Experts consider health insurance unaffordable once it exceeds 10 percent of annual income. By that measure, a 50-year-old making $50,000 a year, or just above the qualifying limit for assistance, would find the cheapest available plan to be unaffordable in more than 170 counties around the country, ranging from Anchorage to Jackson, Miss.
A 60-year-old living in Polk County, in northwestern Wisconsin, and earning $50,000 a year, for example, would have to spend more than 19 percent of his income, or $9,801 annually, to buy one of the cheapest plans available there. A person earning $45,000 would qualify for subsidies and would pay about 5 percent of his income, or $2,228, for an inexpensive plan.
In Oklahoma City, a 60-year-old earning $50,000 could buy one of the cheapest plans for about 6.6 percent of his income, or about $3,279 a year with no subsidy. If he earned $45,000, with the benefit of a subsidy, he would spend about $2,425.
While the number of people who just miss qualifying for subsidies is unclear, many of them have made their frustration known, helping fuel criticism of the law in recent weeks. Like the Chapmans, hundreds of thousands of people have received notices that their existing plans are being canceled and that they must now pay more for new coverage.
The price was suppose to be lower and the policy better. That is simply a fairy tale, and if you like your fairy tale you can keep it.
First, an obvious reason why no one should participate in ACA. Do you really trust the government with your information and their ability to expedite your information into a system which thus far has been a debacle? There have even been reports of people finding out their accounts have been withdrawn without their knowledge. Go figure how long that will take to straighten out?
And again, it isn't the website. It is the concept. That the government deems it should force you pay so another may not. And no matter which way you look at that concept, defend that concept or rationalize that concept it come down to one definition–Marxism. What Barry did essentially is lay down that anyone he deems in need should be paid for by those more successful. Marxism. No different than when they laid down the progressive tax in 1913 instead of a much smaller flat rate tax for everyone. And that means everyone participates funding for government services..
The problem is Barry thought the young would just go with it. Then he found out the young no longer thought he was nearly as hip as they did when they voted him in. Because pretty much anyone with a job doesn't want to be told they must pay so another may not. And those of us who have done well by our own hand certainly don't.
If you would like my fiction to become a reality, fiction based on history, mind you, keep participating in Marxist policy. I won't–no matter what. Because once they have gotten you used to ACA and realize they can't sustain it–the next step will be dramatic tax increases–of course that will only be on the ones who are successful as well.
Charles Hurst. Author of THE SECOND FALL. An offbeat story of Armageddon. And creator of THE RUNNINGWOLF EZINE.
And I am just over the limit so I get fully screwed by the feds again
I found this article on how to opt out of Obamacare. Seems like good alternatives!
http://clashdaily.com/2013/12/yahoo-eight-ways-op…