-
[QUOTE=kygorski;560745]snap i'm eligible for snap, i'd need to spend about 10 bucks to get 12 bucks worth. but to see someone with a fist full of them, and covered with 'tramp stamps" tatoos.pi--es me off. 90 buck atheletic shoes, 300 buck cell phone, and on food stamps.Plus free internet, drug screening and community service should be a requirement.then we have the "residents" of mr codgers neighborhood, the vollenteers, who do for nothing, what some of these free loaders should be doing. when I retired I swore I'd just sit on my a-- and gather cobwebs, not work for"something to keep me busy" BS.Nothing if done right, is an all day job.[/QUOTE]
I have never had a problem with helping folks in need......but most folks on programs in America are NOT in need. Rather they need a serious, very serious reality check. Depression style reality check.
If you have a car, a cell phone, a TV........you're NOT poor.
-
[QUOTE=kygorski;560721]when my supplemental insurer found out i have cancer, they raised my premium 52.00$ a month.Thats in addition to the regular premium.It's steep, on my first visit to the oncologist, about 25% of the waiting room was hispanic, did they get their premiums raised? I'd have liked to ask them, but I no habelo espanoll. Where are the "trump trains" to send those leeches back? My bill for a PET scan wasa little over 10 grand. It was suggested that I see a specialist at Emory in atlanta, the first stipulation was that he wanted another PET scan, I told him i had one less than three weeks ago,but he said it probably wasn't what he was interested in. I told him I'm not interested in you, and that ended the consultation.[/QUOTE]
Firstly I'm so sorry to read you have cancer. I wish you all the best in your fight against it.
I am curious why you automatically assume they were illegal just because they were Hispanic?
-
One thing that folks really need to pay attention to is the subsidy versus credit.
In the current ACA plan, a subsidy is paid for everyone that qualifies. That subsidy is FIXED and is paid to guess who.......BIG INSURANCE to "insure" you against catastrophic health issues.
IN the new plan, it is a CREDIT, paid only if health care costs are incurred. If you don't go to the doctor , or hospital or have tens of thousands in costs, no CREDIT is given. You didn't incur any costs, besides premiums, which are still tax deferred.
Folks, this is potentially billions, and billions of dollars a year. 350 billion over 10 years.
One other thing.........pay attention to Medicare vs Medicaid. Lots of folks say we need medicare for all, but one thing to understand is a little unknown law, SQUEEZED into the MAPD expansion..........Medicare Plans cannot negotiate the costs of big pharma. Yea, that is right. Medicare Part D plans, and subsidy plans CANNOT under the current law, negotiate a cheaper rate for crestor or xerelto, or hiv drugs, or or or or.......
Block granting to the states, where Medicaid is the land of the law, and Medicaid does negotiate cheaper rates, and also mandates generics would save another 300 billion dollars.........
Guess what folks, those two simple changes would save over half a trillion dollars.....
-
[QUOTE=GeoFisher;560747]I have never had a problem with helping folks in need......but most folks on programs in America are NOT in need. Rather they need a serious, very serious reality check. Depression style reality check.
If you have a car, a cell phone, a TV........you're NOT poor.[/QUOTE]
That's the result of "charitable help" having shifted from being mostly controlled by individuals, churches, and private organizations to the government. It loses the accountability that goes along with a local personal connection.
Of course there needs to be some safety nets, but beyond that the government shouldn't be in the business of large scale assistance.
Of course hard to put the genie back into the bottle at this point.
-
[QUOTE=GeoFisher;560750]
IN the new plan, it is a CREDIT, paid only if health care costs are incurred. If you don't go to the doctor , or hospital or have tens of thousands in costs, no CREDIT is given. You didn't incur any costs, besides premiums, which are still tax deferred.
.[/QUOTE]
So the tax credits can't be used as a deduction against premiums paid, only additional medical expenses?
That kind of stinks, I thought it was going to offer some additional relief to help offset the high cost of premiums.
-
[QUOTE=SLP;560753]So the tax credits can't be used as a deduction against premiums paid, only additional medical expenses?
That kind of stinks, I thought it was going to offer some additional relief to help offset the high cost of premiums.[/QUOTE]
I'm certainly not an expert on this, and I don't know how it will end up , but my understanding is that the credit would be used instead of a subsidy, and the credit only saves money if it is is credit against variable expenses, not fixed expenses......
Lots of mumbo jumbo to say.....YEA, it won't count against premiums. But premiums are already tax deffered, so if you pay 1000 a month, it really only feels like 700. STILL a **** ton, but different.
Premiums should fall based on interstate and plans that allow you to pick services YOU NEED, and not everything under the sun........I don't need OB/GYN, and birth control, and mammagrams, and pap smears, why the HELL do I have to pay for a plan that covers that stuff.
Later,
GEo
-
I leave it up to my CPA so I'm not positive but I think you can only deduct that portion of medical expenses that is [B]above[/B] 10% of your adjusted gross income. The portion that falls below that is completely out of pocket.
-
[QUOTE=SLP;560755]I leave it up to my CPA so I'm not positive but I think you can only deduct that portion of medical expenses that is [B]above[/B] 10% of your adjusted gross income. The portion that falls below that is completely out of pocket.[/QUOTE]
That part of the tax code will be changing.......that is why this is a three phased approach.
Phase 1......what we know about is Sequestration. Or killing what we can kill by defunding it. That is being done with this piece of the process. Notice that 20 different types of taxes are being repealed. This will pass the house and the senate. the Senate only needs a 51 majority.
Phase 2.......adminstration of the existing legislation. This is left up to HHS and leaves a whole lot of room for intepretation. since HHS is TRUMP appointed, this is GREAT. Through administration, a whole lot of crap will change, and probably change fast.
Phase 3.....New Legislation. The hope is that once Obamacare is completely unfunded, and dismantled, the HOUSE and SENATE gets together and builds something better.
We can only hope......they are politicians after all.
Later,
Geo
-
Unless I'm reading this wrong it sure sounds like the tax credits are intended to help offset the cost of buying your own insurance. I certainly hope this ends up being the case.
Here is a portion of an article in Forbes. (emphasis mine)
[URL]https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2017/03/10/fix-the-tax-code-friday-refundable-tax-credits-under-the-gop-health-care-plan/#3c82d8cd6b7f[/URL]
[quote]It's Fix The Tax Code Friday!
As the Republican-crafted proposal to repeal and replace Obamacare makes it way through the House, one of the key pieces that has tongues wagging is a new, refundable tax credit. The tax credit is intended to replace the current premium tax credit.
Here's how it would work. Those folks who do not receive health care insurance from an employer or from the government (think Medicaid) would be eligible for the credit.[B] The purpose of the refundable credit, of course, is to offset the cost of buying health care insurance on your own.[/B]
The amount of credit you might qualify for under the proposal varies by age as follows:
Younger than 30: $2,000
Age 30 to 39: $2,500
Age 40 to 49: $3,000
Age 50 to 59: $3,500
Older than 60: $4,000
The credit is capped per family (not per person) at $14,000. Phaseouts apply when income exceeds $75,000 for individuals ($150,000 for married couples). Under the proposal, you would lose $100 in credit for each $1,000 in income higher than those thresholds.[/quote]
-
[QUOTE=SLP;560758]Unless I'm reading this wrong it sure sounds like the tax credits are intended to help offset the cost of buying your own insurance. I certainly hope this ends up being the case.
Here is a portion of an article in Forbes. (emphasis mine)
[URL]https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2017/03/10/fix-the-tax-code-friday-refundable-tax-credits-under-the-gop-health-care-plan/#3c82d8cd6b7f[/URL][/QUOTE]
hey, I'd LOVE that crap too :)
-
There is one thing I stumbled on that concerns me about the proposed plan. Apparently under the current law insurance companies can't charge older customers more than three times that of younger people on the same insurance plan. Evidently they are proposing to loosen that to a 5-1 ratio with the new plan.
Maybe they are hoping for lower prices for younger people in order to get more young people paying into the pool and as a result it will lower overall costs. I just don't know if I trust the insurance companies to not just look for it as an opportunity for a money grab by dramatically raising rates on older Americans.
-
[QUOTE=SLP;560760]There is one thing I stumbled on that concerns me about the proposed plan. Apparently under the current law insurance companies can't charge older customers more than three times that of younger people on the same insurance plan. Evidently they are proposing to loosen that to a 5-1 ratio with the new plan.
Maybe they are hoping for lower prices for younger people in order to get more young people paying into the pool and as a result it will lower overall costs. I just don't know if I trust the insurance companies to not just look for it as an opportunity for a money grab by dramatically raising rates on older Americans.[/QUOTE]
That is a gigantic issue................
BUT to be honest, older folks cost more and the CLAIMS experience bears that out. Unless you front load any plan with significant funds to cover the shortfalls for senior..............you're going to have funding issues. the problem is we're living too **** long. The actuarial tables for this are 30-40 years old, and we're supposed to be dead by 60 or so.......if we'd just keel over and DIE all would be good :) .
Getting back to reality......we need to re evaluate how the calculate these costs,and assumptions. Hell the SSI tables are based on similar formularies.........
We better get it right.
Later,
Geo
