U.S. Politics - knowing me knowing you, a-haaa

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Hmmm...

So...either a part time job paying say...$15 an hour or a not quite full time job a buck or two over the minimum wage. Either way, probably on the order of $1400 - $1500 a month take home (after taxes get yanked).

So, from that $1400, we subtract...

$700 a month in rent...(if real lucky)

$200 a month in utilities...(NOT counting cell phone tab)

$200 a month grocery bill (if shopping frugal)

$100 a month gasoline (NOT counting oil changes or repairs)

and a couple hundred for whatevers not covered here.

This puts the person in question above the max for free medi-whatever, so they have to go out and buy a plan. The highly dubious assumption is because they are on the younger side, they are most likely healthier...something totally unfounded because most of these people won't have made it to the doctor for anything other than emergencies in years. Wrongly classified as 'healthy'.

So they go to the exchanges, look up the cost for the 'bronze' plan...and the minimum, AFTER subsidies and whatnot is AT LEAST $200 a month out of a budget has dang little slack in it already.

So...they don't qualify for free medi-whatever

...they simply cannot afford even the cheapest SUBSIDIZED insewerance plan,

so they go without.

And probably about a third of the workforce in the US (or more) will be in this sort of situation in the next few years: stuck in a low paying job with zero hope of anything better for a long, long time.

One of our occasional babysitters is in exactly this position.

[Fez]

Hmmm...

So...either a part time job paying say...$15 an hour or a not quite full time job a buck or two over the minimum wage. Either way, probably on the order of $1400 - $1500 a month take home (after taxes get yanked).

So, from that $1400, we subtract...

$700 a month in rent...(if real lucky)

$200 a month in utilities...(NOT counting cell phone tab)

$200 a month grocery bill (if shopping frugal)

$100 a month gasoline (NOT counting oil changes or repairs)

and a couple hundred for whatevers not covered here.

This puts the person in question above the max for free medi-whatever, so they have to go out and buy a plan. The highly dubious assumption is because they are on the younger side, they are most likely healthier...something totally unfounded because most of these people won't have made it to the doctor for anything other than emergencies in years. Wrongly classified as 'healthy'.

So they go to the exchanges, look up the cost for the 'bronze' plan...and the minimum, AFTER subsidies and whatnot is AT LEAST $200 a month out of a budget has dang little slack in it already.

So...they don't qualify for free medi-whatever

...they simply cannot afford even the cheapest SUBSIDIZED insewerance plan,

so they go without.

And probably about a third of the workforce in the US (or more) will be in this sort of situation in the next few years: stuck in a low paying job with zero hope of anything better for a long, long time.

Wow there's a lot of assumptions/wrong information here.

First of all, if we're saying $1400/month after tax, I guess that'd be an income of around $20,000? If single, yeah they won't qualify for the Medicaid expansion. But if they live in Minnesota, New York, DC, Massachusetts, Vermont, or Rhode Island (and I think a couple other states) they'll qualify for Medicaid anyway since those states already offered a more generous Medicaid plan pre-ACA than the expansion. Alternatively if they are pregnant, a working parent, or have any one of a number of disabilities they're also likely to qualify for Medicaid under pre-ACA rules in around 30 states.

If they don't live in one of the more generous states, or they don't meet one of those alternative eligibility conditions, they'll actually discover that a bronze plan after the subsides will cost them roughly $83 a month. If that's too much for them, they can go for one of the catastrophic plans instead, which will be closer to $40 a month after subsidies (those are for $20k single incomes, the numbers go as your income does since the subsidies go down).

Now that's not great, but the ACA isn't a total cure-all, there are some people it can't help as much as others. Fortunately, its not anywhere close to one third of the workforce. There's 315 million Americans, and 48.6 million of them don't have insurance. The CBO currently estimates that 25 million of them will gain coverage through the ACA, leaving 23.6 million out of luck. But blame Republicans, not the law; another 10 million were originally estimated to gain coverage, but that was before Republicans started stonewalling the law and impeding its implementation. As for the remaining 13.6 million, well, like I said, it wasn't going to be a total cure-all.

[Lord of Rhinos]

So, from that $1400, we subtract...

$700 a month in rent...(if real lucky)

$200 a month in utilities...(NOT counting cell phone tab)

$200 a month grocery bill (if shopping frugal)

$100 a month gasoline (NOT counting oil changes or repairs)

and a couple hundred for whatevers not covered here.

I live in the Puget Sound. 700 is quite common in my area for a single bedroom apartment. If you're spending $200 on groceries you are not being frugal. If you're paying $200 for utilities you're paying a lot. If you actually want to save money you should get a roommate to split rent and utilities with. Also working 30 hours a week at $15 dollars an hour means you earn $1950 a month. In the end you should be able to hang on to at least $1650 of that though you might need to change the withholding.

[ThinkerX]

Fez - I like your analysis.

I do have two gripes, though.

My main gripe with it is that we seem to have a lot of people stepping DOWN from higher paying jobs into lower paying ones, mostly part time. Hence, a lot of previously insured people are going to find themselves in a bind.

You also appear to assume the full populace of the US is employed, which also skews things a bit.

But again, good number crunching.

Tarant -

Prices vary quite a bit, even in the same area's. I have a cousin in San Francisco who shells out $800 a month for a coffin of an apartment that doesn't even have its own bathroom. My daughter, just yesterday, tracked down a 1.5 bedroom place for her and her sister for $800 including utilities after a week of hunting. Most of the others STARTED at $900, plus utilities. Their combined after tax income is about three grand a month. On their own, even the $800 a month pad would be crippling. Thing is, they have to move out of that place come spring.

I'd also comment groceries seem to be d*mn cheap in your part of the world (or maybe they're just real high here - $50 a week is about what I budget, and I keep an eye out for sales and specials.)

[ThinkerX]

Also read in the (physical) paper today a long AP piece about a LOT of ticked off small biz owners who've decided to either forgo expansion (having more than fifty full time employees) OR have decided to downsize to below 50 full time employees. Basically, their accountants are telling them they cannot do both the mandatory coverage AND have more than fifty employees. So there goes most of the real economy.

[BLU-RAY]

Fez - I like your analysis.

I do have two gripes, though.

My main gripe with it is that we seem to have a lot of people stepping DOWN from higher paying jobs into lower paying ones, mostly part time. Hence, a lot of previously insured people are going to find themselves in a bind.

You also appear to assume the full populace of the US is employed, which also skews things a bit.

But again, good number crunching.

Tarant -

Prices vary quite a bit, even in the same area's. I have a cousin in San Francisco who shells out $800 a month for a coffin of an apartment that doesn't even have its own bathroom. My daughter, just yesterday, tracked down a 1.5 bedroom place for her and her sister for $800 including utilities after a week of hunting. Most of the others STARTED at $900, plus utilities. Their combined after tax income is about three grand a month. On their own, even the $800 a month pad would be crippling. Thing is, they have to move out of that place come spring.

I'd also comment groceries seem to be d*mn cheap in your part of the world (or maybe they're just real high here - $50 a week is about what I budget, and I keep an eye out for sales and specials.)

Wait, is your daughter also in the SF Bay Area? Because that's pretty much the most expensive place to live in the country, with only Manhattan/Brooklyn rivaling it.

[ThinkerX]

Wait, is your daughter also in the SF Bay Area? Because that's pretty much the most expensive place to live in the country, with only Manhattan/Brooklyn rivaling it.

Maybe I should have been clearer.

I have a COUSIN dwelling in a tiny apartment in San Francisco.

My DAUGHTER lives here in Alaska.

As to expensive states to live:

http://money.msn.com/investing/5-most-expensive-states-to-live

Take note of the comments.

For Alaska, its worth pointing out that once out of Anchorage, real estate prices drop quite a bit (half or even three quarters, if you don't mind being in the woods). The other prices...I pay more for some, less for others.

[BLU-RAY]

Yeah, I got the cousin part. The daughter in Alaska jives with your other posts; that post in particular made it seem like you were conflating the real estate situations of the cousin and the daughter, and I got confused.

Also, states to live is a bad way to look at it. California is freakin' enormous (not that Alaska isn't, but I am under the impression that most areas of Alaska are not settled); Modesto and Bakersfield and Humboldt are going to help the aggregate. The SF Bay Area has to be the worst real estate market in the country right now, or close to it.

That is pretty interesting (I was going to say cool, but it's not cool) about Alaska (and Hawai'i), though. Did not realize it was that expensive, but I wonder if whatever metric they used to calculate that factors in stuff like the amount of land/size of lodging per dollar.

[awesome possum]

Good column about how the Republican party is reaping what it has sown with the tea party

If you're looking for a Republican congressman who truly embodies the ethos of the Tea Party, Maryland Representative Andy Harris is a pretty good pick.

...

Yet, earlier this month, in a town hall meeting in his home district, he was assailed by his constituents – for not being strident and uncompromising enough.

"You guys are being nice guys" and "I want to see more defiance!" were just some of the accusations hurled at the congressman in a heated session that included questions about the supposed IRS scandal and the current lodestar of conservative lunacy – Benghazi.

Harris is not alone.

Blake Farenthold, another Tea Party Republican from Texas, who voted against the fiscal cliff deal as well, and told constituents "there are several [cabinet] departments we could completely get rid of", was assailed by "birthers" for the GOP's failure to impeach President Obama. (His defense was not that impeachment would be insane, but that it would be infeasible.) Tea Partiers in North Carolina pummeled Congressman Robert Pittenger for refusing to support defunding Obamacare even thought he has supported a number of bills repealing Obamacare.

Indeed, across the nation, Republican senators and congressmen are finding themselves under withering assault from Tea Party critics.

After three and a half years of legislative hostage-taking and policy nihilism and unceasing, uncompromising obstructionism of President Obama's agenda, the message from the Tea Party is a simple one: we want more crazy.

So what's going on here? Quite simply, Republicans are being destroyed by the rightwing monster they created.

[TrackerNeil]

So...they don't qualify for free medi-whatever

...they simply cannot afford even the cheapest SUBSIDIZED insewerance plan,

so they go without.

And probably about a third of the workforce in the US (or more) will be in this sort of situation in the next few years: stuck in a low paying job with zero hope of anything better for a long, long time.

The ACA allows those who cannot qualify for Medicaid and yet don't make enough to afford subsidized premiums to opt out.

[Fez]

Fez - I like your analysis.

I do have two gripes, though.

My main gripe with it is that we seem to have a lot of people stepping DOWN from higher paying jobs into lower paying ones, mostly part time. Hence, a lot of previously insured people are going to find themselves in a bind.

You also appear to assume the full populace of the US is employed, which also skews things a bit.

But again, good number crunching.

I'm not assuming the full population is employed, I'm using the full population figures because they are more relevant than the workforce figures. I don't know how many of the 48.6 million uninsured individuals have or don't have employment (I'd guess a majority don't), but there's no insurance option that's available for only the unemployed, so its not relevant to this topic. Yes, the recovery has sucked for a lot of people who are ending up in part-time jobs instead of full-time; but it doesn't change the fact that most people already have health insurance. For the vast majority of people, the ACA is just a safety-net protecting them if necessary and a piece of consumer protection legislation.

Also read in the (physical) paper today a long AP piece about a LOT of ticked off small biz owners who've decided to either forgo expansion (having more than fifty full time employees) OR have decided to downsize to below 50 full time employees. Basically, their accountants are telling them they cannot do both the mandatory coverage AND have more than fifty employees. So there goes most of the real economy.

Firstly, the employer mandate was already delayed until 2015, so its not even an issue yet. Second of all, most employers (over 95% of those with over 50 FTE employees and 60-something % (I forget the exact figure) of those with less than 50 FTE employees) already offer health insurance, so the mandate doesn't affect them in anyway. And since the mandate doesn't kick in until 50 FTEs, any employer with significantly less than that isn't affected either.

Thirdly, the mandate's penalty is actually really quite small, its $2,000 per FTE employee but only for every one after the 30th. So if you have 55 FTEs, that's a $50,000 a year penalty. I'd be surprised if there's really that many employers whose profit margins are so thin that they are going to forgo expansion plans to avoid that. Its all grandstanding. The only businesses who really stand to lose much are the very large ones that don't offer coverage, for instance Walmart or some of the larger fast food franchises, and they just avoid the penalty by cutting back hours and hiring more part-timers. Which sucks, and the mandate really should've included a mechanism to deal with that, but isn't going to hurt the economy. Two 20-hour a week Walmart cashiers isn't worse for the economy than one 40-hour a week cashier.

[ThinkerX]

The ACA allows those who cannot qualify for Medicaid and yet don't make enough to afford subsidized premiums to opt out.

Don't these people get kicked hard in the crotch come tax time?

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

Michael Medved had a woman on his show who ran a small amusement park that had about 70-80 employees, mostly part-timers and most local high school or college kids (according to the woman). They offered health insurance to their FTEs but were planning to cut hours for the PTEs to avoid the penalty.

It was a good bit and made Medved's point (that the ACA hurts small employers who provide jobs) but conveniently skipped over the part where most of her employees were probably barely over 29 hours anyway and that she had no plans to slow down hiring.

[ThinkerX]

It was a good bit and made Medved's point (that the ACA hurts small employers who provide jobs) but conveniently skipped over the part where most of her employees were probably barely over 29 hours anyway and that she had no plans to slow down hiring.

Which brings us right back to the number crunching I did a few posts back: we are looking at a *LOT* of people who through minimum wage or part time employment who simply do not make much money, with little or no real prospects for advancement. This situation is unlikely to change for a long, long time.

Its not just health insurance, either: much of the US economy is based on the buying and selling of houses and (new) cars.

A person making fifteen hundred a month after taxes is unlikely to be able to afford to buy either a house OR a new car, barring government subsidies or some sort of cohabitation (spouse or roommate) situation.

With a rapidly growing portion of the populace stuck in such low paying jobs, that is going to have a nasty effect on the housing and car markets (and probably already is).

[DanteGabriel]

Louisiana state rep (Republican, of course) shocked and appalled that a program providing funding for religious school vouchers would benefit non-Christian schools too:

Rep. Valarie Hodges, R-Watson, says she had no idea that Gov. Bobby Jindal’s overhaul of the state’s educational system might mean taxpayer support of Muslim schools.

“I actually support funding for teaching the fundamentals of America’s Founding Fathers’ religion, which is Christianity, in public schools or private schools,” the District 64 Representative said Monday.

…

“Unfortunately it will not be limited to the Founders’ religion,” Hodges said. “We need to insure that it does not open the door to fund radical Islam schools. There are a thousand Muslim schools that have sprung up recently. I do not support using public funds for teaching Islam anywhere here in Louisiana.”

http://www.patheos.c...an-muslim-ones/

Watch out, Ms. Hodges. They're probably fixing to spring Sharia law on you next. But first, you should probably work on that issue where you are bigoted, ignorant, and irretrievably stupid.

[awesome possum]

Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton left a voicemail for a lobbyist in which she brazenly begs for a "contribution." It's a not-so-subtle reminder of how legalized bribery is the standard operating procedure in Washington.

[Atreides]

It's not like she has a vote in Congress though.

[lokisnow]

oh hi old friend: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

the old pre NYT format is back until they transition to the ESPN mothership.

Love seeing that old format, ahh nostalgia.

[awesome possum]

It's not like she has a vote in Congress though.

True, but she is part of several committees, which means while her vote isn't for sale because has no vote, she can still influence legislation.

And in today's "Lets all laugh at the GOP" moment, 13 Maine Republicans have quit the Republican party

In a letter dated yesterday (pasted below) Maine’s Republican National Committee Member, six state committee members and six members of the party (including their 2006 congressional nominee Scott D’Amboise) have resigned and/or unenrolled from the Republican Party.

“Therefore, for the above-stated reasons, we can no longer allow ourselves to be called nor enrolled as Republicans; we can no longer associate ourselves with a political party that goes out of its way to continually restrict our freedoms and liberties as well as reaching deeper and deeper into our wallets.”

Where's that horn playing "

" when you need it?

[Commodore]

her party affiliation is conveniently missing