2 million Californians could get insurance under House plan

January 14, 2010

About 2 million Californians who are without insurance now would be eligible for subsidized coverage under the plan being considered in the US House of Representatives, according to UC Berkeley researchers.
[highlight title="Research"]The UC Berkeley Labor Center examines health care spending for the estimated two million Californians who would qualify for subsidies under the proposed insurance exchanges in the House and Senate health reform bills. The center concludes that, after accounting for premiums and average out of pocket costs, both bills would result in significant savings for low- and moderate-income families compared to costs in the current individual market. The House bill would result in lower spending than the Senate bill for the lowest-income individuals and families, especially those with high health care use.[/highlight] [bluebox]To see the full report, click here.[/bluebox]
[img]http://www.healthycal.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/ideas-img.jpg[/img]

Share:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Twitter

Related posts:

  1. More than 3 million Californians get coverage through ACA
  2. CBO: 7 million will lose employer-paid insurance under Obamacare
  3. 3.4 million Californians would get coverage through federal reform
  4. Nearly 6 million Californians lack access to jobs-based health coverage
  5. UCLA: nearly 2 million Californians lost coverage during recession

Share This Post

One Response to 2 million Californians could get insurance under House plan

  1. jskdn

    February 16, 2010 at 5:33 pm

    Of course there would be savings compared to the current individual market for lower income people. The government is going to offer large subsidies for many, the cost of that apparently not being worth inclusion into the chart and tables that were done. I also noticed that the graph shown has stair steps where at several points, much of a marginal increase in income would be eaten up in addition health costs for an earner. It seems to me whatever moral rationale there is for subsidies would require that they also have a smoother path.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login