In a post here on Monday (No. 27) I understated, by roughly a factor of three, the income levels at which some subsidies would generally be available for the purchase of heath insurance, when I said:

The bill(s) offer significant low income subsidies to purchase "real insurance" that is much better than Medicaid. I believe the cut off line is 125% of the federal poverty line, but it may be higher in sime circumstances. That said, it's still not completely free, but it's going to be significantly more affordable.

Apparently I misread the raw language of the proposed amendments to the now enacted Senate Bill and may have been looking at the the highest level of available subsities for the purchase of health insurance on the new exchanges. (Not sure.) In any event, an online article in the New York Times, dated March 23, 2010, "In Health Bill, Obama Attacks Wealth Inequality," put me on notice of the error:

The benefits, meanwhile, flow mostly to households making less than four times the poverty level — $88,200 for a family of four people. Those without insurance in this group will become eligible to receive subsidies or to join Medicaid. (Many of the poor are already covered by Medicaid.) Insurance costs are also likely to drop for higher-income workers at small companies. [Emphasis added.]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/bu...a/ESanA7FxzNGw

It's a good article and I recommend it to anyone with an interest in the subject. Apologies for understating the level of subsidies the first time. The correct figures just serve to emphasize the importance of the surcharge on those significantly better off. And the New York Times is right, this is good old fashioned (Liberal/Progressive) income redistribution, like it or not.

Mike