[Plantagenet]

according to Brookings, Obama rates about 18th out of 43.

Yes, but he's numero uno at tango dancing!



---------------------------------------------

Back to the thread topic:

Thanks to Obamacare the cost of US healthcare has risen by almost 30% since 2008.

At first this seems like a bad thing, especially since O and the Ds promised that Obamacare would lower the cost of healthcare, but actually its turned out to be good for the US economy. As healthcare gets more and more expensive, the increased spending on Obamacare contributes to growth in US GDP. If not for increased government spending on Ocare, US GDP growth would be even more miserable then the lousy 1.5-2.5% we're getting.

Whoopee!

thanks-obamacare-what-americans-spent-most-money-2015]

[Plantagenet]

United Health has announced it is dropping out of the Obamacare market in most of the states it serves, and is thinking about leaving the business altogether.

Why? Because so many people are gaming Ocare.

United Health says lots of people are signing up outside of the regular enrollment periods (i.e. signing up when they get sick) and getting expensive medical treatment, and then dropping coverage as soon as they complete their medical treatment, basically sticking UH with the whole bill.

how to game Obamacare: get sick, enroll, get treated, drop coverage immediately

Thats the biggest way people are gaming Obamacare---and its perfectly consistent with Ocare rules. There are now so many waivers available that allow people to sign up outside of the enrollment periods that basically anyone can sign up anytime.

United Health said it lost $560 million last year in its Ocare biz.

CHEERS!

[Cog]

Well I signed up yesterday with a health insurance provider in Illinois. The process took about an hour. At one point it takes you to the federal portal since you are applying for the subsidy along with the provider and plan you have picked out. You can take the subsidy monthly or the end of the tax year. I took the monthly subsidy. This subsidy is paid by the government directly to health insurance provider, you never see it.

I had already played with the numbers and put in $40,000 as my yearly income. The cost of the insurance, for two people, was $1900/month. The subsidy was $1300/month, so I end up paying $300/month. Now I will have to manage my finances in such a way this year to make sure I don't have more than $40,000 a year in taxable income. Otherwise, I will get a hit on my federal taxes next year.

I am now a proud member of the Free Stuff Army and I want to thank Obama for making this possible. I texted my buddy about it. He is a Republican like me and rabid Trump fan. He texted back and said "I can't wait until Trump kicks you out of here" He doesn't see his own government paid for healthcare plan(VA) as free stuff although it costs the taxpayers just like I am.

[vtsnowedin]

He doesn't see his own government paid for healthcare plan(VA) as free stuff although it costs the taxpayers just like I am.

You don't think a soldier doing a hitch or two in the military defending our butts hasn't paid for his VA benefits?
The red stripes in your flag avatar stand for the blood they have shed to keep you free you ingrate.

[Cog]

I served six years in the Army and well aware of the blood that was spilled on my behalf. Doesn't change the fact its a government program just like all the rest. There is a cost to be paid and its paid by the taxpayer. I never said veterans don't deserve what they are contracted to get. But it still real money. And the USA is still real broke.

[Cog]

When I saw what the Republicans had unveiled, I was afraid I might have to start paying my fair share of my healthcare. I was quite relieved to learn that if you are getting subsidies currently under ObamaCare, you will get them until 2020. Then you will get tax credits from thereon. So I can ride this gravy train all the way until I start drawing Medicare at age 65. I wish to thank both Obama and now Trump for preserving my wealth for more important matters. God forbid we would actually fix this mess.

[Ibon]

When I saw what the Republicans had unveiled, I was afraid I might have to start paying my fair share of my healthcare. .

Neither party will address how Americans are supporting corporate welfare in the unfair prices they pay for their healthcare. I thought the republicans where against welfare. What's up with that?

You want to pay your "fair share" then buy your drugs in Canada and go to Mexico when you need to go the hospital.

[Outcast_Searcher]

When I saw what the Republicans had unveiled, I was afraid I might have to start paying my fair share of my healthcare. I was quite relieved to learn that if you are getting subsidies currently under ObamaCare, you will get them until 2020. Then you will get tax credits from thereon. So I can ride this gravy train all the way until I start drawing Medicare at age 65. I wish to thank both Obama and now Trump for preserving my wealth for more important matters. God forbid we would actually fix this mess.

Yeah, it's all a big joke. My personal health policy now costs $9000 a year, for a 57 year old male who is very healthy (as far as ongoing medical costs, anyway). And somehow, every time I need a scan or something, I end up paying more than half of the "full" rip off price, and then with the $2500 deductible, they never pay any of that.

So to me, the tax credit being offered of like $2500 or up to $4000 for an older person are a joke. As long as you don't have some weird "Cadillac" plan, how about getting a credit for the actual cost of the health insurance, or most of that, like say 80%?

Then, per a MSM article I read recently, I see that the mainstream health insurers are tending to use clawbacks to gouge money back from prescriptions you buy, and contractually forbid the pharmacies or their employees from letting customers know about that (and forgoing the "prescription insurance" and getting their drugs cheaper). (At this point it's not the additional drug cost -- it's the principle of the thing that they want even MORE money).

So much for the idea that Obamacare regulations are going to get insurance companies to behave well -- why the hell isn't stuff like preventing disclosure to patients of the drug costs that the pharmacy normally offers to all patients illegal?

[Cog]

When health insurance became health care, the results were predictable and bad. You end up with people like me gaming the system, people being forced to buy a full health care plan when all they want or need is a catastrophic policy, and no price discovery of hospital, doctor, or prescription costs.

What would have suited me, since I go years between doctor visits, is a catastrophic policy in case I come down with something that would bankrupt me. On the rare times I visit a doctor, I could pay cash if I knew what the doctor was charging or what a procedure would cost. But I am forbidden to go that route and must pay for a full coverage plan, which is very expensive that I don't want or need. If I buy no insurance at all, I am assessed a penalty.

I'm agreeing with what Denninger says over at the ticker forum. We must end this unholy relationship between the medical field and the insurance industry by creating price discovery.

[Shaved Monkey]

Republicans believe
poor people "just don't want healthcare and aren't going to take care of themselves."


http://www.theage.com.au/world/the-poor ... uux86.html

[Cog]

Republicans believe
poor people "just don't want healthcare and aren't going to take care of themselves."


http://www.theage.com.au/world/the-poor ... uux86.html

He's not wrong.

"The Medicaid population, which is a free credit card as a group, do probably the least preventive medicine and taking care of themselves and eating healthy and exercising. And I'm not judging; I'm just saying socially that's where they are," he told Stat News, a website focused on healthcare coverage.

[Cog]

The last two years have worked out well. I pay for health insurance for two people $300 a month. The ACA subsidy is $1600 a month. This is on a reported income of $40k. Now the only way I could have done this was to be debt free when I retired two years ago. Otherwise, my income would have had to be a lot higher and my subsidy a lot less.

Most of my income for that $40k reported is stock dividends. Since I will be taking early social security at 62 next year and that is income for ACA purposes, I will have to change my investments. I will switch over to growth stocks instead of dividend stocks.

So in essence, next year I will get more free stuff in the form of social security, more free stuff in ACA subsidies, and my stock portfolio will be directed towards growth and capital appreciation. Thanks again to the taxpayers who made this possible for me.

I have found out there is a whole tax advisor industry directed towards minimizing income for people with a lot of assets, but can live on lower reported income so as to capture ACA healthcare subsidies. If there is a loophole there is a way. I'm shocked the designers of the ACA never saw this coming.

[vtsnowedin]

Most of my income for that $40k reported is stock dividends. Since I will be taking early social security at 62 next year and that is income for ACA purposes, I will have to change my investments. I will switch over to growth stocks instead of dividend stocks.

.

Of course you still have to pay capital gains tax on your growth stocks when you cash them in to raise cash. I suppose you can sell only losers if your portfolio is spread wide enough, letting you live on the sale of losers while the winners more then make up for your losses and expenses.
Does the income from T bills get counted as income when computing the ACA subsidy?

[Cog]

Don't own T-bills but if it shows up as interest income on a tax form then yes its included. For now it's just a game but if the ACA game changes I'll play a different game. Yep, capital gains and losses is something I have to watch when I buy and sell stocks. Otherwise, I'm buy and hold mostly.

[Plantagenet]

The last two years have worked out well. I pay for health insurance for two people $300 a month. The ACA subsidy is $1600 a month. This is on a reported income of $40k. Now the only way I could have done this was to be debt free when I retired two years ago. Otherwise, my income would have had to be a lot higher and my subsidy a lot less.

Most of my income for that $40k reported is stock dividends. Since I will be taking early social security at 62 next year and that is income for ACA purposes, I will have to change my investments. I will switch over to growth stocks instead of dividend stocks.

So in essence, next year I will get more free stuff in the form of social security, more free stuff in ACA subsidies, and my stock portfolio will be directed towards growth and capital appreciation. Thanks again to the taxpayers who made this possible for me.

I have found out there is a whole tax advisor industry directed towards minimizing income for people with a lot of assets, but can live on lower reported income so as to capture ACA healthcare subsidies.

Thats one of the big problems with the Obamacare, of course. It forces people to adjust their financial decisions to game the system to get Obamacare, rather then doing what is optimal. In your situation, being retired, you simply readjust your portfolio balance to get under the income limits. It really doesn't affect you too much, other then giving you a nice subsidy on your health insurance.

But consider what happens to young people who are making the same decision you are. In the same way you adjust your income to qualify for the ACA subsidies, there are young people out there who are avoiding getting good jobs and doing their best not to make too much money so they can qualify for ACA subsidies. For young people this can have catastrophic consequences as the time to build your career for the future is when you're young. Intentionally avoiding good jobs with higher pay in order to receive the ACA subsidies are getting caught in a honey trap----its like the people who get on welfare but can never get off because entry level jobs pay less then they get on welfare.

Cheers!

I'm shocked the designers of the ACA never saw this coming.

Of course the Ds saw it coming. But its not a mistake or a bug----its a feature. The Ds WANT people to be dependent on government programs because the Ds know that then people will then be motivated to vote for Ds in order to protect their benefits in the government programs.

Cheers!

[Outcast_Searcher]

So in essence, next year I will get more free stuff in the form of social security

It's fine to call Social Security (and Medicare) government programs.

However, since the vast majority of recipients are mandated by law to pay into those programs their entire working lives, I don't think calling it "free stuff" is appropriate. It's mandated retirement planning. Of course with all the bells and whistles congress added over the years, neither program is sustainable unless fixed (yet again), but that's another issue.

[Outcast_Searcher]

I have found out there is a whole tax advisor industry directed towards minimizing income for people with a lot of assets, but can live on lower reported income so as to capture ACA healthcare subsidies. If there is a loophole there is a way. I'm shocked the designers of the ACA never .saw this coming.

I have a friend who is a tax preparer and who is involved in helping the poor get government benefits that spends a LOT of time in the area of helping make people eligible for the ACA by (legally) manipulating their income. There are a lot of strategies, some simple, some more complex, but many effective, if you can get the relatively poor people to look ahead a bit re how much they benefit from being in the heavily subsidized tranche of the ACA.

I don't believe the designers of the ACA didn't know this would happen. They're mostly politicians (wanting to buy votes) and lawyers, after all.

[Cog]

I use the term free stuff to refer to a program that pays more out then it takes in through taxes. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are all in this same leaky boat. Government programs, once they are started, are difficult to get rid of. There was probably the best of intentions when they were created but they morph into things that are unsustainable.

[vtsnowedin]

I'm shocked the designers of the ACA never saw this coming.

Of course the Ds saw it coming. But its not a mistake or a bug----its a feature. The Ds WANT people to be dependent on government programs because the Ds know that then people will then be motivated to vote for Ds in order to protect their benefits in the government programs.

Cheers!

I don't think the Ds are clever enough to be that evil on purpose.
They honestly think their ideas would be good for the majority being unclear and incapable of doing the math out beyond an election cycle or two.

[Plantagenet]

I don't think the Ds are clever enough to be that evil on purpose.
They honestly think their ideas would be good for the majority being unclear and incapable of doing the math out beyond an election cycle or two.

Give me a break.

The Ds only care about getting elected and taking power. They don't give a darn about "whats good for the majority". In fact they have have been working for decades to change who the majority is. The Ds spent decades supporting mass immigration of latin Americans into California because they know Hispanics tend to vote for Ds. Same for the rest of the US---National D politicans talk about this strategy all the time, and publicly gloat about their coming strangle hold on US politics.

Their strategy has worked very well for them in California. California is now a solid D state, with the Rs essentially wiped out even in their former stronghold of Orange Country.

As goes California so goes the country.

The Ds strategy of supporting mass immigration is now playing out across the country. Nevada flipped to being a blue state in this past election and Arizona elected more Ds and has gone from red to purple in this past election. In the near future we'll see Arizona and then Texas flip to being blue states, all because of the decades long demographic shift in the USA caused by mass immigration from latin America.

At that point the Rs will be as irrelevant in national politics as they have become in California politics, and the Ds decade long political strategy will have played out as they planned.

Cheers!