill, which is right up the alley of the corporatist political structure in this country. Jesus wept, as do I.

[eridani]

297. Age discrimination? I checked into that.

Seems I have no standing because I'd be eligible for Medicare before the mandate kicked in.

[Kaleva]

8. The most I ever made in the 90's was $10.50 an hour.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. Do you really think that 97% of liberals haven't lived on $10/hr or less?

I know some people around here are bad at math, but jeez...

[no limit]

13. I know you might find this as a shock, but these polls are usually total bullshit

Colbert did a great piece on it last week, you might want to check it out.

In December polling said majority of liberals didn't want a mandate without a public option. What is your point?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

57. Riiiight, it's the poll's fault.

Everybody's fault but your own.

[no limit]

74. Way to not address the point, makes you look smart.

3 months ago 50% of liberals were saying this bill shouldn't pass without a public option. Now 97% think it should according to this poll. And you aren't smart enough to ask questions about why that is? Not my problem.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

111. You're comparing apples and oranges.

I'd love to have a public option too. Hell, I'd love single payer. But I'm smart enough to realize that we don't have enough votes. And so are the other 97% of liberals.

So what's your excuse?

[salin]

334. have known many liberals who have lived on 5.00 an hour

myself included. More than 3% of the liberals that I know. Your generalization doesn't match my life experience.

[Cleita]

12. People who have FICA deducted from their checks should be able to

participate in Medicare. I believe that will be our next fight. I think this one will have to be through the courts though with class action suits. Since I don't know much about the law, I don't know if it's possible to take this to the Supreme Court but I'd sure like to try. I don't think Congress or the White House would lift a finger on making it so.

[3324SS]

16. When I lost My Health Insurance a few years back

I was able to make my car insurance payments but not my $750 per month COBRA payment so I decided if I got sick I would just get in the car and drive at high speed into a wall, that way I could get Health Care paid for under my Auto Insurance.

[county worker]

23. Can't a 21 yr old remain on their parents plan under this bill?

[kiva]

38. As several people have pointed out above, that

doesn't help a huge number of workers who make $10 or less per hour. Again, IF you are under the cutoff age, and IF your parents have insurance, and IF they choose to and can afford to insure you, then you can get your insurance. Better stop having birthdays, though, because you'll lose it soon enough.

[B Calm]

24. Seems like a pretty damn good argument to get our salary raised! This

could benifit the working poor! Quit being so negative and form a union!

[no limit]

32. Are you being sarcastic?

I really really hope you are. Because if you aren't there is no better example of how out of touch some of you are.

[B Calm]

62. The only person being sarcastic is you!

[no limit]

87. You are the one that thinks someone making $10 an hour can go in and demand more

you are the one that needs to get back in touch. Since you don't understand the plight of someone living on such an income you probably should do yourself a favor and get more educated on it because if this bill passes these same americans will be totally screwed over, and a few years from now I will blame people like you for it.

Those damn lazy employees making $10 an hour. Why don't they just go to their boss and tell him/her to pay more? You can't be fucking serious.

[B Calm]

221. So you call yourself lazy. . .

[ProSense]

25. Completely inaccurate.

The calculator is not for employees.

•The calculator does not apply to people with coverage available through an employer, where the firm is generally paying for a substantial portion of the insurance premium.

Those in the individual market will definitely qualify for hardship exemptions if premiums go above 8 percent of their income.

[no limit]

28. Like I said, totally out of touch

if you make $10 an hour your employer wont give you healthcare. Any healthcare they offer you have to buy in to at siginificant cost.

[ProSense]

33. Completely bogus claim. n/t

[no limit]

34. Right, except I posted sources and backed up my claims. You made everything up

or atleast refused to provide the evidance behind your claim.

[kiva]

52. When you work that hard at posting for a living,

you don't have time to look up sources. Hmmm, wonder if that job comes with health insurance?

[Greyhound]

177. Paid by the post, not the quality of content.

The idea is not to convince or convert, it's simply to redirect or distract, create the appearance of 'debate' so that they can point to a lack unanimity as justification for the indefensible.

I know you already know this, but it kicks the thread and dilutes his/her BS

[amborin]

314. agree, but

i think maybe it's by the word, not by the post; what do you think?

on a more somber note, i kick myself for not realizing this was going on way earlier

[CreekDog]

61. no you didn't, you posted a calculator that doesn't apply to whole categories of people

then you posted a screed about the health care bill for which you quoted no language, provided no link to a source and on top of it all, it appears you have gotten things wrong.

aside from that it's fine.

[inna]

279. LOL, that is absolutely typical of that poster.

She persists in making absurd, unfounded and misleading claims, has absolutely no understanding of the current health care plans outside of the White House talking points, and usually provides links that either have nothing to do with, or directly contradict her claims.


You might be amused by this little exchange: :D

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7903161&mesg_id=7907067

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7903161&mesg_id=7907252


BTW, the second link answers the question about the hardship exemption that I believe you asked. :hi:

[amborin]

285. no limit,

it's no use discussing anything with her

she's paid by the word to spout non-sense

it's her job, poor thing

[freddie mertz]

306. I wish someone was paying ME!

How do I get a piece of the action?

Leave my conscience and my immortal soul at the door, I presume.

Where do I sign up, Mr. Scratch?

[ixion]

44. It's not at all bogus. What's bogus is that you believe that $10 an hour jobs

offer healthcare. I got news for you: they don't, for the most part.

[ProSense]

72. Bogus claim, but let's say the individual's employer doesn't offer health care

Large employers will be fined or must provide the equivalent of the employers portion to support that employee.

The employee is eligible for a hardship exemption if the premium exceeds 8 percent of his/her income.

Bottom line: a $10 an hour employee cannot afford the current $9,800 for coverage on the individual market. Under reform that employees premiums will likely spend less than $80 per month for care, if that.

[EFerrari]

86. So, it will be like having another utility bill.

Power shut-offs increase as economy cools

COHOES, N.Y. — The number of Americans whose electricity or gas has been shut off for nonpayment of their bills is up sharply in many parts of the country as people struggle to cope with higher prices and a shaky economy.

Shut-offs have been running 17 percent higher than last year among customers of New York state's major utilities, and 22 percent higher in economically hard-hit Michigan.

They are up in all or part of dozens of other states, including Pennsylvania, Florida and California, according to an Associated Press check of regulators and energy companies.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008234578_shutoffs07.html?syndication=rss

[ProSense]

110. So is health care free under single payer? n/t

[EFerrari]

142. How do you have people making one more out of pocket payment

in this economy?

[eridani]

298. Under the WA State proposal, it's $125/month/adult for everything

Plus there would be an 8% tax on payrolls over $150,000.

[freddie mertz]

312. What a nonsensical question.

Ever heard of the "social contract" Prosense?

Public school as a "free to all" because they are paid for by taxes.

A ntion that was well understood until it was undermined by the age of Reagan.

Under single-payer, progressive taxation would cover the bulk of the expense.

Various models in use across the world use a fee system for some tests and some or all medications, usually based on ability to pay.

But you know that.

You are just being belligerent I guess.

[Jennicut]

112. Sometimes people can get hardships for economic and health reasons.

My husband works at a gas utility in CT and collects late payments and does shut offs. But the economy is killing some people, I agree with that. He tells me more people cannot pay their bills and he does more shutoffs these days then collecting payments. And he can't shut off if the weather is 32 degrees.

[EFerrari]

146. A lot of people in a world of hurt right now, that's for sure. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

296. where 75% do means "they don't for the most part"

In 2005, in households with annual
incomes of less than $25,000, 75.6
percent of people had health insurance.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf

Never mind facts.

[ixion]

308. That DOES NOT equate to employer insurance

sorry, nice try. Way to use facts to try and obfuscate the truth.

[Warren Stupidity]

337. Either employer or government insurance.

At <24,000 you are generally not able to afford private insurance under the current system. That is where this bill actually helps - with the people who are low income, do not qualify for medicaid, and do not have government or employer based insurance. A hefty subsidy will make insurance affordable.

If you have any credible data that demonstrates that any substantial portion of that 75% are insured through individual private insurance plans, please provide it. Of course that data would undermine the OP's position that this bill helps nobody, but never mind that - bring on the data.

[CreekDog]

48. And now you will get a subsidy to buy into that employer healthcare

are you playing fast and loose with the facts here?

[Raineyb]

202. If you were paying attention the discussion is on what's owed AFTER the subsidy.

Talk about playing fast and loose.

[CreekDog]

236. and I was pointing out the alternative

or do I have to clear everything with you in advance to make sure it's within the scope of discussion?

you are a terrible representative for your position.

[Raineyb]

274. And you're a piss poor representative of this piss poor bill.

And you should probably stick with the hypothetical instead of trying to make a point by injecting your own hypotheticals that don't make your argument.

[griffi94]

71. give it up

they're not going to get it, because they don't want to get it.
this is obamas plan, obama is a democrat therefore it must be good. i'd bet if the president were mitt romney and he was pushing this same bill the same people here telling you how great it is would be screaming bloody murder about mandates with no public option.
we obviously have our own set of blind partisans just like the gop.

you're never going to get a straight answer just more totured talking points.

it's a bit like listening to christian fundies. god said it...i believe it....that settles it.

[Bluerthanblue]

162. many state and town jobs offer healthcare and

start at minimum wage.

:shrug:

You need to stop making assumptions and speaking for people other than yourself.

[northzax]

199. i make $10.50/hour

and I have employer provided health insurance. costs me $33/paycheck.

look, I understand you don't want to buy insurance. I get that. but it only works if everyone does. maybe we should have an opt-out provision? where people say "I will only pay for medical services in cash, upfront?" you could wear a special bracelet, and deny medical treatment you can't pay for? $88/month is a hell of a lot less than open market prices, amigo.

[no limit]

245. Do you live alone?

Pay rent?

[northzax]

251. yes, I pay rent

I also pay student loans, buy food, etc. heck, I even contribute to my 401K and save money every month. do I live like a king? nope. is my apartment spacious? not really. does it keep out the wind and rain? yep. I cook most of my own meals, don't spend a lot on clothing, entertainment or whatnot. it's not ideal, but it works.

[no limit]

252. Do you live alone?

[northzax]

327. No. But I don't know a single person

Making under 80k a year who lives alone in DC. Welcome to life in the big city. You share apartments, houses etc. People don't tend to live alone in big cities.

[no limit]

329. Nice for you, not the case here

not everyone has to option of living with someone.

So your case doesnt really apply to my OP.

[eridani]

299. Which is why the "market" ought to be stuffed into a trash can and burned

Every civilized country covers everyone at half the cost.

[ourbluenation]

270. I pay someone a little over $10 bucks and cover all of her premium

it's not that unusual.

[Hello_Kitty]

40. According to the calculator the max premium is 5.5% of their income so no exemption.

They would pay the premium or a fine.

[Greyhound]

41. Just keep spreading it.

Here's another buck for you.

[kath]

283. What insurance company does he/she/it work for? Anyone know?

I'm sooo sick of all the bullshit it spreads/

[CreekDog]

37. do you have evidence for the 300% extra for preexisting conditions

:shrug:

[Jennicut]

43. I have lived on $10 to $13 dollars an hour just out of college.I didn't even have insurance.

It depends on what the subsidies are. The only thing that helped me was I moved in with my fiancee and we pulled out money together, in 1999. I was eventually offered insurance at my 3rd job and it was $12.00 an hour. It was good insurance too. Depends on the situation and everyone is different.

[Renew Deal]

45. Some will be covered by their parents until 27.

And some will have their own insurance. This is what's left for the few that don't have either.

[Luciferous]

277. I think it's only until 26, and that's if their parents actually have insurance.

[JVS]

50. It's a bad bill, and it should have been killed long before getting this bad.

[The2ndWheel]

53. Is the 25 year old single adult living alone?

[JVS]

64. Should that not be possible?

[Hello_Kitty]

88. Not when there's a Health Care Industrial Complex that needs to be bailed out! eom

[JVS]

106. I demand a room-mate mandate NOW!

[Hello_Kitty]

168. Yep. And you don't need that cell phone, computer, car, or TV either

No dates, no social life, no anything discretionary. If you haven't done your duty as a citizen to procreate, all your monies are belong to Teh Fambleez.

[The2ndWheel]

191. Possible? Sure.

But if the environment you currently exist in doesn't allow that, then you have to adjust. How that's done is your choice, but I was just throwing out a pooling of resources type option, similar to the idea behind universal health care.

[Hello_Kitty]

85. Let me guess, you want to know if they have cell phones and plasma TVs too.

We know the drill: Single childless adults should be living 12 to an apartment, sitting on milk crates, and eating ramen so that more of our money can be taken to subsidize Teh Fambleeeeez.

[The2ndWheel]

198. I'm an almost 32 year old single childless adult

I share an apartment with my sister, who has a boyfriend that is still living at home, since it's not easy for anybody. I actually bring home less than the $1500 a month that was used as an example in the OP. There are things I do without, some by choice, others not. There are pieces of furniture and other things I have that I've had since I was 15, 16, 17, 18 years old.

You have to adapt to the environment you live in.

[Raineyb]

213. In other words "how dare you think you can live in an apartment by yourself rather than

take on a dozen roommates when you can fork over more of your hard earned money to the health insurance companies Don't you know that those with families are more important.

Fuck that noise!

[The2ndWheel]

228. I never mentioned a dozen roommates

I never mentioned a baker's dozen, or even half a dozen. I know I did say that I have A roommate. And I don't have a family, and I didn't say those with families were more important.

And I didn't say you can't live in an apartment by yourself. I was just throwing out an option of pooling resources. You know, socialism. Spread the risk. Share the burden. If you do live by yourself, and make less than X amount, then you might have to give something up, or get more money, if you live in an environment where you can't have everything making $10/hr.

I'm not sure what you read, but I didn't write anything close to what you thought I wrote.

[girl gone mad]

238. But one of the things you can't choose to live without is for-profit health insurance..

apparently. Regardless of whether you can get health care or not.

Interesting.

[The2ndWheel]

250. Tell me about it

If it were up to me, I would choose not to pay for roads, as I hate what they do to the environment, regardless of who or what they're built by and for(much more likely for commerce than anything else), but here we are.

If this is the environment we're going to live in, then we have to adapt to it. You either get more money, or give up something that you don't absolutely need. Until we pool resources for universal health care paid through taxes, you might have to share other things.

[girl gone mad]

259. Private roads are paid for with tolls so people can choose not to drive on them.

We don't mandate that everyone pay for private roads, whether or not they intend to use them and whether or not they will be allowed to drive on them.

Not a good analogy.

[SargeUNN]

54. You answer your own question wrongly

Fact is yes I do live on less than $650/month and support this bill. I believe we need to do something that moves forward and doing nothing is stupid and deadly. So before you answer your question why don't you know you got the right answer? That really doesn't make you look too informed now does it? Please correct your wrong answer.

[no limit]

67. You live on $650 a month? Do you also walk 30 miles in the snow each day to work?

If you live on $650 a month you will get huge help from the government, your case is not what my OP was refering to.

[SargeUNN]

118. You asked a question you got an answer

Sorry if the truth bothers you, but yes I do live on less than $650/month and thanks for your concern. Truth is I am a disabled Vietnam Era Veteran, have fought hard for Katrina Abuses, put my life on the line, and still do all I can to help make America more progressive. If you want to make fun of that then the problem is yours, not mine.

[no limit]

138. So you get a bunch of government aide that we wont have access to

and that makes you an authority on the subject.

I appreciate your service, I really do. But you will not be hurt by this bill and you are not an example of what I was talking about in my OP. That's simply the fact.

[SargeUNN]

150. Appreciate my service?

You have a long way to go to convince me. You haven't impressed me with your blanket statements and stereotypes you have so far posted. You apply statements to me that are incorrect and instead of correcting yourself, you cover up with yet more incorrect stereotypes. Sorry but you aren't proving to be too convincing and hopefully people are seeing who you really are.

[no limit]

179. I'm not trying to prove anything to you

You are the one that doesn't seem to give a damn about the people that will be hurt by this bill. You came in here saying you live on $650 a month so somehow you have a right to tell us what we can afford on $10 /hr. What you left out was all the VA benefits that you get including government provided healthcare.

So I'm sorry if you feel I hurt your feelings, but you will not be affected by this bill and you don't seem to give a damn about those that will be.

[SargeUNN]

140. Ok you are incorrect again

You really need to learn more before you post. The fact is the only thing I get outside of my income from the government is less than $140/month in food stamps. I guess you have some reply but young person, you need to listen more and talk less because you are showing you are poorly informed and believe only what you want.

[no limit]

182. You get no help from the government live on $650 / month and can still post on the internet?

Forgive me if my bullshit meter is going off. That or you don't live alone. If that is the case again, my OP does not apply to you. Does it?

[Autumn]

253. Do you have health care through the VA? I

think that is excellent health care, if my husband didn't have it we would be so screwed.

[Prism]

56. They don't care

Man, if I see that calculator link one more time . . .

They honestly think a calculator is the same thing as an answer. Even after so many of us use it, calculate income and subsidies, look at the exemptions, and then return to explain "Hey! We still can't afford this!"

They don't understand what it means to be poor or working class in this country, and they don't care.

One element isn't paid to care, and the other element is too comfortable to bother.

And then there's the Huge Thing they just flat-out ignore. Even if someone can scrape enough together to barely afford the insurance, they're still screwed when it comes to the expenses of actual care.

I think there's some kind of fantasy world people live in, where they think health insurance is the exact same thing as saying "Your illness will be 100% paid for."

Which, again, sort of illustrates the point. They don't know, and they don't care. Go team.

[Missy Vixen]

115. Of course they don't

It doesn't affect them, therefore, they don't give a shit.

>Even if someone can scrape enough together to barely afford the insurance, they're still screwed when it comes to the expenses of actual care.<

My husband is a 45-year-old contract employee. We lost our medical insurance last year. We both have pre-existing conditions. His employer offers "medical insurance". Here it is: $25,000 of annual coverage for $450 a month, with a $2,000 deductible.

With the news that insurance companies will (allegedly) accept those with pre-existing conditions, but STILL have the right to jack the premiums 300% due to "age", we're screwed no matter how we look at it.

It's comical to me that those who are sitting pretty, i.e., have employer-supplied health insurance or Medicare, can't wait to tell the rest of us to just swallow this shit sandwich. After all, if we were as lucky as they are, we wouldn't have anything to bitch about, would we?

[Political Heretic]

63. God, I have - crushing stress and humiliation of poverty. Oh wait I don't support Senate Bill.

[Better Believe It]

69. You'll be allowed to buy a "bare bones" cheaper insurance policy that won't cover anything ....

and will find ways to decline most of your claims that are suppose to be covered.

Do that or be fined.

[Cleobulus]

76. I'm 32 and make 10 bucks an hour, this bill will royally screw me over...

basically I'll have to pay for the "privilege" of not being able to use my employer's health insurance.

[Renew Deal]

81. Would you pay for the privilege" of using your employer's health insurance if you could?

:shrug:

[Cleobulus]

90. No, because its utter crap, I can't afford the deduct(2,000 dollars)...

nor the out of pocket expenses(5,000 dollars). I have a preexisting condition that requires surgery, hospitalization, etc. and I'll never get treated for it in this county, period.

[Renew Deal]

94. Your situation just changed

You will be able to pay a small amount of money and you'll be eligible for insurance despite your condition. Sounds like you're going to come out better from this.

[Cleobulus]

102. THAT IS THE INSURANCE, do you understand, the insurance offered...

is WORTHLESS TO ME!

[Renew Deal]

124. Why is it worthless?

They can't deny you service. That was one of your concerns. And it's a hell of a lot cheaper than going to a doctor without insurance. How do you afford that?

[Cleobulus]

131. Only in the ER they can't deny service...

and my condition isn't an ER condition, I cannot get an MRI without working out some type of deal with the orthopedic surgeon and his office first, and I can't even afford to do that. Unless I want to be in debt for years on end. Not to mention scheduling for surgery and physical therapy afterward.

[Renew Deal]

134. OK, so how aren't you better off with insurance.

Unlike some, you're actually going to use it. I don't get it. :shrug:

[Cleobulus]

136. OK, let's see if I can make this plain...

I make 10 dollars an hour, if I had my employer's insurance I'd have to shell out a quarter of my income for that year to get treated, and that is WITH the insurance. Do you understand the problem now?

[Renew Deal]

144. Now you will pay 7% based on a 40 hour week.

$10/hr x 40 hours x 4 weeks=$1280

$90 is 7% of your salary. It's much more affordable than 25% of your salary.

The assumptions are you work 40 hours which isn't always the case with hourly jobs and you won't be denied for care.

[Cleobulus]

151. Fuck, you aren't listening, I'm not talking about Premiums, fuck fuck fuck...

seriously, are you paying attention? The insurance offered at work has a 2,000 dollar deductible and 5,000 dollar maximum out of pocket with 20% copay. That means that, regardless of how much I pay in premiums, it will cost me about a quarter of my income to get medical CARE. Add in the premiums and its closer to a third of my income.

[girl gone mad]

249. No, they don't understand..

they can't think clearly with all of the butterflies and unicorns dancing around in their heads.

[kath]

284. yeah, those little pink unicorns are multiplying madly around here.

"They'll improve on this bill. Really they will." "we need to pass this - it's a good start" yada yada yada yada

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[treestar]

336. I have something like that - higher deductible, even

And have to pay out of pocket for ordinary stuff since the deductible is never charged.

Still if I had a problem so terrible that it went over the deductible, at least that would be all I'd owe.

If you had the insurance, your bill would be 2K +20% up to 5K. If not, the bill could be 100K.

[Hello_Kitty]

217. Actually, since her employer offers insurance she'd have to pay 9.8% of her income in premiums.

She can apply for subsidies above that but the Exchange is not available to her.

[ourbluenation]

271. with HCR they can't deny coverage anymore, right? what am I missing here.

[Cleobulus]

278. Oh I don't know, the 5,000 dollars I'd have to shell out to pay for treatment.

Coverage is useless if I still can't pay the upfront costs for treatment.

[eridani]

300. Yes they can. There is nothing whatsoever in the bill prohibiting claims denial

And at any rate, the lowest tier on offer is garbage that won't pay 40% of expenses.

[Greyhound]

185. No, no, no, you don't understand, your situation is irrelevant as are you.

It's all about claiming that this is better than nothing and that the good health fairy will come someday and fix this mess.

You don't know your own life or situation, so STFU and go die in a corner.

[Bluerthanblue]

78. I'm one of those people- it will very likely hurt me and I still support

the bill.
As a single mother I learned long ago the world doesn't revolve around me.

So, you are wrong.

:thumbsdown:

[no limit]

If you have a child you will not be hurt by this bill. So no, Im not wrong

and you dont seem to care.

[Bluerthanblue]

95. you are talking out your rear on this one-

I have no insurance at present. I will likely be mandated to purchase insurance which I cannot afford. And YES that will hurt me in ways you have no concept of.

But my own personal welfare isn't my bottom line. There is such a thing as 'the greater good'.

I believe the passage of this bill is for the 'greater good' of our country. Even though it's a flawed bill, which will put me into a very difficult position.

I care more than you know.

Do you? Honestly?

[no limit]

103. You wanna post some figures? Because I am not the one talking out of my rear

and I dont appreciate you saying I'm talking out of my ass when you are the one that posted nothing to back up what you are saying yet I did.

If you have dependents you will get subsidies that single people can only dream of. It might still hurt you some but in the end not as much as it hurts millions of single americans living on an average of $10 /hr.

[Bluerthanblue]

120. I don't care what you appreciate- You ASKED

if anyone living on $10 hr supported HCR-

I AM and I DO- so your "yeah, didn't think so" is WRONG-

what is so difficult about this for you to understand?

You ARE talking out your ass when you try and speak for me- which you did in the TITLE of your post.

If you can't deal with the truth- change your title.

:shrug:



(edited to correct your exact quote)

[no limit]

139. If you make $10 an hour with a child you will get medicaid. You will not be hurt by this bill

This is not me talking out of my ass, I posted everything to back this up. You posted no figures, nothing. Just a statement.

[Bluerthanblue]

173. I'm not going to post my personal information online to

prove to you that I WILL be hurt by this bill-

You seem to think you know everything about everybody and you don't.

You make many assumptions, and sweeping statements that you cannot begin to support with real life examples.

I'm speaking for myself, my own personal life- all your opinions to the contrary don't change my reality.

Your statement in the title of your OP is WRONG. I posted to let you know that. If you can't even admit that truth, then I'm not going to waste any more time with you.

[no limit]

174. I am not making any assumptions. I am going off what you told me

and from what you told me (that you make $10 /hr with a child) you will get medicaide. The fact you don't wanna get more specific is a cop out on your part, plain and simple.

[Bluerthanblue]

186. "Have any of the supporters of this HCR bill lived on $10 /hr? Yeah, didn't think so "

YES- ME.

your "Yeah, didn't think so" is WRONG.

THAT was what I have responded to- and your telling me that subsities will put me in some comfortable world that doesn't exist in an attempt to hide the ERROR of you statement, says volumes about your credibility.

What is your salary? how much do you make? Why are you so intensely vocal and ugly about this issue?

If you don't want to answer, you are 'copping' out yourself.

:shrug:

[Hello_Kitty]

206. No one's saying anything about a comfortable world.

But if you're making $10 an hour with a child you will qualify for Medicaid. You probably already do in most places. The cutoff in AZ for a single parent is about $1800 a month.

[Bluerthanblue]

209. -

you aren't listening, so I'm through talking.

We're wasting each others time.

:hi:

[no limit]

232. I am not being ugly about anything. You said you would be hurt by this bill, thats not true

thats all I am pointing out to you. My OP directly talked about a young adult living alone with no children. You have children, you get medicaid. My OP does not apply to you nor will this bill hurt you as you originally claimed.

You can say that we are wasting eachothers time. No, I got time. All I am doing is correcting what you are saying.

And I posted a couple weeks back about the effect this bill will have on me including my salary. I dont feel like finding it for you right now, but I went over this in great detail.

[eridani]

301. You may be willing to pay for the profits of useless sociopathic shitstain middlemen

--but I'm not. I'd glady pay a mandate for government run universal health care, though.

[Raineyb]

210. I don't think it's selfish to expect a bill to pass that won't screw over people when it

come to health insurance.

And pulling out that "the world doesn't revolve around me" bullshit is just another way to tell people who are being screwed that you don't give a damn about their situation and that they should, as was said earlier, "STFU and die in a corner."

How dare you tell people that their health needs don't matter!

[Bluerthanblue]

244. we are ALL going to be screwed if no

bill is passed.

Dennis K said as much today- And I'm not telling anyone to shut the fuck up and die in a corner, nor am I telling them their health needs don't matter. If you are foolish enough to think that ANY hope for ANY real reform in health care exists if this bill fails, then you and I would just be wasting time discussing this any further.

I don't like the bill, and I am living with the reality of no access to health care because of my income and pre-existing conditions. I'm a single mom, nearly done raising my last child, and hope to live long enough to see him reach adulthood- so I'm not without struggles. But it is VITAL that the Republicans be shown that they do not control this country- and if we let them use their games to de-rail HCR by dividing and conquering our party and our ability to pass legislation, then we have lost much more than reform- It's been a long hellish wait since healthcare died it's painful death in the 90's- we need to at least get a bill into reality.

Please don't put words into my mouth- I've never told anyone their needs didn't matter. I'm speaking for myself, which I've found is a good practice.

:hi:

[begin_within]

80. Sadly, yes, this forum has become become little more than a cheerleading forum.

And the constant refrain is, "But if you don't go along with us, you'll help Republicans get elected!" As if that is the one thing that could scare you back into the party line, whatever it is at the moment. That scare tactic is not nearly as effective as it once was though, since the Democrats have proven themselves to be simply one faction of the ruling class while the Republicans are another faction. They differ on some hot-button social issues but on the things that count the most, to the greatest number of people, they are effectively the same. So in the larger sense it no longer matters whether the Republicans or Democrats are nominally in power. Therefore the constant scare tactic of "But you'll be helping the Republicans get back in power" is increasingly irrelevant. They might as well just go ahead and merge the 2 parties together, since they are nearly the same thing anyway.

[Jester Messiah]

83. This again? S-u-b-s-i-d-i-e-s. End of story. Next! [nt]

[Hello_Kitty]

91. The OP is about what a person making $10 an hour has to pay AFTER the subsidies.

The KFF calculator says it's $88 a month. http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

[Renew Deal]

96. That's a days pay.

Which I know can be a lot of money, but the person is getting something for it.

[no limit]

108. It is not a days pay. Where do you get this bullshit from?

A days pay for someone making $10 an hour is about $68.

[Renew Deal]

114. Pre-tax

[no limit]

121. Why would you use a pretax example? And even if you use pretax its not a days pay

[Cleobulus]

109. What they would be getting is a crap plan they can't afford to use...

Who is going to pay their deductible and copays?

[Renew Deal]

116. Who pays their emergency room fees without insurance?

And doctors fees...And medication costs?

[Cleobulus]

125. So basically your recommendation is for those of us who can't afford it to...

declare bankruptcy? That's a solution?

[Renew Deal]

128. Non-sequitor

:shrug:

[girl gone mad]

247. Who pays those with insurance?

I have known too many people with insurance who were denied or under-covered and had to declare BK as a result.

The one time I tried to use insurance for an ER visit, I was denied. The time I went uninsured, I paid my bill in full after negotiating with the billing dept.

[eridani]

303. You are getting useless garbage for it.

It won't pay for actual care until you run up a deductible that you can't afford.

[Jester Messiah]

99. Hell's bells, you're citing Kaiser!?

You're seriously citing one of the biggest, vilest insurance companies in existence? I wouldn't trust them to tell me the correct time of day.

[Hello_Kitty]

132. It's been the standard on DU to cite them and assuming they're using figures straight from the bill

I don't see a problem with it.

[superduperfarleft]

164. KFF is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente. n/t

[Hell Hath No Fury]

93. Hey, Brainiac --

I still cannot afford the Obama plan even with the fucking subsidy. And I seriously doubt that I will be the only one.

[eridani]

302. Yes, from the taxpayers to useless murdering sociopaths n/t

[tammywammy]

100. I lived on $10/hr for quite a while a few years ago

I had insurance through my employer, my portion was $22/week. I'm 29 now, so yes that was around when I was 23-25ish. I had no internet at home or credit card bills. I ate a lot of rice, beans, sausage and potatoes.

[Jennicut]

117. Yup. I lived that way at 22 to 25 also. I thought most people that age did.

I still don't have a good cell phone because I can't afford it. I have a phone with a prepaid card, for emergencies if something is wrong with the car. For years, I had just a landline. I just got a new computer last year, as a Christmas present, at the age of 33. We had a really old one we bought from a company who was upgrading all of their's. I also had Web TV for years. Before that, the library. The apartment I lived in in my early 20's was 500 a month as it was an attic apartment in an old house from the 1800's. I took my laundry to the laundramat or to my Mom's. Finally negotiated to get a washer and dryer if we paid $50.00 more a month.
My cobra was hard to pay when I was let go from one job. It is always a struggle at that age. And NO credit cards! I lived on Mac and Cheese.

[tammywammy]

158. Basically I didn't buy crap I didn't need

I did have a washer and dryer, my parents had given me a set for my birthday when I turned 21. My dad did help, he knew I was living tight and offered to add my cell phone to his plan and cover the cost ($30/month). The only person I knew living the high life on $11/hr was a co-worker and she ended up racking up over $20k in credit card debt and at 22 had to file for bankruptcy. I didn't have a car payment until after I got bumped up to $12/hr. Then I lived on $12/hr a few years (no raises) until last summer when I got the job I'm at now.

[Jennicut]

172. It was hard. Things got better only when I had another source of income.

That would be getting married to my husband. Then he found a union job and we are doing much better at 34 then we did at 24. The 20's were just about surviving.

[tammywammy]

216. I took a second job for a year and a half

It was every other weekend, $100. No SO for me, so I just live off of what I make. I have friends that are looking to get a big screen tv from Aaron's. They are about to pay off the tv they bought a few years ago from there. The husband didn't like my answer "why don't you just save the money you're going to pay for it and buy it when you have the cash instead of paying interest on it?" :) I sure as heck don't live the high life, but I like it. Right now I'm trying to start the remodel of my house. My plan is that I can afford to spend $50/week on the house. So that can be paint, or some moulding/trim or door or light fixture, etc. Once I'm out of school and working in my field my salary will go up $20-30k...then I'll be able to redo my bathroom and kitchen. lol :)

[upi402]

104. carcass Americana is bare

they're going for the marrow

[NYC_SKP]

119. Alright, listen up. $100/month, are you kidding me??? That is a 58% subsidy, very reasonable.

We have to keep people from going to emergency rooms to get care which then costs us all 10X as much as it should.

We have to begin to help people who lose their plans, and to give subsidies to PEOPLE LIKE YOU who can't afford to foot the whole bill.

I paid for my own health care long before these high costs came along, it wasn't easy even then but I did it.

It's like auto insurance, you have to carry it or others will have to pay for you if something happens.

I guess you're OK with that, just pass the cost along to everyone else.

"Fuck everyone else, I can't afford $25/week after a 58% subsidy from other citizens, I want it ALL!"

:mad:

[no limit]

130. So let me guess, the answer is you never in your life lived off $10 /hr?

And now you feel you can tell people that live on that income what they can and can't afford?

Thanks for the clarification.

[NYC_SKP]

143. Absolutely I have lived on $10/hour and during periods of that time paid for my own HC coverage.

There were spells after high school and in between college and better paying jobs that I paid for my insurance and earned $10/hour or less.

One would have to adjust for inflation and changes in the cost of a basic health plan, but I have never been without HC and when it wasn't a part of university attendance or a job, I'd go to the Blue Cross office or wherever and sign up to get me through the months that I'd otherwise be without it.

I pay for it now, a monthly COBRA plan (that's about to run out).

Even now I don't have to pay for it, the $200 from my employer doesn't even cover half of it, but I shell out the money every month like clockwork.

[no limit]

169. How long ago was that, because yes, absolutely, you would have to adjust for inflation

[NYC_SKP]

187. The 1980's mostly. $10/hour was a lot, expenses were lower.

I somehow remember the cost being around $70, but who knows.

There are so many things to adjust for, I don't think there is a way to make a valid comparison.

Health care costs are way higher than ever before, by any measure, to working and middle classes alike and for families and singles, like myself.

To be sure, however, health care costs are out of control and a 58% subsidy is generous compared to the present state of affairs.

$25.00/week I think you wrote. Not free Medicare for all, but not bad.

You do know, don't you, that if we could enact Single Payer or Medicare for all, you'd still have to pay somehow?

Nothing is for free (though we could tax the hell of out those who can pay more).

[Hello_Kitty]

154. Ah yes, when all else fails, "Welfare Queen" the uninsured.

Because everyone knows they have gobs of invisible disposable cash that they are selfishly and wantonly withholding from the health insurance system and it's totally their fault that fine upstanding virtuous hardworking bootstrap Amurkins like you are paying so much for insurance.

Most young adults I know can't afford toilet paper after they pay their bills, let alone having the ability to crap out $80-100 a month for health insurance that will give them a couple of checkups a year but nothing else they can afford.

[Greyhound]

212. LOL!

:thumbsup:
If you were good people, you wouldn't be poor.
:rofl:

[Xithras]

215. Do you really think this will keep people out of the ER?

Hardly. If you go to the doctor with private insurance, you not only have to pay your premiums, but huge dedictibles as well. As several here have pointed out, many low lost plans don't even START paying for anything until you've shelled out a couple thousand of your own money. If you don't have it, the doctor won't see you. Even with health insurance, your doctor won't let you in the door.

Or, you walk into the ER, claim that you have no coverage, and let them eat it. Just like people do today. Even WITH insurance, walking into the ER will be the cheaper, faster choice for most poor people.

[librechik]

133. The public option may pass

in which case, that $10/hr person will be able to afford healthcare.

[no limit]

135. No it wont pass, stop making stuff up

[librechik]

149. Read this, and remember we have the 50 votes in the Senate to pass it there

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/03/15/breaking-public-option-in-house-reconciliation-bill

Don't know why this important post sank to the bottom--maybe too many naysayers drooling over all the hurt their imaginations are brewing

[POAS]

137. Poor baby had to live on $10 an hour, try

$1.25 and hour in the 1960's which translates (according to the D.O.L. to a little over $6.00 in 1996 dollars.

More to the point, low income persons will get a subsidy to help pay for their health insurance!

[no limit]

141. Do you not read the OP before you reply?

the cost I posted is after subsidies. And your life in 1960s isn't really applicable now, is it?

How's that medicare working out for you? Sure would be great if all of us had access to it.

[Renew Deal]

152. I think people are trying to tell you it's a bargain.

They value the subsidy. That's not meant as a criticism of you. It surprises me too.

[Hello_Kitty]

219. Which is like forcing someone to buy a $5000 car but giving them a 58% off coupon.

Still doesn't put $2900 in their pocket.

[POAS]

184. not on medicare yet

and I am a supporter of Medicare for all.

Just don't like people that make false assumptions as you did about people you know nothing about!

[NYC_SKP]

148. The author of the OP would get a 58% subsidy, not available in the 60's.

Or the 70's 80's 90's or 00's!

I think $25/week is most reasonable.

[EFerrari]

153. For the premium. Which just lets you into the lobby, not into the theater.

And you are very free with other people's limited resources.

[NYC_SKP]

165. As they are with my frikken resources when they check for free into an Emergency Room...

And I have to pay through higher premiums, just like the rest of us who actually carry insurance.

eom.

[EFerrari]

183. So you agree that insurance companies spreading the loss

and hoarding the wealth is a bad idea?

ETA: People who can't afford to use their insurance will STILL be going to ERs.

[NYC_SKP]

201. If people with insurance go to ERs there will be consequences.

Not being able to afford to use it won't make a difference.

Unless they lie about their identity, they'll get a bill and that bill will be huge.

My parents on Medicare would be exposed to huge fees if they didn't also carry TriCare.

None of these solutions are perfect, there is no free lunch, we need to take the "private sector" out of the equation.

And even then we need to streamline delivery, modernize records, improve communications.

There's plenty that needs to be done.

This bill is a start.

And we have to start somewhere.

[EFerrari]

204. Yes, that bill will be huge. And when they can't pay it anyway, guess what?

And this bill is not a start. It's a continuation of a failed system but, enjoy.

[Hello_Kitty]

163. So how about you post your income and monthly expenses.

And let me tell you what I think is "reasonable" for you.

[NYC_SKP]

167. Under this bill I would pay considerably more than I presently do under COBRA.

And I've got a huge deductible.

I think under the bill I'd pay $7,000/yr for a single person, age 53.

[Hello_Kitty]

171. Well, enjoy paying it then.

Don't complain that it's too much when you are. The Powers That Be^TM have determined that that is "affordable" to you.

[NYC_SKP]

176. So, you like everything just the way it is? Or you want to hold out until nothing happens?

I mean, I just don't know.

Something has to give, we can't just keep holding out and expect a more enlightened congress to come along.

I think if we start with this we have a better chance of making it better than if we hold out for a better bill that may never (probably will never) come.

[Hello_Kitty]

180. And yet, somehow this bill will be "fixed" in the future by same lack of enlightened Congress. eom

[NYC_SKP]

190. You do realize, don't you, that Single Payer or Medicare for All would also require payment?

I'm wondering if people think there's such a thing as a magical free medical program that could be invented.

[Hello_Kitty]

196. And now you're changing the goal posts.

The Welfare Queen guilt lecture isn't working so now you shift to conflating single payer with this corporate insurance mandate. Yes, single payer would cost money but it would cost working and middle class people a helluva lot less. It's not a mandate I have a problem with. It's a mandate to buy something from a private corporation with nebulous guarantees that I'll get the service I'm paying (more) for but absolute guarantees that the government will come after me if I don't buy it.

[treestar]

335. The public option would, too

it would be an insurance policy.

[Lorien]

265. Will the policy ever pay a claim? I think not

worrying over the cost of low income policies is only the tip of the iceberg. Having paid for my own insurance for the past 16 years I can tell you; they'll fight you tooth and nail on EVERY claim. Then there's the 10-12k deductibles. These massive gorillas in the room aren't even being addressed by the pro-HCR crowd.

[EFerrari]

155. It will "help" pay for the premium.

You know the difference between insurance and actual medical care, right?

[Name removed]

156. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[subterranean]

161. Please stop spreading that falsehood about pre-existing conditions.

There is NOTHING in the bill that says insurance companies will be able to charge more if you have a pre-existing condition. They'll be allowed to charge 300% more based on AGE, but not health status.

[Nikki Stone1]

181. There are loopholes on recision, yearly caps, and Medicare cuts.

I already went through these on the bill with someone else.

[subterranean]

200. I'm aware of the loopholes, but

that's not what the OP was referring to -- s/he said that insurance cos. would be allowed to charge 3 times more for pre-existing conditions. That is simply not true.

[eridani]

304. Well, isn't that special? Old people not old enough for Medicare are disposable human garbage

--because age is not a pre-existing condition. Sweet.

[Nikki Stone1]

170. K & R

I remember living on $1000/mo before taxes and I couldn't afford heat in my apartment no less health insurance. If I had the choice, I'd go for the heat and not for enriching an insurance company.

[fishwax]

175. yes.

[Nikki Stone1]

188. Did you have to buy your own insurance?

?

[fishwax]

214. yeah

And as a result I went without insurance. For part of that time, fortunately, I had access to a university medical facility relatively cheaply, and that was a decent solution in my case. (Thankfully I never had anything like an emergency room visit to deal with, or I would have been screwn.) I also have had jobs that paid less than, at, or slightly more than ten bucks an hour but came with health benefits, and while they were free for me as the employee, the family coverage was expensive (more than $100/month).

[Nikki Stone1]

225. Me too. And I also couldn't afford insurance.

I didn't have a university medical clinic either, just a rather poor local clinic.

[hunter]

197. It's a pathetic last gasp effort to save the U.S. health industry.

...woohoo, down the crapper we go!

We've just created the next class of "illegal" workers, those who won't pay for this health insurance because they can't.

[LynneSin]

208. Didn't Kucinich say he once lived in a car

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

211. Yes. When he was a kid, his family was homeless for a while.

Why do you ask?

[LynneSin]

222. From the OP topic

I'm guessing Kucinich (a supporter of the bill) qualifies.

just point it out - that's all. Not everyone elected in DC came from a wealthly family.

[EFerrari]

223. Sure. And experiencing homelessness as a young child

probably is one reason why he tried to keep the bar up alone as long as he did.

[LynneSin]

229. That I can agree with

:D

[EFerrari]

234. Some things really don't leave you. I wanted to apologize to you

if/that I was one of those posters that made you feel badly. Nothing is that important. :hi:

[Bluerthanblue]

218. he doesn't count- he'd be getting a subsity if he still

lived in one and had a child- :shrug:


The OP doesn't seem to think that those of us who are choosing to support this bill as flawed as it is, even if it will actually hurt us, don't exist.

Your example is great. And today DK said he'd vote yes-

[hfojvt]

224. you should know that I make less than $20,800

and I also spend more than $100 a month on health care.

Also, the actual taxes for a single person making $20,800 are only $896. Which is only 4.3% plus FICA at 7.65% plus 2.7% for state taxes in Kansas. $500 in an IRA would be a good investment because it would save $100 in taxes.


I don't think it is impossible for a person making $1,500 a month to save $150 a month (or spend $100 a month on insurance and $50 a month in a retirement account). My tax return for 2008 shows $11,779.17 for my income and $920 put in my IRA. I paid something like $300 a month for insurance (which actually reduced my taxable income from $15,379 to the aforementioned $11,779)

I think you are right though, that having $100 a month to spare may be a hardship for some people, but I still think it is positive. Because that person gets a $2600 (or more) benefit for only $1200.

[eridani]

305. Except that the "beneifit" is priced to enrich parasites and not to provide care n/t

[RoyGBiv]

226. Spare me your lectures ...

I have lived on less than $10 (or its time-period equivalent) for most of my adult life.

In the winter of 1999, I was bringing home $150 per week.

You don't know other people's circumstances and would do well to avoid arrogantly pretending you do.

[no limit]

239. So do you support this bill?

Will you be hurt by it?

[RoyGBiv]

258. Yes, I support the passage of this bill ...

... for reasons similar to those people like Bernie Sanders articulate.

[Hello_Kitty]

243. Actually, most of lectures are coming from the supporters. eom

[RoyGBiv]

256. I'd like to see you quantify that n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

260. How about this thread?

Look how many posters essentially tell the OP to suck it up? Including you.

[RoyGBiv]

261. No, I did not tell the OP to suck it up ...

I "effectively" advised the OP that arrogantly assuming the circumstances of other people as justification for opposition to the HCR bill motivated me to discount everything else said.

And I'd still like to see you quantify your original statement. I doubt you will, of course, but it'd be interesting.

[Hello_Kitty]

266. Quantify my contention that more lectures come from the pro-mandate side than the anti?

Hmm, let's see. Which group is more likely to invoke the plight of the "31 Million Americans who will be covered" and accuse opponents of wanting people to die?

[RoyGBiv]

273. See, quantifying your assertion would answer that ...

What you presume to be a self-evident question is not.

[Jakes Progress]

230. Our laws are being written by rich people.

Most of them are greedy pigs protecting their wealth. The problem is that even the ones who think they are trying to help are so far removed from the lives of most people that they can't comprehend the effects of their actions. Our congress critters are all rich. Our president is rich. They don't know that even $50 is so precious to the majority of Americans that having that sum to spare is just fantasy.

To put $100 somewhere, it will have to come from something else. And again. That money is just to add to the insurance companies' coffers. Then there are the co-pays, the prescriptions, finding a doctor who will see you, and the huge pile of forms and applications that will need to be filled out and filed over and over.

Go ahead and pass the bill. But just don't say it is a victory. We have been beaten and left bloody in the dust. In all other industrial nations, people don't do any of that crap. When they are sick the go to the doctor. When they need medicine they go to the pharmacy. They just go. Face it. We lost this one.

[Nikki Stone1]

231. +10,000

.

[apples and oranges]

235. Wouldn't you qualify for a subsidy or Medicaid?

:shrug: Can we all just wait to get the bill in the mail before jumping to conclusions about the cost?

[no limit]

237. I gave you a link. No, someone making $10 /hr wouldn't qualify

There is no reason to wait, we already know what will pass. The president made that clear.

[quiller4]

262. Not necessarily true. If the $10 employee had a dependent child

then the adult would qualify for a subsidy and the child would qualify for SCHIP in most states.

[Hello_Kitty]

268. So I guess the OP should go have himself a kid then.

:eyes:

Jesus Christ on a segway. Has it not been clear that we're talking about a single adult here?

[Hello_Kitty]

241. No. The information is readily available.

A single 25 year old making $10 an hour is not eligible for Medicaid and will have a premium of $88 a month in the exchange. That is after the subsidies.

[Nikki Stone1]

242. Good Lord.

That's gas money.

[Hello_Kitty]

246. Yep. eom

[Autumn]

255. As long as gas stays as "cheap" as

it is now. Then it cuts into other necessities.

[ipaint]

248. So 2700 pages and there is not one chart which shows income and family size

next to the bronze on up plans showing the subsidy amount, the deductibles and co-pays of each plan. Nothing that people can look at to factually determine how much this will cost them. Nothing?

Have they written a bill without knowing the real cost (including after subsidy premiums,deducs and copays) to different income levels and family sizes?

2700 pages and no one could figure out how to make a chart with the whole financial truth, good and bad.

If this is so what are they hiding.

[NNN0LHI]

263. Can you get unionized where you work and get medical benefits from your employer?

[Iggo]

264. In SoCal, you cannot live by yourself on 10 bucks an hour.

No wife. No kids. No ex-wife. No car (and so no car insurance).

Tried it. Couldn't do it.

[inna]

282. K&R, and more food for thought here:

"Affordable" Health Care or "the road to Neo-Feudalism"?

[grahamhgreen]

286. In Mass. the cheapo plan is $375/mo

[Nikki Stone1]

289. Important

.

[anigbrowl]

290. Yes, I have - and less. For extended periods, and quite recently, too. .nt

[quiet.american]

291. Actually, it's not correct that a 25-year-old will be "forced" to do anything like that.

First, they can purchase the very lowest-cost coverage:
http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill49.pdf

Page 5 -- In the individual market, a catastrophic-only plan may be offered to individuals who are under the age of 30 or who are exempt from the individual responsibility requirement because coverage is unaffordable to them or because of a hardship. A catastrophic plan must cover essential health benefits and at least three primary care visits, but must require cost-sharing up to the HSA out-of-pocket limits. Also, if an insurer offers a qualified health plan, it must offer a child-only plan at the same level of coverage. Finally, Section 10104 requires payments by qualified health plans to Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) to be at least as high as payments to FQHCs under Medicaid.

Second, that inaccurate Kaiser calculator has been the subject of more angst about this bill than almost anything else.

The Kaiser calculator says that the cap on premium as percentage of income for $20,800 across the bills and Proposal is 5.1%-6.0% -- but that looks to be just plain incorrect -- look at this table located at the White House's website which lists the figures across the Senate and House bills and the President's Proposal:


http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal/whatsnew/affordability

You can see for yourself that the information being returned by the calculator is not accurate. The correct income range for the figures of 5.1%-6.0% for a cap on percentage of income towards premium is $33,000 - $44,000. That makes the rest of the information returned by the calculator based on an income of $20,800 just not accurate.

[no limit]

307. The chart you posted is not for a single adult, it is for a family of 4

my OP was specific to a single adult making $10 /hr.

Do you have any numbers on how much that catastrophic plan will cost and will it be available in all areas?

[quiet.american]

315. I take your point, but the calculator does not seem to be returning correct information

Running the scenario under the House bill, I took a look at page 252 of the House bill; it says that someone in the income bracket of 150%-200% would pay 7% of their premium costs, where the calculator lists it as having to pay 33% of the costs, when actually even at the top income bracket qualifying for credits, the maximum percentage of premium costs is 30%.

The House bill also defines "family" as: FAMILY.—The term ‘‘family’’ means an individual and includes the individual’s dependents. It's not clear whether the table at the WH website is including individuals up to a family of four, but since they used the House numbers as is --

If you take a look at this table from a House bill summary, you'll see that as far as the premium credits go, there is not a distinction made between an individual and a family, but there is a distinction made for the out-of-pocket expenses:

Go to page 3 to view the table:
http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AHCAA-DETAILEDSUMMARY-102909.pdf

As far as the catastrophic plans, no on the specific cost; yes, it looks like they will be available in all areas because they'll be offered through the Exchange:

"Available Coverage. A qualified health plan, to be offered through the new American Health Benefit Exchange, must provide essential health benefits which include cost sharing limits. No out-of-pocket requirements can exceed those in Health Savings Accounts, and deductibles in the small group market cannot exceed $2,000 for an individual and $4,000 for a family. Coverage will be offered at four levels with actuarial values defining how much the insurer pays: Platinum – 90 percent; Gold – 80 percent; Silver – 70 percent; and Bronze – 60 percent. A less costly catastrophic-only plan will be offered to individuals under age 30 and to others who are exempt from the individual responsibility requirement."

http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill52.pdf

[no limit]

328. We are not working with the house bill anymore. Pick the Obama proposal

the house bill never passed.

[quaker bill]

292. Yes, and far less

I had to go to college to get to $10.00 an hour. Have worked 70 hrs. a week to survive with 2 minimum wage jobs, a new baby to feed, and a mortgage. I will admit I did not have car payments or credit card payments, but that was because back in the day, no one in their right minds would have financed a car or given a credit card to anyone with so litte income. That sort of credit was not available to me, so instead, I drove a cheap beater that I knew how to fix, and when money was not available for parts, rode the bus or my bicycle to work.

I have lived on food stamps and unemployment too, but that is another story.

Yes, I do support the bill. The medicaid the current bill would have provided me back then, would have been most useful for all those "well baby" checkups.

[sybylla]

309. That's what my son makes now

$102 would be less than his share of employer provided insurance. He pays about twice that now.

I'm not pleased with it. I'd rather see what you pay be a percentage of your income. But it's still better than what many people have and pay for now.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

311. This is a bill designed by millionaires, being promoted on this board by yuppies

People are telling their REAL LIFE STORIES here, and the yuppie think tank types are telling them to lie back and enjoy being screwed.

[freddie mertz]

313. K & R. I have, and on much less, but not lately.

I made due on shitty pay for many (too many) years, but am semi-gainfully employed now.

I support a national single-payer plan, of course.

[kpominville]

316. As I understand it

People at that low of an income level will get subsidies to help pay for the insurance.

You left that fact out.

[DireStrike]

317. "But the poor will get subsidies!" they said

I hadn't realized how bad this was. Palin 2012...

[CAcyclist]

318. I support this bill and I lived on 3.50 -5.00 an hour part-time work

I made $4000 - $6000 annually and went to school in 1985-1988. I know what it's like to barely make ends meet, but I put off going to the doctor for many things and self-medicated myself and now I have a chronic cough that I might not have ended up with if I had seen a doctor when I should have.

This bill is not what it should be, but it's a start and we can build on it.

[jeff47]

325. No, we can't.

"This bill is not what it should be, but it's a start and we can build on it."

The supporters of this bill have long claimed that this is the only shot we'll have at health care reform for a generation, so we have to support it. When flaws are pointed out, the same supporters say it's a start and we can build on it.

Ya know, Medicare was supposed to be a start that we can build on. The idea was to keep lowering the eligibility age. It's been 50 years.

Given the double-talk and the poor history, "it's a start and we can build on it" is an argument only for those not paying attention.

[Svafa]

319. Exactly. I make less than $10.00 an hour

Graduated from college a year and a half ago, can't find decent work for the life of me. I can't afford insurance and it makes me so angry that they are trying to FORCE people in my position to buy insurance whether we can afford it or not. People are not uninsured because they're too lazy to go out and buy a policy, people are uninsured because paying the rent and buying food are higher priorities than buying insurance. I don't want to have my water or electricity shut off, or get evicted just because my utilities or rent money has to go toward mandated insurance! This is bullshit!

[nvme]

322. Im sorry but I really can't write too much

the gag reflex keeps kicking in.

[catrose]

323. A few years back, my town

calculated how much a single person needed to make to afford an apartment, a car, gas, food, car insurance: in other words, to have an independent life.

The answer was $14/hour, probably more now. So if you're making $10/hr, you're not affording the basic necessities anyway. And you're supposed to pay an extra $100 for health insurance?

A few years ago, a friend with a small business offered health insurance to her employees that she would partially pay. It still came out at $100/month (probably for a family), and none of her $8-$15/hour employees signed up.

[Max Stein]

330. K&R

[mdmc]

331. kick

[salin]

332. I spent a lot of years working for less than that.

and I support the bill.

[Dinger]

333. Kick And Rec, even Though It's Too Late

I still give this a rec.