milktree: (Default)
[personal profile] milktree
In the "Affordable Health Care Act" being debated by the SCOTUS this week, there's a provision that makes you eligible for medicaid coverage if you're making less than 133% of the poverty level.

Well, that's a start.

But look at the numbers:
133% of poverty for a single person is just shy of $15k/year.
That's about $1,250/month.
The cheapest insurance I can get that meets Massachusetts' requirements for our version of this law costs me $300/month.

Is it really fair or reasonable or the intent of the lawmakers to force someone to pay
nearly 1/4 of their pre-tax income on health insurance?

Let's say I've actually got good coverage, and there's some way cheaper option out there, say 1/3 the price. That's still a lot of money if you still have to pay rent, buy food, gas, electricity, heat...

If I were making 134% of poverty, I'd take fewer hours to get my pay down to 132%, it'd be like a $250/month raise.

If the limit was 300% or 400% of poverty, or if anyone could buy into medicaid, I think the individual mandate wouldn't rub me the wrong quite as much. I still dislike it on principle, and that wouldn't go away unless the limit was 1,000% of poverty.

Profile

milktree: (Default)
milktree

December 2025

S M T W T F S
 123456
78910 111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Apr. 26th, 2026 05:13 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios