I understand the issue now, this is the problem in a nutshell:
The story notes that members of Congress and their staffs have to participate in health exchanges, thanks to a little-noticed provision enacted when the bill, formally known as the Affordable Care Act, was passed in 2010. The provision was meant to embarrass Democrats who advocated the initiative commonly called Obamacare, but Democrats embraced the idea of having to take part in the exchanges.
Trouble is, big employers — like the U.S. government — aren’t allowed to participate in the exchanges until 2017 and so the concern is that it will leave Congressional staffers on their own for three years during which they’ll have to buy insurance themselves.
Wow, they have to buy insurance for themselves, just like I do, without a subsidy, just like I do. Boo hoo. Of course, it is like ice cold water being slapped on your face.
Being “underinsured” means that the person has health care coverage where the out-of-pocket expenses in 2012 were so high that it was equivalent to being uninsured.
That still doesn’t tell me what being “underinsured” means. The follow on question is how much more would it have cost these applicants to no longer be “underinsured” and was that within their financial means?
Part-time workers fall into the gray area of the PPACA in that only full-time employees of corporations numbering 50 or more persons are required to be covered. Businesses are under no obligation to offer health care benefits to part-time employees, nor will they be penalized by the federal government for not doing so. What this has done is create the impetus for a dramatic shift from full-time to part-time workforces.