Shall we try this again: health care Bill

[HRAAB]

I applaud it! :hurray::hurray::hurray::hurray::hurray::party::cheers2::patriot:

 

:001_smile: I like your enthusiasm.

[teamturner]

Yes, yes, yes, I completely agree. So many of us did not like the *process* but by all means think health care needs an overhaul! But not after such huge spending like the stimulus bill and not in this economy and not in this WAY. If Obama had said that he promised a bipartisan process toward health reform but felt it was better to wait until the economy had bounced back a bit, he'd have had time to really prove his "post partisan" stance on getting things done, earned some needed respect--maybe then he'd have had more support and time to really do this right. Instead, the wishes of the American people were mostly disregarded on this one. Shame.

 

:iagree: We are of the same mind!! It seems like it was more of a power grab with the way it was handled rather than really wanting to help people get health coverage. They felt like it had to be rushed when the law doesn't even go into effect until 2012-2013 or something. It just galls me that something was voted on and THEN the details of the bill are discussed and revealed. :confused:

 

Seems sort of like the Price is Right and a big curtain is going to reveal the prize that we won. It fits in the budget supposedly now, but do they really know? And what if government funded health care exceeds the budget amount?? Raise more taxes? Reduce health care? Certainly doesn't leave me with warm fuzzies.

[wapiti]

Either way, are we not splitting hairs? If someone's income is taken from them by law or mandate then it is not a voluntary contribution. Isn't that the bottom line? People don't want the governement taking their income to pay for something they don't support.

 

Does it really matter if the money is being taken in the form of a tax or a penalty. It is being taken by law so therefore it is not a "choice".

 

I just fail to see the difference between this proposed plans "penalty" for the choice of opting out and all of the other taxes we are "forced" to pay everyday whether we use the programs or not.

 

We are "forced" one way or the other to pay into these programs. Why does it matter if it is in the form of a penalty or a tax? Either way your money is being taken from you against you will and you do not have a "choice" of whether or not to pay them.

 

Like I said, it really seems as if it is splitting hairs to me.

 

I agree with you, that it's splitting hairs, but sometimes that's what happens in the law.

 

It matters because what may be constitutional (e.g. increase in federal income tax) may be less politically palatable than a possibly unconstitutional penalty for failure to enter into a rather specific contract. I vaguely recall that the Senate didn't like the House bill because it included income tax increases.

 

I have been wanting to find high deductible/low premium insurance on the individual market and pay out of pocket for doc visits, and I've been waiting to see what would happen with the law. I don't believe that type of policy will be allowed, er, qualify, under the new scheme (talk about a lack of choice!). So for now we'll stick with our very expensive group insurance (>$30k).

[Haiku]

According to Wikipedia, universal health care page:

 

Universal health care around the world (as of December 2009).

Single-payer universal health care (16)

Public universal health care through other means (51)

 

Universal health care is implemented in all industrialized countries, with the exception of the United States.

 

The Wikipedia universal health care page provides a map of which countries have some sort of publicly funded healthcare. Pretty much all the major players in the world have it. I'm guessing that most of the world is in agreement with the idea that providing healthcare is a legitimate function of government, so I feel that I am in good company in thinking it is.

 

Tara

Edited March 23, 2010 by TaraTheLiberator

[Slartibartfast]

See, this is also a common misconception. The average, hardworking middle class CANNOT get Medicaid because there is a minimum financial requirement. They are the hardest hit group in America regarding lack of healthcare because they make too much money to qualify for the available programs like Medicaid but they don't make NEAR enough to pay for their needed medical care.

 

This is the group my family is in. I am not proud and I guess I have very little principle. :tongue_smilie: I would take Medicaid so fast it would make your head spin if I could. I CAN'T!! My husband makes too much money to qualify us for it but not near enough to pay for our medical bills.

 

Top that off with the fact that my son has a HUGE pre-existing condition (Leukemia survivor diagnosed in 2002) and you have a healthcare black hole that we have fallen into because not only can we not get Medicaid but we also can't get private insurance because of my son's Leukemia diagnosis.

 

Make no mistake either that we are not the only ones. Thousands upon thousands of people fall into the ever expanding medical black hole.

 

I've said it once, I'll say it again, medical care is NOT available to anyone and everyone. At least now with this bill maybe there is hope that this will change.

 

:grouphug:

 

I am so sorry, we are in a similar situation, obviously not as severe as yours :( I can't imagine how hard that must be or what you have been through.

 

My husband's job does provide ins but he can't change jobs and God help us if he loses it.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I have been wanting to find high deductible/low premium insurance on the individual market and pay out of pocket for doc visits, and I've been waiting to see what would happen with the law. I don't believe that type of policy will be allowed, er, qualify, under the new scheme (talk about a lack of choice!). So for now we'll stick with our very expensive group insurance (>$30k).

UGH!:glare:

[TXMary2]

Page 158 of the HC Bill .......

 

........create a carveout for senior staff members in the leadership offices and on congressional committees, essentially exempting those senior Democrat staffers who wrote the bill from being forced to purchase health care plans in the same way as other Americans."

 

How nice for them.

[Perry]

Page 158 of the HC Bill .......

 

 

Quote:

........create a carveout for senior staff members in the leadership offices and on congressional committees, essentially exempting those senior Democrat staffers who wrote the bill from being forced to purchase health care plans in the same way as other Americans."

 

How nice for them.

 

Did you read the original text directly from the bill? This is someone's opinion. I don't interpret it that way.

 

 

(D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE-

 

(i) REQUIREMENT- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are–

 

(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or

 

(II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).

 

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

 

I have been wanting to find high deductible/low premium insurance on the individual market and pay out of pocket for doc visits, and I've been waiting to see what would happen with the law. I don't believe that type of policy will be allowed, er, qualify, under the new scheme (talk about a lack of choice!). So for now we'll stick with our very expensive group insurance (>$30k).

 

My mom has a high-deductible/low premium, individual plan from Anthem. She was recently notified that her premiums are increasing by 31%. She thinks Anthem raised their rates in preparation for the government capping annual increases. Apparently, that is what car insurance companies did at one time.

 

BTW, she is in excellent health and will soon qualify for Medicare (she's 64), so she is very lucky. However, she is really worried about finding a doctor that will take it as fewer and fewer do these days...

[TXMary2]

Did you read the original text directly from the bill? This is someone's opinion. I don't interpret it that way.

 

How do you interpret it then?

[Perry]

How do you interpret it then?

It looks like they have to use what the rest of us use. But I'm no lawyer.

 

I don't see anything about exemptions.

[Supertechmom]

I just ran across info that states the bill requires employers to pay a % of the health care premiums for their employees and that employees are required to take that coverage even allows employers to automatically enroll employees and deduct their % from paychecks.

 

Can anyone who has acces to the bill verify that as in page and section number? I'm still waiting for the law to load.:glare:

 

Thanks

[Carrie12345]

I just ran across info that states the bill requires employers to pay a % of the health care premiums for their employees and that employees are required to take that coverage even allows employers to automatically enroll employees and deduct their % from paychecks.

 

Can anyone who has acces to the bill verify that as in page and section number? I'm still waiting for the law to load.:glare:

 

Thanks

 

It would be section 411. I can't locate the original text, so I'll share this summary. ***Disclaimer: this is only a summary. Take it for what it's worth!

 

Section 411 -

Requires employers to: (1) offer each employee individual and family coverage under a qualified health benefits plan (or under a current employment-based health plan) and make contributions towards such coverage; or (2) make contributions to the Health Insurance Exchange for employees declining such coverage and obtaining coverage in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.

[wapiti]

My mom has a high-deductible/low premium' date=' individual plan from Anthem. She was recently notified that her premiums are increasing by 31%. She thinks Anthem raised their rates in preparation for the government capping annual increases. Apparently, that is what car insurance companies did at one time.

 

BTW, she is in excellent health and will soon qualify for Medicare (she's 64), so she is very lucky. However, she is really worried about finding a doctor that will take it as fewer and fewer do these days...[/quote']

The price depends *a lot* on what state a person is in, since different states have different requirements for coverage. Moreover, it was in the news that Anthem had to raise premiums dramatically in California due to some state government requirements (I can't recall what it was about, specifically). That's why a lot of people would like to be able to purchase across state lines - not enough choice in their own states, I think. Personally, I'd like to see the kind of competition that there apparently is between Geico and Progressive car insurance companies. I want to see commercials LOL.

[MSNative]

The price depends *a lot* on what state a person is in, since different states have different requirements for coverage. Moreover, it was in the news that Anthem had to raise premiums dramatically in California due to some state government requirements (I can't recall what it was about, specifically). That's why a lot of people would like to be able to purchase across state lines - not enough choice in their own states, I think. Personally, I'd like to see the kind of competition that there apparently is between Geico and Progressive car insurance companies. I want to see commercials LOL.

 

Really bad mental images of a gecko hawking Viagra. Ewwwwwww.

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

The price depends *a lot* on what state a person is in, since different states have different requirements for coverage. Moreover, it was in the news that Anthem had to raise premiums dramatically in California due to some state government requirements (I can't recall what it was about, specifically). That's why a lot of people would like to be able to purchase across state lines - not enough choice in their own states, I think. Personally, I'd like to see the kind of competition that there apparently is between Geico and Progressive car insurance companies. I want to see commercials LOL.

 

 

:iagree:

 

She purchased it in Virginia. I understand that states can require health insurance companies to offer certain coverage even though the consumer doesn't want it. I guess that is why it's almost impossible to get a bare-bones or ala carte insurance policy anymore. Just another example of group of government officials who know what's best for us...:glare:

[Supertechmom]

I'm confused. Bill 3590 is the one just passed and signed into law today , RIGHT?

 

Bill 4872 is the one passed by the house as an amendment to the HR 3590 and 4872 still requires passage by the Senate and President's sig to take effect?

 

If so the info about employer contribution and such is still under debate. So what is really in the newly turned law HR 3590?:confused:

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

I'm confused. Bill 3590 is the one just passed and signed into law today , RIGHT?

 

Bill 4872 is the one passed by the house as an amendment to the HR 3590 and 4872 still requires passage by the Senate and President's sig to take effect?

 

If so the info about employer contribution and such is still under debate. So what is really in the newly turned law HR 3590?:confused:

 

I'm tempted to insert the famous "Forrest Gump" quote here.... You know, the one about the chocolates?:lurk5:

[Mermaid Mama]

Okay, one last time.

 

I ALREADY pay for medical coverage for those in desparate need (medicaid and medicare). I do NOT have to sign up or use these things AND I am not penalized for NOT using them.

 

This is not the same. PENALIZING someone for not taking advantage of their "right" to health care is very different. This is forcing me to pay into a system I do not agree with, nor want to have anything to do with, or else forcing me to pay a PENALTY.

 

Again, I do not have to pay a penalty for NOT using medicaid or medicare. I fund them, sure, but they don't have my health information, they are not privy to my private information. Same with the schools, same with the roads.

 

Good point!!!

[Mermaid Mama]

If there is a path to citizenship, working under the table becomes a lot more risky for employers v. employees. Right now, most of the risk is on the employees.

 

I'm not quite sure I get your point here.

We have PLENTY of illegal Mexicans working for other Mexicans who are legal.

So your point is?

[Mrs Mungo]

I'm not quite sure I get your point here.

We have PLENTY of illegal Mexicans working for other Mexicans who are legal.

So your point is?

 

What has the race of the employer got to do with the risk to the employees?

[Mermaid Mama]

I think the PP is referring to people who use the ER as a doctor's office. For example, people who take their kid to the ER for an ear infection or pink eye instead of going to the doctor.

I suppose then that if you have no money you should let your kid go deaf over the ear infection? If you have an emergency - take care of it however you must.

[Mermaid Mama]

What has the race of the employer got to do with the risk to the employees?

I think you missing the ENTIRE POINT of my original statement.

But I think you do that A LOT with what I say. ;-)

 

My original point was that illegal aliens are taking jobs away from US Citizens because they can afford to work for so little. It just so happens that where I live - the illegals are Mexicans.

 

I hold nothing against legal Mexican residents of the U.S.

 

Maybe where you live the illegal aliens come from another place.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think you missing the ENTIRE POINT of my original statement.

But I think you do that A LOT with what I say. ;-)

 

My original point was that illegal aliens are taking jobs away from US Citizens because they can afford to work for so little. It just so happens that where I live - the illegals are Mexicans.

 

I hold nothing against legal Mexican residents of the U.S.

 

Maybe where you live the illegal aliens come from another place.

 

I'm originally from Oklahoma. I've lived in several states, including California.

 

You aren't listening to what I'm saying. Once there is a path to citizenship, they will no longer have a reason to work for so little. They can turn their employer (no matter what that employer's race may be) into the labor board.

 

I *currently* live in Hawaii. A large farm owner here was recently arrested for keeping illegal Asians on his farm as virtual slaves by threatening to turn them in, have them deported, etc. Once that fear is removed and they have a path to citizenship it benefits *everyone* because they will no longer have reason to work for such small amounts.

[mommaduck]

I'm not quite sure I get your point here.

We have PLENTY of illegal Mexicans working for other Mexicans who are legal.

So your point is?

 

I'm confused also. What is the difference between illegal Mexicans working for legal hispanics vs working for legal whites or blacks?

[Halftime Hope]

Immigration? I love amnesty. Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses. I totally believe in amnesty and that it will be passed. Every itoa of my parentage came here on a boat. It's what America is about.

 

Immigration, historically, has nothing to do with the current law-breaking immigrant population that is being considered for amnesty.

 

After the government was well-established, when waves of immigrants came through Ellis Island and other port, they were duly processed, legal, and granted the right to live here through whatever laws were in place at the time. It changed throughout the years.

 

Half of my family is from Oklahoma, and the part that I know anything about is half Cherokee and half Scots, which supposedly came to America from pre-dating the revolution. The other half my parentage came straight off two boats from Norway in the late 1880s. They completed their paperwork (my grandmother still had her documentation from when she was six), jumped through all the legal hoops, learned English *on purpose* because my great-grandfathers planted the two families in an Italian neighborhood so they couldn't rely on their Norwegian friends or relatives, and they became legal citizens. Their work ethic was such that the children all grew up to be professionals: in the clergy, musicians, and professors. 6 children on one side, 8 on the others; not a one did not complete college, girls included, and that long before federal aid!

 

No, America is not about amnesty; it is about legal immigration, about people making their dreams come true through hard work and law-abiding actions.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Valerie(TX)

[Mermaid Mama]

I'm originally from Oklahoma. I've lived in several states, including California.

 

You aren't listening to what I'm saying. Once there is a path to citizenship, they will no longer have a reason to work for so little. They can turn their employer (no matter what that employer's race may be) into the labor board.

 

I *currently* live in Hawaii. A large farm owner here was recently arrested for keeping illegal Asians on his farm as virtual slaves by threatening to turn them in, have them deported, etc. Once that fear is removed and they have a path to citizenship it benefits *everyone* because they will no longer have reason to work for such small amounts.

 

Well HERE I have personally known very nice illegal immigrants who work for their legal cousins. It's a family business. No threat of being turned in.

 

So - VERY different circumstances of which I speak and you are accustomed to over there on your island.

 

These folks aren't feeling threatened by their cousins and they send a huge chunk of their money back home.

[Tree House Academy]

How do I feel? Only 3 more years to go. Only 3 more years. :(

[Mermaid Mama]

I'm confused also. What is the difference between illegal Mexicans working for legal hispanics vs working for legal whites or blacks?

 

There really isn't except for the fact that they are working for RELATIVES.

So from my perspective - no difference.

But from their perspective - HUGE difference.

 

As Mungo pointed out - if you're afraid of your employer vs. employer is family = big difference to you the worker!!!!!!!!

[Mergath]

No, America is not about amnesty; it is about legal immigration, about people making their dreams come true through hard work and law-abiding actions.

 

The problem is that for the people who would most benefit from immigrating to the US, for whom staying in their native countires means starvation and extreme poverty, legal immigration is darn near impossible at this point. Things have changed a great deal over the last ten years, and immigrating legally now means thousands of dollars, connections, attorney's fees, the financial means to learn English... the list goes on. For a family living in Mexico on a few dollars a day, there really is no way to immigrate legally, no matter how hard they work.

 

I really can't fault people who come here illegally to try to make a better life for their children. In their shoes, I'd do the same.

[mommaduck]

There really isn't except for the fact that they are working for RELATIVES.

So from my perspective - no difference.

But from their perspective - HUGE difference.

 

As Mungo pointed out - if you're afraid of your employer vs. employer is family = big difference to you the worker!!!!!!!!

 

Okay, but that is different than saying that an illegal Mexican is working for a legal Mexican. We can't assume that they are related. Though illegal, I give them credit for helping their relatives out. Though legal, the same accusations can be made against anabaptists that hire their underaged family members instead of hiring other people that might have families (my husband was laid off the other year because of the economy and the 15yr old nephew took priority to the employer, his uncle). These young kids are sometimes millionaires by the time they marry in their early twenties.

[Spy Car]

Immigration, historically, has nothing to do with the current law-breaking immigrant population that is being considered for amnesty.

 

After the government was well-established, when waves of immigrants came through Ellis Island and other port, they were duly processed, legal, and granted the right to live here through whatever laws were in place at the time. It changed throughout the years.

 

Half of my family is from Oklahoma, and the part that I know anything about is half Cherokee and half Scots, which supposedly came to America from pre-dating the revolution. The other half my parentage came straight off two boats from Norway in the late 1880s. They completed their paperwork (my grandmother still had her documentation from when she was six), jumped through all the legal hoops, learned English *on purpose* because my great-grandfathers planted the two families in an Italian neighborhood so they couldn't rely on their Norwegian friends or relatives, and they became legal citizens. Their work ethic was such that the children all grew up to be professionals: in the clergy, musicians, and professors. 6 children on one side, 8 on the others; not a one did not complete college, girls included, and that long before federal aid!

 

No, America is not about amnesty; it is about legal immigration, about people making their dreams come true through hard work and law-abiding actions.

 

Like you, I have ancestors who arrived on these shores prior to the American Revolution. I doubt any of them were "legal" immigrants in the eyes of the native peoples they dispossessed.

 

Bill

[mommaduck]

Like you, I have ancestors who arrived on these shores prior to the American Revolution. I doubt any of them were "legal" immigrants in the eyes of the native peoples they dispossessed.

 

Bill

 

:thumbup:

[Carrie12345]

Like you, I have ancestors who arrived on these shores prior to the American Revolution. I doubt any of them were "legal" immigrants in the eyes of the native peoples they dispossessed.

 

Bill

 

My great-grandmother came over with fake paperwork from Finland. My great-grandfather sneaked in from Ireland. Other relatives just came down from Canada (some European, some native), and yet others were here pre-

Columbus.

 

I am concerned with "how to deal with" the results of illegal immigration. The actual immigration? Notsomuch. I'm grateful for my criminal ancestors. Well, except when it comes to trying to research my tree more in depth. It'd be nice to have some paperwork to reference!

 

Before I'm any nationality, I'm a human being. I want what's good for other human beings.

[admin]

We are attempting to keep this thread open for discussion of the issue. If posters continue to attack each other instead, the thread will be deleted. If you wish to keep the thread open, please return to discussion of health care reform.

 

Administrator

[catalinakel]

Immigration, historically, has nothing to do with the current law-breaking immigrant population that is being considered for amnesty.

 

After the government was well-established, when waves of immigrants came through Ellis Island and other port, they were duly processed, legal, and granted the right to live here through whatever laws were in place at the time. It changed throughout the years.

 

Half of my family is from Oklahoma, and the part that I know anything about is half Cherokee and half Scots, which supposedly came to America from pre-dating the revolution. The other half my parentage came straight off two boats from Norway in the late 1880s. They completed their paperwork (my grandmother still had her documentation from when she was six), jumped through all the legal hoops, learned English *on purpose* because my great-grandfathers planted the two families in an Italian neighborhood so they couldn't rely on their Norwegian friends or relatives, and they became legal citizens. Their work ethic was such that the children all grew up to be professionals: in the clergy, musicians, and professors. 6 children on one side, 8 on the others; not a one did not complete college, girls included, and that long before federal aid!

 

No, America is not about amnesty; it is about legal immigration, about people making their dreams come true through hard work and law-abiding actions.

 

Thanks Valerie. Well said.

[catalinakel]

sorry, I didn't see the note from admin.....

[mommyrooch]

The problem is that for the people who would most benefit from immigrating to the US, for whom staying in their native countires means starvation and extreme poverty, legal immigration is darn near impossible at this point. Things have changed a great deal over the last ten years, and immigrating legally now means thousands of dollars, connections, attorney's fees, the financial means to learn English... the list goes on. For a family living in Mexico on a few dollars a day, there really is no way to immigrate legally, no matter how hard they work.

 

I really can't fault people who come here illegally to try to make a better life for their children. In their shoes, I'd do the same.

 

:iagree:

[Mrs Mungo]

Well HERE I have personally known very nice illegal immigrants who work for their legal cousins. It's a family business. No threat of being turned in.

 

If they are being treated well, paid well *and* work for their family then I'm unsure how they are keeping Americans out of jobs or affecting wages? I thought that was the argument. I'm confused. :confused: What is the argument?

 

So - VERY different circumstances of which I speak and you are accustomed to over there on your island.

I don't own it or anything. ;) <---This is a bit of light humor Edited March 23, 2010 by Mrs Mungo

[Lovedtodeath]

We are attempting to keep this thread open for discussion of the issue. If posters continue to attack each other instead, the thread will be deleted. If you wish to keep the thread open, please return to discussion of health care reform.

 

Administrator

I sincerely want to know why it would be deleted instead of locked? It is not a trick question. :) Thank you.

[monk17]

If they are being treated well, paid well *and* work for their family then I'm unsure how they are keeping Americans out of jobs or affecting wages? I thought that was the argument. I'm confused. :confused: What is the argument?

 

I don't own it or anything. ;) <---This is a bit of light humor

 

I was told that in Hawai if you worked more then 19 hours for an emplyer they had to provide basic health insurance, is that corect?

[admin]

I sincerely want to know why it would be deleted instead of locked? It is not a trick question. :) Thank you.

 

Because once personal attacks begin, they spill over into other threads.

 

Administrator

[Haiku]

Do people REALLY want to give the federal government bureaucrats power over life and death when they've proven that they have utter disregard for human life?

 

I am not picking on Mary here, I am just using this as a reference point. I did some looking into this idea of gov't bureaucrats determining our care. One of the first links I found that addressed this was Politifact, which is non-partisan and is not afraid to call out Obama and his allies when they lie or fudge the truth.

 

This is what Politifact says about the idea that g-men will be deciding on our care: (ETA: "#5" references statements about the healthcare bill that are untrue.)

 

5. Bureaucrats will dictate treatment for patients, or tell you what insurance plan you have to buy. The proposal does include new boards to make recommendations on evidence-based treatment. But they won't consider any individual cases or deny procedures for specific patients. The bill also sets minimum standards for insurance companies, creating a baseline for basic coverage. People will still be able to pick the plan they prefer. We received a chain e-mail that said, "The 'Health Choices Commissioner' will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None." We rated that Pants on Fire.

 

Health insurance companies have employees whose job it is to deny care. The gov't will not be doing this.

 

Tara

Edited March 23, 2010 by TaraTheLiberator

[Lovedtodeath]

Thanks Tara. I am trying to get more info!

 

I am still trying to figure out where the $88,000 number came from.

[Lightly Salted]

If I can't/don't want to afford insurance how will I pay a fine? I'm not being snarky, this is the situation I find myself in.

 

:grouphug: I understand money being tight, but the penalty would be $95 or 1% of income, whichever is greater. That penalty would rise to $695 or 2.5% of income by 2016. And there are subsidies being offered to households earning less than $88,000 a year.

[Mrs Mungo]

I was told that in Hawai if you worked more then 19 hours for an emplyer they had to provide basic health insurance, is that corect?

 

Yes, this is true. It's been state law for over 35 years. Hawaii also has state-sponsored insurance pools for the uninsured due to being self-employed, having pre-existing conditions, for small-businesses, etc. Hawaii has the lowest levels of uninsured of any state. It also has some of the lowest health care costs.

 

eta: Surf instructors on Hawaii have health insurance, I mean, really...

Edited March 23, 2010 by Mrs Mungo

[Renee in NC]

Thanks Tara. I am trying to get more info!

 

I am still trying to figure out where the $88,000 number came from.

 

I believe that is the upper number in Massachusetts where they already have a law like the one passed. Anyone under that number can get subsidized health insurance.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

And there are subsidies being offered to households earning less than $88,000 a year.

There it is again. If this is true I am happy. (of course, if we lived in a more expensive area of the US I might not be happy) I have heard that a family of four over poverty level, or around $30,000 will need to get their own or pay the fine (that does not make me happy).

[monk17]

Yes, this is true. It's been state law for over 35 years. Hawaii also has state-sponsored insurance pools for the uninsured due to being self-employed, having pre-existing conditions, for small-businesses, etc. Hawaii has the lowest levels of uninsured of any state. It also has some of the lowest health care costs.

 

eta: Surf instructors on Hawaii have health insurance, I mean, really...

 

We visited for a month 7 years ago (n shore of Kawai) and like most folks thought about living there! Maybe we should take a look at how Hawaii has done it so well for the last 35 years.

[Mrs Mungo]

There it is again. If this is true I am happy. (of course, if we lived in a more expensive area of the US I might not be happy) I have heard that a family of four over poverty level, or around $30,000 will need to get their own or pay the fine (that does not make me happy).

 

This is copied from the AP story, I think they are okay?:

Most will have to wait until 2014. That's when the government begins providing tax credits to help people who can't otherwise afford to pay health insurance premiums. The aid will be available on a sliding scale to households making up to four times the federal poverty level, or about $88,000 for a family of four.

 

A four-person family making around $40,000 will pay only about 5 percent of its income. But the same size family making $80,000 will pay nearly 10 percent of its income. Medicaid will be expanded to cover people up to 133 percent of the poverty level, or about $29,300 for a family of four.