In opposing the Affordable Care Act, Al DeKruif says in his letter published July 13, a 63-year-old couple with income of $62,000 will pay annual insurance premiums of $5,892. But with income of $63,000, their annual premiums jump to $20,000-plus.
Seems scary, doesn’t it? But is DeKruif engaging in political trickery?
Bottom line: This couple is better off with the ACA than without it. DeKruif says nothing about their costs without the ACA, and without benefits like ending rejections due to pre-existing conditions. With the ACA, they pay less in premiums with income under $62,000 and are not worse off than they were before the ACA with income over $63,000.
If DeKruif’s example was a 45-year-old couple, the premiums would be $5,892 annually at $62,000 income, and $9,984 at $63,000, an increase of only $4,092 rather than the $14,000-plus for the 63 year olds. He’s just selecting an extreme example to make the ACA look bad.
In two years, the $63,000 63-year-olds would get Medicare, paying nowhere near $20,000-plus for insurance. But DeKruif never mentions this.
For incomes from $63,000 to $99,000,000, the 63-year-old couple would pay exactly the same monthly premiums adding up to $20,412 annually. From this whole range, why did DeKruif select $63,000? Gradually diminishing subsidies must reach some end point where people are expected to have enough income to pay for their insurance without subsidies. With the endpoint set at $62,000, DeKruif pounces on $63,000.
If the endpoint were $63,000, he would pounce on $64,000, anything to distract people from the bottom line mentioned above.
Message: Try the MNsure.org calculator and don’t ever vote for DeKruif.
Naming pig after
StrokeStyle/$ID/Japanese DotsRobb Murray is clearly a kind person, who surely understands that compassion is limitless and will hopefully come to agree that one kind action doesn’t entitle someone to behave callously (“Murray: I’ve had it with PETA,” July 14).