Skip to comments.Obamacare: Two Bay Area legislators want to expand law's subsidies in high-cost areas
Posted on 02/04/2014 6:20:59 PM PST by artichokegrower
Hoping to increase the number of Americans eligible for tax subsidies under the new federal health care law, two Bay Area lawmakers introduced a bill Tuesday that would expand the subsidized income level for those living in high-cost areas of the country.
U.S. Reps. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, and Mike Thompson, D-Napa, say the Fair Access to Health Act ties health insurance subsidies to the cost of living in a geographic area instead of to the national federal poverty level.
(Excerpt) Read more at santacruzsentinel.com ...
Because the posh upscale communities surrounding silicon valley are now the downtrodden. I don’t even know where to start it’s so absurd.
Oh stop! It’s only money. It’s not as if there was a limit to it or something. Stop being such a mean spirited bigot.
Shouldn’t ‘racis’ be in there somewhere?
You are on this site. It is implied.
Yes, and which party has the majority in the house of Congress to which these two belong? Has any bill introduced by a member of the opposite party ever got through committee?
If we make the subsidies high enough, health care will be free, or you can even make a little extra on your health care, sort of like an earned income credit.
Anna Eshoo and Mike Thompson are stoners or just dumb, probably both. Palo Alto and Napa are rich areas. There is no reason for a poor person to live there, as the rich party there. Their bill is discriminatory to all the poor folks who live in fly-over country, with no amenities like the rich have. There’s a reason cost of living is high there, what with great weather, recreation, restaurants and stores, etc. If people live there, they can afford to pay for their own health premiums. One of my sisters lives near Napa in a $2-million home, and that’s normal there.
Ah Oh. Sounds like someone doesn’t want to give his
illegal employees a raise.
They're entitled! We need to rectify the inequality and injustice! Frankly I think I want to be subsidized to be more equal to what the Obamas spend on their vacations. Interesting how they re-branded the stealing of hard working people's money to give to those less interested in self-sufficiency as "a subsidy".
You’re not kidding about what the Obamas spend on vacations, I cringe when reading about Michelle spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for a “little” getaway with her friends. Subsidizing her friends with our tax dollars!
I wasn’t kidding about Palo Alto and Napa. My wife likes shopping in Palo Alto, some of her favorite stores are there. All you see everywhere are luxury cars. It’s a university town, lots of rich kids. Seems all the not-so-young women have expensive clothes and the requisite tiny dog with them. Why they take their dog shopping, I don’t know, but little dogs are everywhere outside stores and restaurants there. We absolutely do not need to subsidize anyone living there.
no - higher subsidies in higher cost areas only reward the political conditions that help lead to the area being high cost; high cost areas should be paying their own extra taxes for higher subsidies if they want higher subsidies, they should not come out of the pockets of citizens in lower-cost areas
We looked at moving to the the Bay Area, our son lives in the city, but the prices are insane! Dumps start at 500k in east bay. I’ve tried to get our son to leave but he never will...besides he’s in the tech world so I guess it’s understandable.
Your description is funny. Frankly I don’t get the tiny dog thing....sort of a Paris Hilton thing I suppose.
There is very little affordable space in SF, cheapest homes in the mid-500k range but not the best neighborhoods. Better neighborhoods offer ordinary looking homes that go for $1mil and up (crazy). The farther out you go from SF to the east, the cheaper it is. As you said, dumps start at 500k near the bay, but they do drop lower to the east. Problem is the traffic commute is horrible. Best thing is to buy farther out along a BART corridor, and commute via train. They are extending BART down east bay to SJ, so those 500k dumps will get more expensive in a few years. Only thing keeping me here is family; we babysit grandchildren and if my daughter would move out of SF then so would we. She rents and is also a tech worker making a great income so it’s hard for her to leave that behind.
She rents..hmmm. She could probably still make a great income and be able to buy a house in Seattle. I’m not saying Seattle/Bellevue is cheap but it as crazy as SF. Plus WA has no income tax.
You’d have to adjust to the rain however but we do have the Seahawks to make it all better. :-))
I’m glad the Seahawks won, I was rooting for them even though they beat our 49’ers at the NFC championship game.
Homes are too pricy here, her rent is a fraction of what mortgage payments would be. Plus she lives opposite GG Park, great for recreation, the beach is walking distance, dozens of restaurants within 6 blocks; too expensive to buy. She and her husband bought a large property near downtown Des Moines and they are remodeling it, when finished they will likely move there. That property even with remodeling will cost them a fifth of what it costs in SF for a much lesser property. If they move, I will move.