[michaelmrose]

Lets take a hypothetical. A family with medical insurance costing $660 and medical expenses with insurance of $200 with 1 person able to work and no monetary help forthcoming from the state.

Paying just over the threshold for free medical care for the state means substantial costs for the learner who will pay hundreds of dollars more for earning literally $50 too much to qualify for free medical.

We aren't talking about people whose prospects are to good to need an option like this we are actually talking about people who are trapped in poverty because earning slightly more ends up being ruinously expensive instead of a step up.

It's profoundly depressing.

[asd33313131]

We definitely need to dig more into this, but I think you're right, sometimes income from us would push people over limits -- at least the way it's currently structured. Could you share what thresholds you are talking about?

E.g. if the threshold is 5k, we pay 10k, medical insurance goes to $1000 from $0, it might be still positive for the trainee (earning $10k - $tax - $1000 might be better than no earnings at all).

[michaelmrose]

In WA state the threshhold is 138% of the federal poverty line. 1940 I believe for a family of 2. 1900 would literally be more money than 2000 sad to say.

Stupid question time. It seems like the money would more accurately be expressed as a loan. Is there a reason it's expressed as income? Complexity of lending regulation? Lending regulation particularly disallowing the chosen model?

[asd33313131]

It's not a loan and more akin to equity; there are parallels to the talent agency world. If you wanted to do our program and get paid less than $2000, we could accommodate this via a side agreement or other arrangement potentially.