Nyvin
Gold Member
- Sep 23, 2013
- 3,660
- 667
- 190
So a topic I don't see being discussed anywhere is the potential Medicaid donut hole that's up and coming in 2014. Probably most don't even know what this is.
Originally the ACA was going to expand coverage to low income individuals through subsidies or expanded medicaid (and the employer mandate but that's a different story). However the Supreme Court ruled that threatening to remove Medicaid funding was unconstitutional, but the "option" of states expanding Medicaid wasn't.
This leads to an unexpected gap in insurance coverage for low (but not too low) income workers. In order to qualify for a federal subsidy you must meet minimum income levels depending on family size and location.
In order to meet standards for "current" medicaid (states that aren't expanding) you generally *must* be either: disabled, elderly, pregnant, or have kids.
In other words: Single, able-bodied, working adult that makes less then ~$15,000 a year? You're out of luck. No subsidy, no medicaid.
So for the states that do not choose to expand Medicaid (overwhelmingly red states)
File:ACA Medicaid expansion by state.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
there will be a large "Medicaid Donut Hole" which people will have to pay 100% out of pocket for insurance while people both below and above them in income levels will be getting either free or nearly free coverage.
I predict this will be a major political point in the 2014 elections a large portion of the populace seeing other people of similar income being covered but they in their red state are not being covered at all. This will lead to them supporting the democratic challenger for governor and probably state representatives as well, leading up to a state-level wave election in 2014 (seeing as MANY state governors get elected in the midterm election).
Originally the ACA was going to expand coverage to low income individuals through subsidies or expanded medicaid (and the employer mandate but that's a different story). However the Supreme Court ruled that threatening to remove Medicaid funding was unconstitutional, but the "option" of states expanding Medicaid wasn't.
This leads to an unexpected gap in insurance coverage for low (but not too low) income workers. In order to qualify for a federal subsidy you must meet minimum income levels depending on family size and location.
In order to meet standards for "current" medicaid (states that aren't expanding) you generally *must* be either: disabled, elderly, pregnant, or have kids.
In other words: Single, able-bodied, working adult that makes less then ~$15,000 a year? You're out of luck. No subsidy, no medicaid.
So for the states that do not choose to expand Medicaid (overwhelmingly red states)
File:ACA Medicaid expansion by state.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
there will be a large "Medicaid Donut Hole" which people will have to pay 100% out of pocket for insurance while people both below and above them in income levels will be getting either free or nearly free coverage.
I predict this will be a major political point in the 2014 elections a large portion of the populace seeing other people of similar income being covered but they in their red state are not being covered at all. This will lead to them supporting the democratic challenger for governor and probably state representatives as well, leading up to a state-level wave election in 2014 (seeing as MANY state governors get elected in the midterm election).
