Slinkerwink provides a constructive analysis of the expenses of a family of four, arguing that the Senate bill in unaffordable for some. That may very well be true, but the way I read it, this family is MUCH better off with this bill.
If you look at the numbers a little more closely, you'll see some assumptions that aren't at first clear.
Fist, the most important part, which is Slinkerwink's look at the numbers:
For a family of four making $60,458, they'd be mandated to give about $5,797 in annual premiums in addition to $6,300 out-of-pocket expenses for a total risk of $12,097. Keep that in mind as I run the numbers below modeled after the one by emptywheel:
250% Federal Poverty Level
Federal Taxes
1. 15.53% of income according to this rate sheet, to about $9,389 in federal taxes.
State Taxes
2. Say, if that family of four lives in California, they'd be taxed at about 9.3% on their annual income, which comes out to $5,622 in state taxes.
Food
3. Using this low-cost USDA plan for a family of four, they'd spend about $9,064 on food.
Home
4. Let's assume a straight calculation of 30% of one's annual income towards housing, that would run out to $18,137.
Health Insurance
5. Now, that health insurance plan which I mentioned above, would have a total risk of $12,097.
The total for all of this comes out to $54,309, which would be more than 80% of that family's annual income, leaving just $6,149 for utilities, transportation, child expenses, clothing, student loans. I don't know how that can be done on $512 per month left over in that family's budget.
(By the way, these numbers come in part from this handy graph.)
So we must pay attention to what is assumed.* The $6,300 out-of-pocket expenses Slinkerwink mentions are actually the MAXIMUM POSSIBLE AMMOUNT A FAMILY WOULD PAY. That is not what the average family would pay.
This is a family who has had a medical emergency. Something that probably requires several treatments, rehabilitation, drugs, or surgeries. Yikes! But under the current law, a family in this case would pay twice as much in out-of-pocket expenses (again, check the handy graph). That's probably why so many bankruptcies are due to medical costs. Cutting it in half sounds like a good start, does it not?
I concede that "a good start" doesn't necessarily mean affordability. Let's look at our family again who has suffered a medical emergency. According to Slinkerwink's analysis, the family will be able to pay all taxes, food, and housing. What would be left is things like utilities, transportation, etc, and they would have about 500 dollars for that.
But this family is going through an emergency. Someone in the family has had a serious medical situation. The family is probably scared and focused solely on getting their member back to health. And according to the numbers, they can pay for all of the main necessities and still have some money left over. Having 500 a month extra in a crisis seems fairly affordable to me. And I doubt that they would have to pay the maximum of expenses for two years in a row.
So that $6,300 assumed by Slinkerwink is not the average. That must be clear. This is a family who has an emergency. Under the current rules, they would have to pay twice as much.
Some argue that cases like this family prove the individual mandate is unfair without more cost-cutting measures. But does that seem like a good idea under this very example? Would it be better for this family to have an medical emergency without insurance? I imagine that means worse care for them, and more hospital trips (which means higher costs for everyone).
*(I will not worry about the choice of California for this family, which has an extraordinarily high tax rate, because it is true families do live there!)