[lsc]

So there's a lower bound on how much you can make and still get the subsidized plan? that seems broken in a very American sort of way.

I think a lot of the bureaucratic issues might be the nature of insurance companies? My (pre-aca) experience was that any lapse in coverage and they don't let you back on. All this 'life event' stuff, I think, was part of how group plans worked back in the day, the rules about when you could change things and when they could kick you off.

I guess what I'm saying is that (aside from charging you the extra tax) I don't think it's worse than it used to be.

[gizmo686]

There is a lower bound on income to qualify for ACA subsidies because the ACA also expanded medicaid to cover people below that threshold.

Unfortunately, the portion of the ACA requiring states to expand medicaid was ruled unconstitutional. As a result, 19 states have choosen not to expand medicaid, leaving a portion of the population to poor to qualify for ACA subsidies, but too rich to qualify for medicaid.

I should also point out, that the medicade expansion is 90% funded by the federal government starting from 2020 into perpetuity. Prior to then is a ramp up period where the federal government pays an even larger share.

[lsc]

Am I right in thinking this is uniquely American? The states that need welfare the most seem to be most strongly against said welfare, even when the more wealthy states are footing most of the bill.

[arethuza]

There was a similar thing here in the UK with the Brexit vote - the regions that got the least money from the EU voted most strongly to remain and the regions that got the most money voted to leave:

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/which-uk-regions...