4 ms·
If you're very poor, in the sense of no assets and very little income, you do still get the regular, pre-expansion, single-payer Medicaid. I agree it leaves so
by _delirium 13y ago
If you're very poor, in the sense of no assets and very little income, you do still get the regular, pre-expansion, single-payer Medicaid.
I agree it leaves some problematic gaps. People between 100% and 138% of the poverty line aren't eligible for either pre-expansion Medicare or the exchange subsidies. Perhaps even worse off are people below 100% of the poverty line but with very modest savings (in many states the limit is $2000). These people are probably best served by burning their savings so they can qualify for Medicaid. The expanded Medicaid does away with the asset test because of the perverse incentives it creates: someone who spends all their paycheck on entertainment qualifies for Medicaid, but someone who saves even $3000 to have a small cushion (e.g. to make sure they can cover rent between jobs) loses eligibility.
- daguar 13y agoThanks for the clarification. Unfortunately, under pre-Obamacare Medicaid rules, in most states you have to have dependents, be pregnant, or be disabled to qualify for Medicaid: "Prior to the ACA, states could not receive federal Medicaid matching funds to cover non-disabled adults without dependent children... [O]verall, Medicaid coverage for low-income adults remains very limited. As of January 2013, only nine states, including DC, provide full Medicaid coverage to low-income adults, and enrollment is closed in two of these states(Figure 4, Table 3). Sixteen states solely provide more limited coverage to adults, and enrollment is closed in seven of these states." [1] http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/7993-03.pdf http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/79... (page 2)