Originally posted by sh76(Shrug) Let them.
Unemployed people may be ineligible based on assets even without income. I can see an unemployed person going without insurance rather than raiding his child's college fund.
I suspect very few would esp. with the subsidies available from the government in the HRA.
EDIT: Details:
Let’s start with people who are unemployed, self-employed, or work for businesses that don’t offer insurance. Beginning in 2014 (that’s right, this is four years away), these people would be able to shop for coverage in new “health exchanges,” a sort of online bazaar in which insurers would hawk different kinds of plans. We’ll talk more about how these malls might work in our next story.
Congressional budget experts figure that about 25 million people will shop for coverage in these exchanges. That’s a pretty big market. Of these, about 19 million are likely to be eligible for financial aid.
The cutoff level would be an income of four times the federal poverty level. For one person, that’s about $44,000 a year. For a family of four, the comparable figure is about $88,000.
Subsidies would be figured on a sliding scale, with those who make less getting a bigger boost and those nearer the top getting a smaller one.
The formula is pretty complicated. Basically, though, people who make three or four times the poverty level would get enough federal money so that they would not have to pay more than about 10 percent of their income for a decent health insurance package.
People who make less would have to pay a smaller slice of their income for coverage. For instance, individuals who make about $14,000, and four-person families with incomes of about $29,000, would not have to pay more than 3 to 4 percent of their incomes for insurance.
And those who make even less – under 133 percent of the federal poverty level – would be able to enroll in a newly expanded Medicaid program.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0320/Health-care-reform-bill-101-Who-gets-subsidized-insurance
Here's a nifty subsidy calculator:
http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx
It would appear this argument is moot:
The health reform law will expand Medicaid eligibility to include all Americans under age 65 with incomes up to 133% of the federal poverty level. This would include children, pregnant women, parents, and adults without dependent children.
http://healthinsurance.about.com/od/medicaid/a/medicaid_overview.htm
(Emphasis added)
Assuming "all" means all, it looks like the unemployed and homeless will be eligible for Medicaid unless their income is above 133% of the poverty line. Note that presently Medicaid does not include "adults without dependent children" but it will once the HRA goes into effect.
EDIT: Effective Jan. 1, 2014, the law expands Medicaid eligibility to individuals that:
•Are under age 65
•Are not eligible for Medicare
•Are not pregnant
•Have incomes up to 133 percent of the FPL. Based on 2010 data, 133 percent of FPL equates to $14,404 for an individual or $29,326 for a family of four.
Currently, individuals must meet certain criteria, income standards and asset tests to be eligible for Medicaid. The federal government sets mandatory and optional eligibility categories, but states design their own programs, causing a wide variation in eligibility among state Medicaid programs.
The health care reform law will standardize the eligibility and income standards among state Medicaid programs. Eligibility will be determined without an asset test for most individuals.
http://www.bcbsm.com/healthreform/reform-alerts/ra_01_04_2011.shtml
Originally posted by no1marauderSo it puts a bigger burden on the states ?
It would appear this argument is moot:
The health reform law will expand Medicaid eligibility to include [b]all Americans under age 65 with incomes up to 133% of the federal poverty level. This would include children, pregnant women, parents, and adults without dependent children.
http://healthinsurance.about.com/od/medicaid/a/m ...[text shortened]... most individuals.[/b]
http://www.bcbsm.com/healthreform/reform-alerts/ra_01_04_2011.shtml[/b]
Originally posted by utherpendragonNot much. From the link you didn't look at:
So it puts a bigger burden on the states ?
For the first three years of the Medicaid expansion, the federal government will cover the costs of the newly eligible Medicaid population. In 2017, federal funding will decrease to 95 percent and drop to 90 percent in 2020.
Originally posted by no1marauderfrom your link,
Not much. From the link you didn't look at:
For the first three years of the Medicaid expansion, the federal government will cover the costs of the newly eligible Medicaid population. In 2017, federal funding will decrease to 95 percent and drop to 90 percent in 2020.
Temporary primary care reimbursement increase
Medicaid reimbursement rates for primary care providers will increase to address concerns that the expansion of Medicaid eligibility will lead to access issues.
The federal government will finance the reimbursement rates, which will match Medicare rates for 2013 and 2014. It is unclear if states will fund the reimbursement increase when the federal funding ends in 2015.
That sounds a bit dicey to me. 😕
Originally posted by no1maraudernot "generous" enough.
It's in their best interest, there are generous subsidies to encourage purchase of health insurance and any costs you accrue for treatment won't be covered if you don't get insurance before you accrue them. I'd wager the number of people who will refuse to buy insurance will be very small.
The problem we have now isn't because people don't want health insurance; it's because many workers simply can't afford it.
Originally posted by utherpendragon(Shrug) Certainty in this life is an impossible dream. In all likelihood, the States will come crying and the Feds will pick up the tab.
from your link,
[b]Temporary primary care reimbursement increase
Medicaid reimbursement rates for primary care providers will increase to address concerns that the expansion of Medicaid eligibility will lead to access issues.
The federal government will finance the reimbursement rates, which will match Medicare rates for 2013 and 2014. [b ...[text shortened]... rsement increase when the federal funding ends in 2015.[/b]
That sounds a bit dicey to me. 😕[/b]
Originally posted by PinkFloydHow generous would you want them?
not "generous" enough.
I ran a few scenarios though the subsidy calculator (http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx) and it seems that a consistent result is that the person would pay about 6-7% of their income to health insurance premiums. That seems pretty reasonable.
Originally posted by utherpendragonThere's plenty of money in the US and our tax burden as a percentage of GNP is the lowest it has been in more than 50 years. Figure it out.
Thats how I feel. And the Feds simply cannot keep picking up the tab. Where is the money ?
Having a bunch of uninsured people who avoid preventative care in all probability increases overall medical costs anyway.