This bill says it will cover 94% under the age of 65....who are the 6%?

[KansasVoter]

I can't seem to find out who the 6% it will not cover?

Anyone heard?

[BlooInBloo]

1. I assume it's people whose employment doesn't cover them....

but who earn too much to qualify for public option?

Some self-employed's and such sound like likely candidates.

[napi21]

7. I didin't think there was a $$ qualifier for the PO?

I think it's those who decide they don't want or need HI. I know now it was nuts, but when I was 18 to 25 I didn't think I needed it either! I think I read somewhere ther was a fine of $750 a year if you don't buy it but I suspect there are some who will just risk not getting caught.

[BlooInBloo]

8. I thought the subsidies were dependent upon income...

I could be wrong though.

[napi21]

17. AFAIK the linitation is that nobody would pay more than 12 1/2%

og their income. I think that's the $ limitations and those would get reimbursement for their costs.

[Bitwit1234]

26. I'm pretty sure it said the illegals were the 6%.

[marybourg]

2. Those who don't have coverage now & who will refuse to buy same. nt.

[mrcheerful]

3. They are the working folks thats above the pay scale of the working poor and

below the making ends met with some money in the bank workers. The working and getting by on a wing and a prayer folks I guess is a good name for them.

[laughingliberal]

9. That's a great name for them: getting by on a wing and a prayer nt

[undeterred]

25. Too rich to be poor and too poor to afford health insurance.

Thats me.

[Garam_Masala]

You are not alone in that group,,,there are millions with you eom

[rwheeler31]

4. It is the undetermined status issue.

[TlalocW]

5. Anyone who asks who the other 6% are

Ooops... Tough luck for you.

TlalocW

[frazzled]

6. Well ...

Christian Scientists, who will probably not be required to buy health insurance; people who fall through the cracks for some financial reasons: they earn more than the subsidies allow, but can't afford the insurance because of some other extenuating circumstance; illegal immigrants, who apparently can't buy into the exchange or else a bunch of people in Washington will have their heads explode. Etc.

[kestrel91316]

10. Probably includes me. That would be just my luck.

[oldtime dfl_er]

11. That's what I was thinking..

I'm self employed, income just barely above poverty level. I'm probably somehow going to be excluded.

[kestrel91316]

29. They'll tell us we are unsuccessful and need to sell the business or just quit

and get a "job". Nevermind that I was on track to make decent money if the economy hadn't collapsed.......

[ElsewheresDaughter]

27. that was my first thought.

[OHdem10]

12. This is the amount of money they can spend.

It takes 10 years to get them (96% )covered. It does not start
for years.

Tomorrow if Pakistan needs 10 million, miraculously they will
get it. If some Business gets into trouble and needs a few
million even a billion, they will miraculously find the money.

It is all in the priorities. The priorities in this country
are not the people. We are a Center Right Country (sarcasm)

[DrToast]

13. 3%

I remember reading that even if you try to insure everyone, there will always be 3% who will refuse to buy it even if they can afford it.

I don't know who the other 3% are. Maybe the CBO calculates that with the regulations in the Senate bill it will actually be 6% of the population who won't buy it.

[Amonester]

14. homeless people

a easily-forgotten, growing crowd...

change (spare some...)

[Warpy]

15. The homeless, the stubborn, and wealthy people

who turn up their aristocratic noses at anything like health insurance because the most advanced medical care money can buy is chump change to them.

Illegal aliens won't be covered unless they buy a plan at full price. They won't get the subsidies, which means most will be uninsured.

There might be others who fall through the cracks--or jump through them in the case of libertarian nutcases, but it will all add up to that 6%.

Insuring 94% of us is a good start. It's a hell of a lot better than insuring 80% of us.

[Odin2005]

16. Libertarian nutcases that refuse to participate.

[treestar]

20. Yes. And other religious nuts who don't believe in medical treatment

[Manifestor_of_Light]

18. Do they go by income or assets or what?

I have not had a job in several years (stopped looking in disgust).
Am retired and have rental income from a house.
Hubby has social security.

Have not had health insurance since DH was laid off from his suckwad job in 2006.

[SoCalDem]

19. The "bill" will cover almost everyone in SOME part

via the "no pre-existing condition" thing and the "no cancel" thing, BUT

any insurance company can "offer" you coverage that you cannot possibly afford, or coverage that is totally bullshit-high deductible, and still be in compliance with the law.

Anyone who's ever bought car insurance knows the drill..


insurance is the problem..not the solution..

the 6% are the ones who are too poor to be mandated to pay for coverage.. they will roll into the beefed up medicaid plans.

[bornskeptic]

22. I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

You said

The "bill" will cover almost everyone in SOME part
via the "no pre-existing condition" thing and the "no cancel" thing, BUT
any insurance company can "offer" you coverage that you cannot possibly afford, or coverage that is totally bullshit-high deductible, and still be in compliance with the law.

Under either the House or Senate bill an insurer must offer insurance at the same premium to everyone regardless of health condition. The only exception is that premiums can be based to some extent on age. In the House bill thwe age differential is limited to 2:1. I'm not sure what the Senate came up with. But if a company asked a premium of $3000 a month from one 40-year-old for a particular policy it would have to charge every 40-year-old the same. It wouldn't get many customers, ormake any profit, doing that.

Of course they can operate as you say under the current system, but that won't be possible under any reform measure that passes.
That is one provision which all Congressiona Democrats and even many Republicans agree on.

[SoCalDem]

24. I'll wait until the final bill is done & signed, but I do not see

how it will end up much different that the "Massachussets Plan"..which is a dismal failure, for the most part..

I am afraid that the poorest will end up on medicaid, and the ones between 50-64 will end up paying through the nose, at the very time they can least afford it:(

Not a lot any of us can do.. they will do what they will do, and we will have to live with whatever it ends up being:(

[sallyseven]

28. Prove that MA care is a failure.

Your blowing smoke. Romney is the one who implemented3d it. Deval Patrick made is better. Shut up./

[SoCalDem]

31. My my, aren't you the pleasant one

I know Romney did it..Never said he didn't.

Google is your friend...There are multiple articles that attest to the fact the MA-Care is not the success they were sole..

Argue with yourself, at will..done here:hi:

[ipaint]

21. Immigrants here illegally and people who fall through the huge cracks in the

system. The people who fall through the cracks as a result of inadequate subsidies will be lumped in with a tiny minority who can afford to but refuse to pay- all are now to be referred to as insurance deadbeats, the welfare queens of the new millennium.

There is no way a bunch of millionaire and multi-millionaire corporate subsidized representatives will design an adequate health insurance subsidy system or a regulatory system that prevents abuse. They have absolutely no clue how the majority working class lives and what working people need to lead decent lives. They are too far removed and too soft from excess wealth, class privilege and comfort. Big money has corrupted the government to it's core and the revolving doors between corporations and their regulatory agencies in government are proof of that.

Just like nafta, deregualtion and welfare reform this will be an unfolding horror show for most working people. And just like those corporate sponsored legislative disasters, there will be no turning back on any part of the bill that enriches corporate coffers regardless of the consequences for people who work to survive.

[LaydeeBug]

23. poor women in need of reproductive care

}( :evilgrin: I am sorry, I promise I only mean that 'halfway'. I support the pres, but not if it means stupak.

[karynnj]

30. Might be an estimate of those who chose to pay the fine rather than buy insurance

There is universal access. This is the issue spoken of during the primaries. Then, Clinton and Edwards had mandates and said that Obama's was not universal insurance because it was not mandatory. Many pointed out that even with madates, there will be some % that do not comply - just as with care insurance.

Some of these people may feel that even with whatever subsidy they qualify for, that they can not afford insurance.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[ProgressOnTheMove]

33. The homeless, libertarians and the insane. Might be larger than 6% really.