Obamacare could easily be fixed with a few bipartisan remedies – San Francisco Chronicle

Here is the logic of the left.  Fix the symptom of a problem and shift the real problem elsewhere. I suppose many people think this is a great idea.

I can’t afford it‼️

The absurdity of this can be found in family spending patterns. We immediately come to the conclusion that a health insurance premium is not affordable, but do we ever consider that first a car payment is not affordable or $4.00 a day for coffee is not affordable?  Health care costs are a target and a problem, but they also need to be viewed in the context of what we deem higher priority spending.

Food, shelter, health care and then spending on everything else. Do you know anyone who thinks that way? Spending on health care interrupts what we really want to spend our money on. Does that make it automatically unaffordable?

Following this approach nothing is being fixed, but that’s the headline that many people readily accept. 

The coverage is expensive, and for many out of reach, in part because no federal assistance is available for people who earn 400 percent of the poverty level, or $80,640 for a family of three. Make $1 more than that, and subsidies disappear and premiums skyrocket. It is known as the income “cliff.” Most complaints in California come from people in this category, said California Sen. Dianne Feinstein. A 60-year-old San Franciscan earning just over the cutoff of $47,520 a year now pays $946 a month under Obamacare, Feinstein said. “That’s simply not affordable,” she said.

Feinstein and her California Senate colleague, Kamala Harris, proposed legislation last month to eliminate the income cliff for middle-class workers by limiting the cost of health insurance premiums to 9.69 percent of a person’s income. The monthly premium for someone making $50,000 would be no more than $404 per month under the formula, a savings of $542 per month, they said. A person earning $80,000 would pay no more than $646 per month, saving $300.

Source: Obamacare could easily be fixed with a few bipartisan remedies – San Francisco Chronicle


2 replies »

  1. So, family coverage in San Francisco for someone 60 years old is $946 per month. Following the 3 – 1 rule limiting premium differentials, does it mean that family coverage in San Francisco for someone 30 years old is 1/3 that amount or $315?

    A family of four caps out at $97,000. So, what Feinstein and Harris want to do is subsidize health coverage for older, higher paid individuals – in addition to the 2/3rds of Americans who are already at or below 400% of FPL. So, this is a very small group of individuals – likely highly concentrated in high cost locations like San Francisco. And, of course, they want to get the money from …. who? Whose taxes do they propose to raise to fund this new entitlement? Isn’t it likely that those who they target for new subsidies are just as likely to be the individuals who end up paying higher taxes as well?

    9.69% of $97,000 is about $900 per month. That is not much of a subsidy for a 60 year old ( $1,000 a month. And, of course, the cost of bronze family health coverage in a majority of US locations does not come close to $1,000 a month.

    Looks like another vote buying exercise to me.


What's your opinion on this post? Readers would like your point of view.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s