Dude, you are remarkably out of touch. There were over ten million Americans in that non-existent individual market prior to Obamacare, and most of those individuals are probably now worse off unless taxpayers are subsidizing their health insurance.
Which plans and what types of people were able to fill 10M plans pre-ACA? Please be specific with what premiums they paid and their income. It's funny you say those same pre-ACA people are now somehow worse off with the juicy caveat "unless subsidized", since
almost 90% of ACA plans are in fact subsidized, something you apparently are unaware of (note: it would help greatly, btw, if Republican governors decided to expand Medicaid up to 400% of FPL). Given the higher minimum standards since ACA passed and the subsidized premiums, it would pretty much be impossible for them not to be better off than they were before. If you're, you know, capable of simple arithmetic.
COBRA was used ONLY for people who had lost their health insurance due to job loss; it's not an individual policy, it's an individual continuing a group policy after severing ties with the group. COBRA was never intended to replace individual policies and was only a short term solution, and even then, only for those with pre-existing conditions.
Yes thanks, everyone knows what COBRA is. Not sure why you're telling us it's "ONLY" continuing coverage for group employer plans as obviously that is far and away what most people use captain obvious. Anyway, lots of people were in COBRA plans because no real equitable individual market existed, so COBRA was their ONLY option unless they were a very young, non-smoking 100% healthy person. Fact is it never worked well and the COBRA premiums make the worst unsubsidized ACA plans now look quaint.
And since you evidently don't venture out of your bubble, small businesses are now MUCH worse off. Our premiums are exploding, our deductibles are climbing skyward. If you could speak WITH the people you evidently feel are beneath you rather than simply waiting for them to thank you for Obamacare, you might know this.
Lol. When in doubt, just speak to a handful of business owners, they'll tell you everything you need to know and not bias your viewpoint one bit! Look, speaking with a handful of people, if anything, would give me a perverted perspective of how a market actually works, as the
actual numbers (i.e. millions of biz owners) are far more important than anecdotal bullshit. And the arithmetic you're constitutionally unable to grapple with is that rising premiums and deductibles are not some evil force that just entered the market after ACA was passed in 2010. Saying premiums and deductibles are exploding as if it must have something to do with ACA is comical, but doesn't pass any empirical test. Feel free to prove otherwise.
In 2014, the US median income was $53,657. That is approximately $26/hour for one earner, or $13/hour for two earners. The fact that you refer to people earning $15 - $20 as "low earners" explains a lot about your level of comprehension on this issue, and why you feel the government can somehow subsidize half the nation's earners in addition to the non-earners.
You're confused, reread what you quoted. Minus the pharmacy tech, most of those positions don't require degrees and are hardly getting $15/hr, let alone $20/hr. It's not dirt poor, but it is by definition low wage, especially if you're talking about Uber drivers and EMT's in large, expensive cities, where most of them
actually work and live. And yes that wage should indeed be subsidized in most parts of the country, not sure how that's controversial (and frankly you are quite poorly informed if you didn't already know half of earners are ALREADY subsidized by the gov't). In any case, given the vast success of propositions asking to increase the minimum wage being passed in the last 12 months, I'm not alone in this belief and you are clearly out of touch with the common man if you think $15/hr isn't lower wage in most parts of the country, particularly since most of them aren't working anywhere near 40 hrs/week. In fact, reading your post again it appears your confusion lies with your citations of median income and averaging two earners to $13/hr; you actually seem to think Uber drivers, cashiers, etc. are working full time. I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're misinformed. You can't average the household numbers that way, as they aren't full time.
Facebook
Twitter