15% x $7,300 x 0.5yr = $550/person in additional savings.
15% x $21,000 x 0.5yr = $1,575/family in additional savings.
I'm not saying that I support lowering the threshold, I'm just saying that you need to look at what they're doing with that money instead.
The $1,400 checks were originally going to phase out by $100K. Now that’s down to $80K. Let’s assume the median income impacted earns $90K, so is “losing” $700.
If they qualify for COBRA, this would cancel out $550 of that on average. Not all, but a lot of it.
The $12 billion “saved” by the lower check cut-off is still being spent, just in other ways, which still help out many of the same people.
I agree it makes for an easy attack politically but there’s sound logic to it in practice.
The total number of people being cut from the relief checks is 17 million (12M adults, 5M kids) in households earning >$80K (single) or >$160K (couples).
Excellent summary of the situation by @xpostfactoid.
Any time you hear a conservative whine about how "expensive" #ACA subsidies are for taxpayers, remind them that there's a simple solution for that which WOULDN'T require eliminating or even hurting private insurance markets.
According to @MedicaidGov, Medicaid costs an average of around $6,200 per enrollee per year to cover nearly 100% of their expenses, paid for by a combination of federal + state governments.
Average cost per *subsidized* #ACA enrollee? Around $5,900/year to cover ~70% of their expenses. Tack on another ~$1,100/ea in annual premiums for subsidized enrollees & the other 30% in out of pocket costs and you're up to ~$9,500 or so. acasignups.net/21/02/17/cbo-r…
Believe it or not, there's an important connection between #HR1 and the #TexasFoldEm lawsuit to strike down the #ACA pending a #SCOTUS decision right now. 1/
The #TexasFoldEm case, brought by 20 GOP state AGs, uses insane "logic" to claim the #ACA's individual mandate is unconstitutional because the GOP changed the penalty amount to $0.
However, it ALSO argues that since the mandate is unconstitutional, the ENTIRE LAW is as well. 2/
The first issue is re. merits of the case, which most legal experts from ACROSS the political spectrum agree are either nonexistent or weak at best.
The SECOND issue is re. "severability"...that is, whether you can strike down one part of a law without striking down the rest. 3/
GOP says $10. Manchin says $11. Try to settle on $12 WITH indexing but WITHOUT subminimums for disabled, tipped, etc. Flip a couple more seats in 2022, kill the filibuster THEN and push for $15 from there. secure.actblue.com/donate/senateb…
“Why water it down if they won’t vote for it anyway?” ...because Manchin/Sinema are insisting on 60 votes. If they won’t vote for it anyway it’s irrelevant.
📣 For those wondering, re. @LaurenUnderwood's example of a family of four saving $8,000/year in premiums: It's actually conceivable that a family earning slightly more than the current subsidy cut-off (around $105,000/yr) could save as much as $24,000/year. That's not a typo. 1/
The actual current income threshold for a family of 4 is a bit higher than the $100K figure she mentioned (it's $104,800 this year, $106,000 in 2022), but otherwise she's actually *understating* the potential savings by using a rough national average. 2/
ON AVERAGE NATIONALLY, a 40-yr old couple with 2 children age 12 & 10 earning $105K this year would save $610/month or $7,300/year.
In Lapeer County, MI the same family would save $4,600/yr.
In Kay County, OK the same family would save a whopping $2,000/month. 3/