cmaldoon


quality posts: 62 Private Messages cmaldoon
bhodilee wrote:No I got that, but unless x=y or x > y, a lot of the people who don't have care now aren't really incentivized to get it.

What is the penalty for not paying the penalty?

What is done with the penalty money?




Wiat.... making it cheaper (in terms of marginal cost)isn't an incentive to get it? I understand your point that it is still cheaper to be healthy and pay the fine but how can you guarantee that you'll be healthy? I think that this makes it more reasonable on a marginal cost basis than ever to get standard health insurance.

The penalty collection is governed by the IRS. Remember, this is a TAX. Have fun blowing them off.

The collected penalties go to funding this whole program so there is less required out of general coffers to pay the subsidies.

2014 - 20 Btl. Fjellene (10 bot), Urraca Chard (10 bot)
Last purchase: 5/3/14

2013 - 75 btl. 2012 - 98 btl. 2011 - 112 btl. 2010 - 30 btl.
My Cellar

cmaldoon


quality posts: 62 Private Messages cmaldoon
mother wrote:
As to your being entitled to your entitlement (lol)- I guarantee you haven't paid scratch compared to what you'll cost the (royal)me when you start taking your entitlement checks and insurance coverage from the Feds. Why do I say this? Because the only way anyone pays in anything close to the benefits they've received is if they die very shortly after they start collecting.



I full expect that I will pay more into social security than I get out unless I live deep into my 80s (which is very possible given I am 29 and have all 4 grandparents).

Remember that the marginal benefit gets lower as you make more and more. (90% of the first little bit you made, then 32% of the next bit, and then 15% of everything else up to the cap)

Those who earn near or over the cap subsidize the rest.

2014 - 20 Btl. Fjellene (10 bot), Urraca Chard (10 bot)
Last purchase: 5/3/14

2013 - 75 btl. 2012 - 98 btl. 2011 - 112 btl. 2010 - 30 btl.
My Cellar

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
cmaldoon wrote:Wiat.... making it cheaper (in terms of marginal cost)isn't an incentive to get it? I understand your point that it is still cheaper to be healthy and pay the fine but how can you guarantee that you'll be healthy? I think that this makes it more reasonable on a marginal cost basis than ever to get standard health insurance.

The penalty collection is governed by the IRS. Remember, this is a TAX. Have fun blowing them off.

The collected penalties go to funding this whole program so there is less required out of general coffers to pay the subsidies.



Sure it's an incentive, but it's not a hammer. There will be more than a few people who just pay the fine and be done with it if the fine, at the lower income levels, is significantly less than what premiums would be on whatever they call that market.

Basically, who is most apt to not have insurance through work? Low income people. Who is not apt to go get their own insurance? Low income people. Who is apt to ignore health problems and not go to the doctor? Low income people. Who is apt to use the ER as primary care and not bother paying the bill because they can't afford it? Low income people. Who is very likely not concerned about their credit rating because it's already interception or they can't borrow enough to do anything with anyway? Low income people.

Basically, all they've done is create a "tax" whereby you pay for part of your medical care whether you want to or not, but not in sufficient quantity to offset what you're going to cost me. So yeah, it's a cost savings, but not in a meaningful way (opinion).

They may have been better off funding "free" hospitals and getting doctors to donate time instead of this system.

I'm not necessarily against federalized health care by the way. I'm Ok with putting this out there and seeing what sticks and what doesn't. I just think we could have started off on a better foot.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

cmaldoon


quality posts: 62 Private Messages cmaldoon
bhodilee wrote:Sure it's an incentive, but it's not a hammer. There will be more than a few people who just pay the fine and be done with it if the fine, at the lower income levels, is significantly less than what premiums would be on whatever they call that market.

Basically, who is most apt to not have insurance through work? Low income people. Who is not apt to go get their own insurance? Low income people. Who is apt to ignore health problems and not go to the doctor? Low income people. Who is apt to use the ER as primary care and not bother paying the bill because they can't afford it? Low income people. Who is very likely not concerned about their credit rating because it's already interception or they can't borrow enough to do anything with anyway? Low income people.

Basically, all they've done is create a "tax" whereby you pay for part of your medical care whether you want to or not, but not in sufficient quantity to offset what you're going to cost me. So yeah, it's a cost savings, but not in a meaningful way (opinion).

They may have been better off funding "free" hospitals and getting doctors to donate time instead of this system.

I'm not necessarily against federalized health care by the way. I'm Ok with putting this out there and seeing what sticks and what doesn't. I just think we could have started off on a better foot.



We currently have a 15% uninsured rate according to the census beaureau. If even half of those get insurance, the other half pay penalties, then there is just 7.5% of the population without.



Also, remember that their aren't just penalties, there are also subsidies that cap the out of pocket costs based on your income relative to the poverty level.

Modified Annual Adjusted Gross Premium After Government Subsidy

Up to 133% FPL Max oop - 2% of income

133% to 150% FPL Sliding scale from 3% of income to 4% of income

150% FPL to 200% FPL Sliding scale from 4% of income to 6.3% of income

200% FPL to 250% FPL Sliding scale from 6.33% of income to 8.05% of income

250% FPL to 300% FPL Sliding scale from 8.05% of income to 9.5% of income

300% FPL to 400% FPL 9.5% of income

Above 400% FPL No government subsidy


So there is both a carrot AND a stick

Example: Family of 4 at 150% of poverty ($35325)
Maximum out of pocket for premiums: $1413.
Penalty in 2016 for not having insurance: $883
Marginal cost of insurance for 4 people: $530 ($44/ month, $10/week)

Why WOULDN'T this person get insurance?

2014 - 20 Btl. Fjellene (10 bot), Urraca Chard (10 bot)
Last purchase: 5/3/14

2013 - 75 btl. 2012 - 98 btl. 2011 - 112 btl. 2010 - 30 btl.
My Cellar

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
cmaldoon wrote:We currently have a 15% uninsured rate according to the census beaureau. If even half of those get insurance, the other half pay penalties, then there is just 7.5% of the population without.



Also, remember that their aren't just penalties, there are also subsidies that cap the out of pocket costs based on your income relative to the poverty level.

Modified Annual Adjusted Gross Premium After Government Subsidy

Up to 133% FPL Max oop - 2% of income

133% to 150% FPL Sliding scale from 3% of income to 4% of income

150% FPL to 200% FPL Sliding scale from 4% of income to 6.3% of income

200% FPL to 250% FPL Sliding scale from 6.33% of income to 8.05% of income

250% FPL to 300% FPL Sliding scale from 8.05% of income to 9.5% of income

300% FPL to 400% FPL 9.5% of income

Above 400% FPL No government subsidy


So there is both a carrot AND a stick

Example: Family of 4 at 150% of poverty ($35325)
Maximum out of pocket for premiums: $1413.
Penalty in 2016 for not having insurance: $883
Marginal cost of insurance for 4 people: $530 ($44/ month, $10/week)

Why WOULDN'T this person get insurance?



because this person is living at 150% of the poverty level, is crushingly leveraged and can't afford the premiums, much less the penalty?

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
cmaldoon wrote:I full expect that I will pay more into social security than I get out unless I live deep into my 80s (which is very possible given I am 29 and have all 4 grandparents).

Remember that the marginal benefit gets lower as you make more and more. (90% of the first little bit you made, then 32% of the next bit, and then 15% of everything else up to the cap)




You'll likely live deep into your 80s, which is [good|bad] given that you (and I) will probably not be able to start collecting until your mid 70s. Rjq can collect at least 5 if not 7 or 8 years earlier.

And I've no idea if he or you are married, etc.

Those who earn near or over the cap subsidize the rest.



Actually everyone working is subsidizing those collecting, but yeah, as people approach the ~$114k mark they pay the largest share...

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
bhodilee wrote:because this person is living at 150% of the poverty level, is crushingly leveraged and can't afford the premiums, much less the penalty?



I looked at the plans for my state. All but the most expensive ones have big deductibles. So you're a poor person, can't really afford this in the first place, AND you have a $3000 deductible. I can see why they would skip it.

cmaldoon


quality posts: 62 Private Messages cmaldoon
chemvictim wrote:I looked at the plans for my state. All but the most expensive ones have big deductibles. So you're a poor person, can't really afford this in the first place, AND you have a $3000 deductible. I can see why they would skip it.



I believe they all MUST cover preventative care free of charge. But I certainly see how the deductibles would make for some hardship

2014 - 20 Btl. Fjellene (10 bot), Urraca Chard (10 bot)
Last purchase: 5/3/14

2013 - 75 btl. 2012 - 98 btl. 2011 - 112 btl. 2010 - 30 btl.
My Cellar

rjquillin


quality posts: 174 Private Messages rjquillin
chemvictim wrote:I looked at the plans for my state. All but the most expensive ones have big deductibles. So you're a poor person, can't really afford this in the first place, AND you have a $3000 deductible. I can see why they would skip it.

And you're in NV, correct?

CT

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
rjquillin wrote:And you're in NV, correct?



yes

kylemittskus


quality posts: 231 Private Messages kylemittskus

Two weeks now and the pubs look worse than ever, especially since they're trying to bury the fact that this was about the ACA. And now my dad has been put on furlough alert (NASA). This is to the point of comedic absurdity, now. It's like a Beckett play (no offense to Beckett, of course) -- the same thing keeps on happening and it doesn't change and no one knows what they're trying to achieve any more.

And Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin were at a protest, trying to rally support. F*CK THEM!

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

ERMD


quality posts: 1 Private Messages ERMD
kylemittskus wrote:Two weeks now and the pubs look worse than ever, especially since they're trying to bury the fact that this was about the ACA. And now my dad has been put on furlough alert (NASA). This is to the point of comedic absurdity, now. It's like a Beckett play (no offense to Beckett, of course) -- the same thing keeps on happening and it doesn't change and no one knows what they're trying to achieve any more.

And Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin were at a protest, trying to rally support. F*CK THEM!



I think it has more to do with financial responsibility.
And no thanks, I'm already being fornicated by the libs.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
ERMD wrote:I think it has more to do with financial responsibility.



It seems to be a moving target. Just going on memory, first it was no ACA at all, then they asked for something about the medical device tax and ridiculous conscience clause, then it was delay the individual mandate, now it is...I don't know what. It's not at all clear to me what they're trying to do.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 231 Private Messages kylemittskus
ERMD wrote:I think it has more to do with financial responsibility.
And no thanks, I'm already being fornicated by the libs.



It absolutely, 100% has nothing to do with financial responsibility. There needs to be a lot more financial responsibility on both sides, but this shut down is about one thing and one thing only: the ACA. And we know this because that's what every single one of the pubs said (on both sides of the support/against the shutdown). They can say whatever they want and as much as they want, but the tea party and the pubs (not all of them, obviously) can't spin this any other way. Nice try, though.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

ERMD


quality posts: 1 Private Messages ERMD
kylemittskus wrote:It absolutely, 100% has nothing to do with financial responsibility. There needs to be a lot more financial responsibility on both sides, but this shut down is about one thing and one thing only: the ACA. And we know this because that's what every single one of the pubs said (on both sides of the support/against the shutdown). They can say whatever they want and as much as they want, but the tea party and the pubs (not all of them, obviously) can't spin this any other way. Nice try, though.



Well I guess that's why they were elected, those in the congressional districts that did not want this boondoggle voted for their congress person to stop it.

rjquillin


quality posts: 174 Private Messages rjquillin
ERMD wrote:Well I guess that's why they were elected, those in the congressional districts that did not want this boondoggle voted for their congress person to stop it.

And Reid in the Senate has absolutely no culpability in the 17% shutdown for flat out refusing to bring to the floor the X number of house bills passed, any of which would have ended this...?

There will be no default, unless our prez again disregards our Constitution and fails to make required payments for which there are adequate funds. This admin is all about inflicting maximum pain in demagoging any that oppose his policies.

There's plenty of stink here for all, not just the pubs.

I'm doing taxes, and exceedingly grumpy just now.

CT

ERMD


quality posts: 1 Private Messages ERMD
rjquillin wrote:And Reid in the Senate has absolutely no culpability in the 17% shutdown for flat out refusing to bring to the floor the X number of house bills passed, any of which would have ended this...?

There will be no default, unless our prez again disregards our Constitution and fails to make required payments for which there are adequate funds. This admin is all about inflicting maximum pain in demagoging any that oppose his policies.

There's plenty of stink here for all, not just the pubs.

I'm doing taxes, and exceedingly grumpy just now.



Agree 100%

kylemittskus


quality posts: 231 Private Messages kylemittskus
ERMD wrote:Well I guess that's why they were elected, those in the congressional districts that did not want this boondoggle voted for their congress person to stop it.



I get that and I don't disagree with you. However, the ACA was heard in many a court room, all the way to the SC. I dislike it. I don't think the way to get rid of it is to a) hold the entire federal govt hostage or b) settle for a year stay (obviously didn't happen) so they can say "well, we tried, cost people 2 weeks' pay, and gained nothing anyway.

The debt ceiling is a separate but linked issue, I think.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother

So we all ready for the bloody transition to Socialism? (And by that I mean the fallout from us defaulting due to the Army of Koch Suckers ;) )

kylemittskus


quality posts: 231 Private Messages kylemittskus
mother wrote:(And by that I mean the fallout from us defaulting due to the Army of Koch Suckers ;) )



Nice.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
kylemittskus wrote:Nice.



(Reaction strictly limited to my funny, not the serious interception we're about to end up in)

kylemittskus


quality posts: 231 Private Messages kylemittskus

I'm quite petrified, actually. I heard some of the right we're saying that defaulting isn't as bad as the left would have us believe. Scary talk, even if that is all it is.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
kylemittskus wrote:I'm quite petrified, actually. I heard some of the right we're saying that defaulting isn't as bad as the left would have us believe. Scary talk, even if that is all it is.



Let us take one single example of something that will happen: Mortgage rates will jump many points.

Immediately.

This will make labor even stickier among the working non-poor, and also have a very big negative wealth effect. Everyone (even the Austrians) agree that labor stickiness is a bad thing.

Let us not discuss the very tragic effects which government default has on fiat currencies issued by them...

Or how the people you owe lots of money to react to you suddenly refusing to pay them...

The federal gub't shutting down is really the very least of my worries (sorry to the federal employees around these parts).

kylemittskus


quality posts: 231 Private Messages kylemittskus

I also think that our market, and likely all markets, will react horribly, causing an utter mess of pretty much everything.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
kylemittskus wrote:I also think that our market, and likely all markets, will react horribly, causing an utter mess of pretty much everything.



Indeed.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 231 Private Messages kylemittskus

It sounds like they're close to a deal. Stop the shutdown through Jan. and keep default at bay until Feb. Fun all over again in just 4 months. I can hardly wait.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
kylemittskus wrote:It sounds like they're close to a deal. Stop the shutdown through Jan. and keep default at bay until Feb. Fun all over again in just 4 months. I can hardly wait.



They, being the Senate. The odds on it passing the House ?

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

kylemittskus


quality posts: 231 Private Messages kylemittskus
bhodilee wrote:They, being the Senate. The odds on it passing the House ?



Right. I don't know of it'll make it through the house unscathed. They have to know that they're holding a live grenade and have the pin to make it safe again, right?

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
kylemittskus wrote:Right. I don't know of it'll make it through the house unscathed. They have to know that they're holding a live grenade and have the pin to make it safe again, right?



They do.not.care. They think they're winning. All that's going to happen, whether they're right or wrong, is likely lose the house. They seem to think that since people are blaming Democrats also for this mess that means they're safe. I don't think they are, but maybe. If they're from Nebraska we'll just redistrict really quick if a Democrat has any chance to win a seat so no big deal I guess.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim

They want the conscience clause. This is clearly about cutting spending, and I'm sooo glad the Republicans are taking a stand here. The conscience clause will go a long way toward cutting the deficit, which we all know is the main concern.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 231 Private Messages kylemittskus
chemvictim wrote:They want the conscience clause. This is clearly about cutting spending, and I'm sooo glad the Republicans are taking a stand here. The conscience clause will go a long way toward cutting the deficit, which we all know is the main concern.



Premise: we are against welfare and other forms of wasteful spending.
Premise: babies are f-ing expensive.
Premise: having a baby increases a person's welfare amount.
Premise: birth control prevents having babies when used and used correctly.
Conclusion: birth control won't increase welfare and may decrease it.
Ergo: ban birth control to whatever extent we can get away with.

-The Republican Party.

PS: separation of church and state? We've never heard of it.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
kylemittskus wrote:Premise: we are against welfare and other forms of wasteful spending.
Premise: babies are f-ing expensive.
Premise: having a baby increases a person's welfare amount.
Premise: birth control prevents having babies when used and used correctly.
Conclusion: birth control won't increase welfare and may decrease it.
Ergo: ban birth control to whatever extent we can get away with.

-The Republican Party.

PS: separation of church and state? We've never heard of it.



I think rj asked on facebook, why people keep associating religion and fiscal policy. (apologies rj, if I misunderstood you)

This was supposed to be about spending, but here we are again.

chipgreen


quality posts: 189 Private Messages chipgreen
bhodilee wrote:They do.not.care. They think they're winning. All that's going to happen, whether they're right or wrong, is likely lose the house. They seem to think that since people are blaming Democrats also for this mess that means they're safe. I don't think they are, but maybe. If they're from Nebraska we'll just redistrict really quick if a Democrat has any chance to win a seat so no big deal I guess.


Speaking of gerrymandering, you should have seen what they did in OH last election. The Republican controlled State house went to the extreme of creating a ribbon-thin district that stretched 200 miles across Lake Erie from Cleveland to Toledo for the express purpose of forcing two popular and longtime incumbent Congressional Dems in the state to face off in a Primary, with the winner facing Sam "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher. Marci Kaptur (Toledo) beat Dennis Kucinich (Cleveland) in the primary and went on to easily defeat "Joe" but it was still a big win for the Repubs as they ousted Kucinich.

tytiger58


quality posts: 74 Private Messages tytiger58
chipgreen wrote:a big win for the Repubs as they ousted Kucinich.



I would think you would be happy about that sounds like California politics.

What contemptible scoundrel stole the cork from my lunch? ~ W. C. Fields

“Freedom is something that dies unless it's used” Hunter S Thompson




rjquillin


quality posts: 174 Private Messages rjquillin

See this one from the WaPo?

CT

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
rjquillin wrote:See this one from the WaPo?



I just hope they do something, anything, but preferably we don't have to play this game again in a few months. The dems will have to give the pubs something. I'm not sure why the one-year delay in the individual mandate was a no-go.

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
chemvictim wrote:I just hope they do something, anything, but preferably we don't have to play this game again in a few months. The dems will have to give the pubs something. I'm not sure why the one-year delay in the individual mandate was a no-go.



We don't negotiate with foreign terrorists either... Same concept.

And don't forget the ideologues among the dems won't mind ending up in a Socialist state so much...

kylemittskus


quality posts: 231 Private Messages kylemittskus

Will Boehner put a deal to a vote and allow it to pass with the dems' votes, knowing he's potentially going to lose ground (his job?) with his party?

And once again, F the "tea party" who stands for nothing at all that such a sobriquet suggests.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

ERMD


quality posts: 1 Private Messages ERMD
kylemittskus wrote:Will Boehner put a deal to a vote and allow it to pass with the dems' votes, knowing he's potentially going to lose ground (his job?) with his party?

And once again, F the "tea party" who stands for nothing at all that such a sobriquet suggests.


Well one could say F the leftist libs for overspending what's not theirs.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
kylemittskus wrote:Will Boehner put a deal to a vote and allow it to pass with the dems' votes, knowing he's potentially going to lose ground (his job?) with his party?

And once again, F the "tea party" who stands for nothing at all that such a sobriquet suggests.



Does anybody think it's a cool idea to just not let things come to a vote? Voting on things, isn't that what they are supposed to do? Why they are elected (although never again) and sent there to begin with? It just feels wrong that a small number of them can get together and prevent a vote. Clearly I'm uninformed about how these things work.