Read this on HuffingtonPost.com
Look, I'm as ready as the next guy to call out the Obama administration for the shoddy rollout of the ACA. I'm also confident that at the end of the day, as the exchanges become more accessible and as families with incomes below four times poverty get help paying for the coverage they buy there -- coverage that for some will be of higher quality than what they had -- the reforms will first become more popular, and later become an appreciated, and probably pretty dull, part of the fabric of life in America.
One of the problems in getting from here to there is articles like in yesterday's NYT. No question there are people paying more for health care under the ACA, but the examples in here seem awfully cherry-picked to support the headline claim that the new law "Frustrates many in Middle Class."
First, let's talk middle-class. The median family income in the U.S. right now is about $62,000. For families of four, like the one featured in the piece, it's about $80,000. Income eligibility for the subsidies goes up to four times the poverty threshold, or about $94,000 for a family of four, meaning that a median-income family buying coverage on the exchange would be eligible for a subsidy. The family featured in the piece was chosen to be above the subsidy level--their income was $100,000. That's certainly a fair point and I'm not denying they're "middle-class." But the piece should have mentioned the median, or more to the point, the fact that according to Census data, the ratio of income to the poverty threshold for families in the middle fifth of the income scale is 3.5, again, below the subsidy cutoff of 4.
But what of this "cliff" business on which the piece focuses, i.e., that the family takes a huge hit by not being eligible for the subsidy? As noted, the subsidy cutoff for a family of four is about $94,000 and the family's contribution is capped at 9.5 percent of their income, or about $9,000. The Chapman's, the family featured in the piece, with income of $100,000, may now pay about $12,000 per year for coverage.
To me, I had a hard time coming across anything positive about the ACA but I am amazed. The arguments about whether or not the ACA will help or hurt certain families is a wild card to me as it varies deeply. This article specifically uses the middle class an example for the goodness of how the ACA will help them. I think that a big problem is how it states the median families income is about $62,000. That number varies wildly and families incomes are all over the place. Lots of families incomes will boost that number as their incomes are at the of the range while lower earning families will drag that number down. Even the number of children is too great to truly guess where it stands. The ACA's numbers and machinery will help lots, and hurt lots depending on someone's individual view, as well as political standpoints.
I am all for everyone having health care, but I believe that's going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible. Right now many programs are being cut down because of some of the parts of the ACA. I have many people who now have to pay two hundred dollars or more for things they don't actually need. Some women are required to pay for maternity leave when it is impossible for them to have any more kids. I wish that everyone could have health care, but I don't believe it's going to help people out now especially with the hatred for this act.
ReplyDeleteJiff, I learned something recently from an insurance provider who is one of the only authorized providers in Utah to give advice and information regarding the ACA. He came to a part of his presentation that talked about the four levels of generosity; I'm sure your familiar with them, but I'll refresh your memory. Insurance companies are now required to offer these four plans(percentages in relation to coverage): 60%, 70%, 80%, and a 90%. The 70% plan is where the subsidy is provided. Insurance companies, like any company, would rather have the customer buy lots of the middle-grade product than a split spectrum of the least and the most; except, for the ACA that isn't happening. Customers are either buying the low-end 60% plan or the high-end 80% and 90% plans. One of the reasons why this might be is that people don't trust the subsidy; but, if that isn't the case, the fact is, people aren't buying the plan that offers the subsidy. Doesn't this make the subsidy useless, well at least for the time being?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kasey, men and post-menopausal women and women unable to have children should not have to pay for maternity when there is no way that they will benefit from these benefits. If we are going to make people contribute to these benefits, couldn't we just put it under a broader headline that includes maternity, but that is usable for men, post-menopausal women, and other women who cannot have children..... The ACA has some good ideas, but I think it needs to be seriously edited before it can really help the American people.
ReplyDelete