# Health Insurance/Medicaid Expansion 2014



## billinwv (Sep 27, 2013)

I posted earlier about this subject. My insurance was cancelled because my group (my partner and I were covered by BC/BS under our farm business) no longer qualified? Our premiums were around 900.00 per month. My agent advised we needed to submit our information to the Health Care.Gov site. I did and we were accessed Medicaid eligible? I called the 800 number, same outcome. E-mail from the health care site said we would be contacted by our local DHHR. It didn't happen so I called. We were given an appointment with a medical assistant specialist (local DHHR employees are not up to date on the new laws). We were advised there are no asset/resource limits as there is if you were to need nursing care. Income is based on modified adjusted income. I verified this at www.hca.wa.gov/hcr/me/Pages/index/index.aspx. Was still skeptical as we own a small farm, two vehicles (no debt), modest savings. We retired from retail this year. Our income is from a note held on the sold store and a property we sold. Our adjusted gross income is from interest only. This puts us below the poverty level for monthly income. IF we had to pay our insurance premiums (1400 per month without our "group") it would now be almost half our total income per month. I post this because it is now open season for health care and I don't think folks know what may be available to them. We are the only advanced country in the world that does not offer health care to everyone. Check your status now at healthcare.gov.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And we are the only country that has *Our Constitution*, and should be followed by one and all, especially the government and president of the United States of America. Our government was set up to never be a give all to everyone, it was set up to make sure people could improve themselves without any interference from government and that includes any handouts called healthcare.


----------



## maddy (Oct 30, 2010)

_I don't think folks know what may be available to them.

_I'd just as soon they didn't find out. I don't have a farm, two vehicles, or much of a savings account, though I reckon I'll be paying for it.


----------



## billinwv (Sep 27, 2013)

maddy, have you been self-employed for the last 25 plus years and paid for your health insurance? In that time I have paid over a quarter of a MILLION dollars for health insurance. Arabian Knight I worked my way thru college tooth and nail and have never had a "hand out" I have paid taxes for over 40 years. Are you going to forego your retirement benefits(government paid) at age 62? Same difference.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

This was going the way of all the other health care arguments and snotty comments so I moved it.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

My personal feeling is the system is broke, Medical coverage should be like all other services you contract with a provider, just like you do with cellphone service, or electric service. This way there is no middleman. The whole idea of insurance companies creates a middleman who sucks up money that should go to the provider. My Idea is free market, hospitals set up a membership, contract with doctors and you get health care anytime you need it by paying directly to them on a weekly or monthly basis, depending on how your paid. They get a steady income, you get health care when ever needed since you are a member. Not a member? Then you get billed and you are responsible for it. Out of town? Cell-companies had roaming agreements so why not hospitals, I figure give the providers a free hand and let them work it out just like the cell-companies did. Hospitals will then be competing for your membership dollars, and you can go to whoever offers the best deal for your needs. Costs would come down, hospitals would figure out that keeping you healthy is more profitable than waiting for you to get sick and then make money off of you. Competition creates lower costs and better service. Government should no way be involved, anything they do just makes a bigger mess.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

billinwv said:


> I posted earlier about this subject. My insurance was cancelled because my group (my partner and I were covered by BC/BS under our farm business) no longer qualified? Our premiums were around 900.00 per month. My agent advised we needed to submit our information to the Health Care.Gov site. I did and we were accessed Medicaid eligible? I called the 800 number, same outcome. E-mail from the health care site said we would be contacted by our local DHHR. It didn't happen so I called. We were given an appointment with a medical assistant specialist (local DHHR employees are not up to date on the new laws). We were advised there are no asset/resource limits as there is if you were to need nursing care. Income is based on modified adjusted income. I verified this at www.hca.wa.gov/hcr/me/Pages/index/index.aspx. Was still skeptical as we own a small farm, two vehicles (no debt), modest savings. We retired from retail this year. Our income is from a note held on the sold store and a property we sold. Our adjusted gross income is from interest only. This puts us below the poverty level for monthly income. IF we had to pay our insurance premiums (1400 per month without our "group") it would now be almost half our total income per month. I post this because it is now open season for health care and I don't think folks know what may be available to them. We are the only advanced country in the world that does not offer health care to everyone. Check your status now at healthcare.gov.


If you accept medicAID, then upon your death the government gets to swoop in and take stuff to pay for what it gave you. In other words, if you have a first born child, the government takes it (or what it would inherit).


----------



## billinwv (Sep 27, 2013)

you can delete my account Admin. I posted this because a couple with 16k income per year posted here and were having trouble with health care bills. They could benefit from this information. I have a BS in veterinarian sciences with years of animal husbandry experience. I milk dairy goats, jersey cows, have chickens for eggs and meat and raise a large garden. Isn't this what this site is all about? A few negative comments should not get a post moved.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

"In other words, if you have a first born child, the government takes it (or what it would inherit)."

Hey, if he is worth his powder, he can grab himself by his bootstraps and lift himself up. You wouldn't want him taking handouts now, would you?


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

vicker said:


> "In other words, if you have a first born child, the government takes it (or what it would inherit)."
> 
> Hey, if he is worth his powder, he can grab himself by his bootstraps and lift himself up. You wouldn't want him taking handouts now, would you?


In some cases, where offspring are greedy or uncaring, that could be a very legitimate feeling. I'm somewhat neutral on the whole thing for others. I personally would rather not accept bait with a hook in it.


----------



## billinwv (Sep 27, 2013)

Harry, it is now different. It shouldn't be called Medicaid because it is not. you are thinking of Medicaid as it refers to nursing home requirements. For medical insurance assets are no longer adjusted for. To get nursing care you could keep your house, one car and have 2k in the bank, at death your assets would go to the government. This is does not apply to health insurance.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

billinwv said:


> Harry, it is now different. It shouldn't be called Medicaid because it is not. you are thinking of Medicaid as it refers to nursing home requirements. For medical insurance assets are no longer adjusted for. To get nursing care you could keep your house, one car and have 2k in the bank, at death your assets would go to the government. This is does not apply to health insurance.


Medicaid clawback varies by state. In most states it's only done for long term care, but some states do more. If you're on Medicaid you should learn about the Medicaid clawback laws for your particular state.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

This is for WI
Wisconsin&#8217;s ForwardHealth Medicaid plans for elderly, blind or disabled provide health care for those who are:

Age 65 or older, blind or disabled,

With family income at or below the monthly program limit, and

Who are United States citizens or legal immigrants.

*The Medicaid plan you are enrolled in depends on your income, assets, and type of care you need.*
And for some disabled folks that can work a few hours a week it raises the ASSET only level not the income. 
I am just below the income level so I can get Medicaid but I have to work a few hours each week in order to raise the ASSET level. Which is called MAPP Which you Buy Into the program,.
If not the asset level is under 2,000. That even includes life insurance policies, if it is Whole Life or Term Life. LOL 
I am also on Medicare at the same time.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

billinwv said:


> I posted earlier about this subject. My insurance was cancelled because my group (my partner and I were covered by BC/BS under our farm business) no longer qualified? Our premiums were around 900.00 per month. My agent advised we needed to submit our information to the Health Care.Gov site. I did and we were accessed Medicaid eligible? I called the 800 number, same outcome. E-mail from the health care site said we would be contacted by our local DHHR. It didn't happen so I called. We were given an appointment with a medical assistant specialist (local DHHR employees are not up to date on the new laws). We were advised there are no asset/resource limits as there is if you were to need nursing care. Income is based on modified adjusted income. I verified this at www.hca.wa.gov/hcr/me/Pages/index/index.aspx. Was still skeptical as we own a small farm, two vehicles (no debt), modest savings. We retired from retail this year. Our income is from a note held on the sold store and a property we sold. Our adjusted gross income is from interest only. This puts us below the poverty level for monthly income. IF we had to pay our insurance premiums (1400 per month without our "group") it would now be almost half our total income per month. I post this because it is now open season for health care and I don't think folks know what may be available to them. We are the only advanced country in the world that does not offer health care to everyone. Check your status now at healthcare.gov.


That's nice -for YOU. Say "thank you" to us.
How many of these cases like yours do you think there are? How long b/4 the cart is way too full & us who pull it cannot anymore?

DH lost his ins end of '13. AND he LIKED his ins! However it coulda been replaced by a plan nearly twice the cost w/higher premiums. AND he DOES NOT like the plan. Gives him free maternity care & free B.C. tho.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

billinwv said:


> maddy, have you been self-employed for the last 25 plus years and paid for your health insurance? In that time I have paid over a quarter of a MILLION dollars for health insurance. Arabian Knight I worked my way thru college tooth and nail and have never had a "hand out" I have paid taxes for over 40 years. Are you going to forego your retirement benefits(government paid) at age 62? Same difference.


Oh, NO IT IS NOT.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

billinwv said:


> you can delete my account Admin. I posted this because a couple with 16k income per year posted here and were having trouble with health care bills. They could benefit from this information. I have a BS in veterinarian sciences with years of animal husbandry experience. I milk dairy goats, jersey cows, have chickens for eggs and meat and raise a large garden. Isn't this what this site is all about? A few negative comments should not get a post moved.


Oh, Hon, just wait.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

This debate about obamacare, and Medicaid expansion is part of obamacare, has gone around the same track so many times, it's worn a rut 6 feet deep.

It comes down to those who get the freebie, even though they have more resources than those who don't qualify, love it, while those who pay for, both in money and lost benefits, and have no access to the freebies,hate it. 

This shows the stupidity of a government picking and choosing which of their citizens get access to a program while expecting those who don't pay for it. There is a world of difference between a program where all pay something, like Medicare, and get something, even if at a lower return, like Social Security, and one in which those who never pay get all the benefit.

The only excuse for this previously has been dire need but this program eliminated that by actually arranging that a person with huge resources can get benefit without paying for it ever, while someone with little or no resources but who works and pays taxes does not. It pays the benefiting person to dismiss the complaints of the non-benefiting person, and thus these continuing arguments.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

vicker said:


> "In other words, if you have a first born child, the government takes it (or what it would inherit)."
> 
> Hey, if he is worth his powder, he can grab himself by his bootstraps and lift himself up. You wouldn't want him taking handouts now, would you?


Oh yeah. Vicker, that comment almost earned you the gold star award.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Bill, thank you for starting this thread. I'm just across the line here in SWPA. I signed up for ACA insurance last year. Decided to check to see what other policies might be available for next year. Went through the rigamarole and was told I was eligible for Medicaid, too, based on my income. I didn't think I'd qualify, as I couldn't believe it wouldn't be means-tested. Like you, I hold a contract for deed, have property, savings, etc. 

I'll probably opt to continue with my present insurance as the premium is very low thanks to subsidies. But it's very interesting to find out I might still be eligible for Medicaid. IMO, Medicaid ought to be for the truly needy, not for those of us who have significant resources at our disposal. Like you, I have worked all my life, been self-sufficient, and never expected to be anything but. But I guess if the government wants to pay my bills, well, who am I to stop it?! :facepalm:


----------



## JillyG (Jan 6, 2014)

chances are if you have been paying property taxes, you have been paying into Medcaid and Medicare.
40% of all my property taxes goes towards Medicaid and medicare.

If you exclude people because of their assets, then one illness wipes them out and now they qualify . What is the point, the insurance companies would now have those assets instead of those who earned them!
I thought you guys did not like anyone come and take away your money?
Is this any different than taxes? How?


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

I can't help but wonder how many people made these same arguments against public education when it first got started&#8230;

"If I want to educate my kids I can pay for it myself, thanks!"
"People who don't want to pay for private education just want _freebies_!"


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

JillyG said:


> chances are if you have been paying property taxes, you have been paying into Medcaid and Medicare.
> 40% of all my property taxes goes towards Medicaid and medicare.
> 
> If you exclude people because of their assets, then one illness wipes them out and now they qualify . What is the point, the insurance companies would now have those assets instead of those who earned them!
> ...


None of your property taxes go to either. Medicare is funded through payroll taxes and Medicaid I through income taxes, both federal and state.
The point is that I prefer to keep as much of my money as possible to take care of my own needs as I see fit. Any money that is taken way from me to pay someone to keep them from losing assets I don't have myself is taking any chance I have of accumulating those same assets away from me and giving nothing in return.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Too many pigs and not enough teats ! What happens then ? Since this is a homesteading site most should know the answer. There will be some on here that just don't get it !:facepalm: The ones that dont probably get paid to be here.......


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

ErinP said:


> I can't help but wonder how many people made these same arguments against public education when it first got startedâ¦
> 
> "If I want to educate my kids I can pay for it myself, thanks!"
> "People who don't want to pay for private education just want _freebies_!"


They probably did. But then they actually did get something even if they had no children. They got education themselves and access to other's educated services. 
This, on the other hand, is all out go for me and no possible access to it. That is more like theft than social accommodation. Just legal theft.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

ErinP said:


> I can't help but wonder how many people made these same arguments against public education when it first got startedâ¦
> 
> "If I want to educate my kids I can pay for it myself, thanks!"
> "People who don't want to pay for private education just want _freebies_!"


Public education didn't start like that. It was a true grass-roots groundswell in the U.S. A community would work together to build a small school, and then hire (generally) a young woman to teach the children. She was paid chump change, and lodging and board was provided by one of the members of the community. If she managed to find a beau during the extremely limited time she had as free time, she was often fired.

As the wages for teachers got a little more competitive, some communities struggled with the financial burden. Enter Horace Mann and the idea of a standard of education (the ORIGINAL common core).

FWIW, my mother was a schoolteacher in a one room school for a while.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Up to a 12th grade education for the general populace is a beneficial, social accommodation.
Basic health care for the general populace is legal theft. 


I honestly can not understand the logic in this argument. :shrug:


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

I taught in a one-room country school for a few years, too, Harry.  K-8, about a dozen kids each year.
(For that matter, my school is _still_ in operation)

However, what you've described is just how it was done in some rural areas, not the whole of American public education.
Here's a basic read on the timeline of public education: https://www.raceforward.org/research/reports/historical-timeline-public-education-us 
(Interestingly, much like health coverage, in many places it started with just "poor" kids)


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

ErinP said:


> Up to a 12th grade education for the general populace is a beneficial, social accommodation.
> Basic health care for the general populace is legal theft.
> 
> 
> I honestly can not understand the logic in this argument. :shrug:


Because it is a two step chain of thought. 1) I get the benefit of public education at some point. 2) Since someone forked out money for my access to it and I used it, I am willing to pay it forward.

And the other 1) I never got and will never get any benefit from obamacare subsidies. 2) since I never benefit, I see no reason to pay so someone else can receive for free what I paid for myself for decades.

Only willful refusal to look can keep someone from not seeing the difference.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

Public school is the same here, the school district gets tax money every year and my kids went to private school. It was cheaper for private school than what was extorted from me through taxes that I had no choice but to pay. Same for home school, you still have to pay school taxes through your taxes. Same for library, my family has never used that either, same for cemetery, no family member is buried there. The school district here when I was a kid was supported by the families that had kids there. My nephews went to the school for 2 years until the big town district took over, my older brother was bussed to town for 1st grade. The country families got together and kept 1 larger country school 4 miles away, open and we went there for 4 years, by that time it had changed and we had to go 5th through high school in town. Many families started a small school of their own again but my parents couldn't afford the taxes and the cost of the little school so we went to public school in town. The bus ride was an hour each way so we had to do chores after dark when we got home from school. Mom made us go to high school or we would have left school at 8th grade. I went 1/2 way through 11th grade, leaving at sheep shearing time, never went back....James


----------



## JillyG (Jan 6, 2014)

where I want to said:


> None of your property taxes go to either. Medicare is funded through payroll taxes and Medicaid I through income taxes, both federal and state.
> The point is that I prefer to keep as much of my money as possible to take care of my own needs as I see fit. Any money that is taken way from me to pay someone to keep them from losing assets I don't have myself is taking any chance I have of accumulating those same assets away from me and giving nothing in return.


Maybe your property taxes do not pay into Medicaid but don't assume I do not know what I am paying for!


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

Medicare is a federal programs , paid for by federal tax on income. You pay the tax on every pay check. Medicaid varies from state to state to a degree, paid by a combination of federal and state money.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

where I want to said:


> This debate about obamacare, and Medicaid expansion is part of obamacare, has gone around the same track so many times, it's worn a rut 6 feet deep.
> 
> It comes down to those who get the freebie, even though they have more resources than those who don't qualify, love it, while those who pay for, both in money and lost benefits, and have no access to the freebies,hate it.
> 
> ...


Post of the decade award.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

ErinP said:


> Up to a 12th grade education for the general populace is a beneficial, social accommodation.
> Basic health care for the general populace is legal theft.
> 
> 
> I honestly can not understand the logic in this argument. :shrug:


Socialistic minded people rarely can understand.

How about the gov't decides we all have to buy car/truck ins. All of us. Well, maybe you would be onboard for that.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Socialistic minded people rarely can understand.
> 
> How about the gov't decides we all have to buy car/truck ins. All of us. Well, maybe you would be onboard for that.


You own a vehicle. You buy insurance.
You own a body, you buy health care.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Tricky Grama said:


> Socialistic minded people rarely can understand.
> How about the gov't decides we all have to buy car/truck ins. All of us. Well, maybe you would be onboard for that.


Not everyone has a vehicle, hence you're not likely to get agreement on universal auto. But as far as I can tell, _everyone_ still has a body they need to take care of&#8230; :shrug:



where I want to said:


> Because it is a two step chain of thought. 1) I get the benefit of public education at some point. 2) Since someone forked out money for my access to it and I used it, I am willing to pay it forward.


Interesting point. 
The same could be said for _millions_ of people and the ACA&#8230;


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

ErinP said:


> Interesting point.
> The same could be said for _millions_ of people and the ACAâ¦


Yes it is- some millions did make out on this. But 10 times that number have lost insurance they wanted and everyone still paying taxes for what they don't receive are even more.

In other words, like has been said so many times, those that get freebies love them, those that don't get it yet pay for it, hate it. And there are a whooe lot more of the latter than the former. It is just that simple.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

JillyG said:


> Maybe your property taxes do not pay into Medicaid but don't assume I do not know what I am paying for!


Under obamacare's medicaid expansion, it is all covered by Federal taxes, not property taxes.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

where I want to said:


> Yes it is- some millions did make out on this. But 10 times that number have lost insurance they wanted and everyone still paying taxes for what they don't receive are even more.


Can you post an article or something that supports this with actual facts? Because what I can find says you're WAY off the mark with this. 



> In other words, like has been said so many times, those that get freebies love them, those that don't get it yet pay for it, hate it. And there are a whooe lot more of the latter than the former. It is just that simple.



And people like me? That make enough we qualify for $7! lol worth of a subsidy but are paying plenty in taxes... 
Where do we fit in your stereotype?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

ErinP said:


> Can you post an article or something that supports this with actual facts? Because what I can find says you're WAY off the mark with this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


At the outer edge. The average subsidy calaculated by obamacare friendlies is about $2800 plus. If you add in Medicare expansion, the total is well over $5000 per person.

in fact you drag the average subsidy down.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

JillyG said:


> chances are if you have been paying property taxes, you have been paying into Medcaid and Medicare.
> 40% of all my property taxes goes towards Medicaid and medicare.





where I want to said:


> None of your property taxes go to either. Medicare is funded through payroll taxes and Medicaid I through income taxes, both federal and state.


Actually, Jilly is partially correct. Apparently in NY (imagine that!), part of their property taxes are used to help fund the state Medicaid program. 

However she is wrong about her property taxes paying for Medicare, which is strictly a federal income tax.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

It may be that way in WI also.
Because when a person gets on a Medicare Advantage Program, it is Based on The County you live in as to how much you pay, AND the levels that the Medicare advantage program can offer you.
And that I am sure is based on the amount of taxes that has been allocated to such programs as Medicare in any given county. So I guess I can not make a blanket stamen anymore as things have changed over the years.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> Medicare, which is strictly a federal income tax.


I wish they wouldn't call it a tax. Calling it a tax suggests that congress can do what it wants with it. It should be called the insurance contribution that it is.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

ErinP said:


> I can't help but wonder how many people made these same arguments against public education when it first got startedâ¦
> 
> "If I want to educate my kids I can pay for it myself, thanks!"
> "People who don't want to pay for private education just want _freebies_!"


Don't think the education system was put into law by 1 party only & by lies/deciet/fraud. I could be wrong...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

painterswife said:


> You own a vehicle. You buy insurance.
> You own a body, you buy health care.


I sorta can understand you believing this, being from another country. You do not understand our Constitution.
NO ONE should be forced to BUY anything. NO ONE. 
Its like if EVERYONE in the country was forced to buy car ins. everyone.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

where I want to said:


> Yes it is- some millions did make out on this. But 10 times that number have lost insurance they wanted and everyone still paying taxes for what they don't receive are even more.
> 
> In other words, like has been said so many times, those that get freebies love them, those that don't get it yet pay for it, hate it. And there are a whooe lot more of the latter than the former. It is just that simple.


Another POST of the DAY award, mostly b/c I wanted everyone to re-read this!

What will happen when those in the cart waaay outnumber those IN the cart?
Its happened in a few of our friends in Europe. But NONE of the progressives here have told us what the USA will do when that happens. 
Many are waaay to "Stupid"-not my words, the words of Gruber describing them-to even consider that we'd run out of $$$ & have folks rioting in the streets.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I wish they wouldn't call it a tax. Calling it a tax suggests that congress can do what it wants with it. It should be called the insurance contribution that it is.


Sorry. Just 'cause we were lied to by your party continually thru the process, you think its not a tax- it IS a tax. SCOTUS said it was, only way that part -mandate-could be legal.
Deceived the Fed. Budget office. Deceived you Ds. 
Fraud/deceit/LIES.


----------



## maddy (Oct 30, 2010)

_maddy, have you been self-employed for the last 25 plus years and paid for your health insurance? In that time I have paid over a quarter of a MILLION dollars for health insurance.

_Yes, as a matter of fact, I have--at least until the ACA became law, and my rates shot through the ceiling. I do not make enough money to qualify for the subsidies that my wealthier counterparts do, so I have three choices: (1) to pay the artificially inflated cost of an individual policy (literally three times what it was before the ACA), (2) to take their "expanded Medicaid" option, or (3) to pay out of pocket. I've opted to pay out of pocket, which means that most of the time I worry about symptoms and self-treat rather than going to the doctor, even for potentially serious problems. A couple of months ago I took my chances with a deep puncture wound from a barbed wire fence. 

Because the ACA is all about cost-shifting and preserving the monopoly that insurance companies, hospitals and drug manufacturers have over pricing, paying out of pocket is more difficult than it ever has been at any time in history. The whole price structure is intentionally distorted, inflated perhaps by 10 times or more, making it impossible to get a bill representing the actual cost of service. My bill includes not only the cost of my care, but the cost of treating 10 non-paying patients as well.

So some may think my initial comment was "snotty," but it's high time that we dropped the illusions and recognized that there is no free lunch. Somebody is paying for all that free care, and for the moment, it happens to be me.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Txsteader said:


> Actually, Jilly is partially correct. Apparently in NY (imagine that!), part of their property taxes are used to help fund the state Medicaid program.
> 
> However she is wrong about her property taxes paying for Medicare, which is strictly a federal income tax.


Again not medicaid expansion which was sold as a 'freebie' to states because the feds took on the whole burden of paying for it under obamacare.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

where I want to said:


> Again not medicaid expansion which was sold as a 'freebie' to states because the feds took on the whole burden of paying for it under obamacare.


Agreed, not the expansion as part of Obamacare, but their previous state-funded Medicaid.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Txsteader said:


> Agreed, not the expansion as part of Obamacare, but their previous state-funded Medicaid.


It was lazy of me to use that all inclusive remark about medicaid as it occurred to me at the time I was only sure about obamacare. But I decided to let it pass as it was easier than writing a qualifying statement. I thought it would slip by. Got the response that laziness deserved.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

billinwv said:


> maddy, have you been self-employed for the last 25 plus years and paid for your health insurance? In that time I have paid over a quarter of a MILLION dollars for health insurance. Arabian Knight I worked my way thru college tooth and nail and have never had a "hand out" I have paid taxes for over 40 years. Are you going to forego your retirement benefits(government paid) at age 62? Same difference.


Apples and hay bales! Everyone that had health insurance as a part of their compensation paid for their health insurance, both their part and a reduction in wages with their paid premiums. If you want Heath insurance don't expect others to pay for it so you can accumulate wealth.


----------



## billinwv (Sep 27, 2013)

Yes, as a matter of fact, I have--at least until the ACA became law, and my rates shot through the ceiling. I do not make enough money to qualify for the subsidies that my wealthier counterparts do, so I have three choices: (1) to pay the artificially inflated cost of an individual policy (literally three times what it was before the ACA), (2) to take their "expanded Medicaid" option, or (3) to pay out of pocket. I've opted to pay out of 

Don't get the "I do not make enough money to qualify for subsidies that my wealthier counterparts do" Have you applied at healthcare.gov? Subsidies are based on adjusted gross income. If you have a major health event and can't pay your bills then who will? Emergency rooms have been used for free health care for years. Who pays for that? This program may not be perfect, but with these issues resolved it may cost taxpayers less in the long run. 
Thanks for your comment "Willow Girl". When my group was cancelled I was looking at premiums of 1400 per month with more out of pocket expenses. My longtime insurance agent advised me that due to a cancellation I could apply out of season at hc.gov. I did and due to their evaluation subsides weren't even a option for me. Pay over half my income for insurance or take what was offered? No brainer for me. No insurance is not an option for me. If you have anything they can attach your funds for non-payment. A heart attack can cost over half a million. Risk I'm not willing to take. 
"Gramma" have you ever noticed that charge on your car insurance bill you pay for non-insured motorists? We have a lot of law-breakers in WV who drive uninsured and we pay a much higher premium for that. Same goes for the health uninsured who use the system and get free care.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

If you want health insurance pay for it
If you want health care pay for it.

You can self pay directly for the care or invest ...that is what it is an investment in insurance.

I used to get more health care ..I paid for it one way or another but now I do not find the value in many things that once were important or needed now.

I can pay for what I want. If I can't afford it so be it.
Heck we all still can choose the level of rig we drive some want new some beaters. Some of us need mare rig than we can get now. We accept that we, ourselves have to provide it for ourselves. Is that a national crisis....no


----------



## billinwv (Sep 27, 2013)

The top paragraph in my previous post is a quote from a previous post. Didn't do it right. 
Molly I'm not accumulating wealth at any ones expense. I am protecting what I have worked my whole life for. Just as anyone of you would. I can assure you I have paid in more than I will ever receive in benefits.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Sorry. Just 'cause we were lied to by your party continually thru the process, you think its not a tax- it IS a tax. SCOTUS said it was, only way that part -mandate-could be legal.
> Deceived the Fed. Budget office. Deceived you Ds.
> Fraud/deceit/LIES.


Yeah, but I was replying to a post about Medicare tax.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Molly Mckee said:


> Apples and hay bales! Everyone that had health insurance as a part of their compensation paid for their health insurance, both their part and a reduction in wages with their paid premiums. If you want Heath insurance don't expect others to pay for it so you can accumulate wealth.


That's not the case. Employer subsidized health insurance is also heavily subsidized by the government, to the tune of $250 billion per year. That's more than twice the Obamacare subsidy cost.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...uge-health-care-subsidy-everyone-is-ignoring/


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

I'm not going to read someone's blog. If your employer pays for you health insurance, or part of it, it reduces the amount of the cash you get paid, even if you have no choice. Does the employer get a break in cost? Yes, it's cheaper for the insurance company to sell 500 or 5000 policies to one place rather than500 individual policies. Does the company get to reduce taxes they pay? Yes, but they write off wages as well, so that doesn't make a difference. Was our old system working well for everyone? No, but here in WA at least fewer people have access to health care because lots doctors don't take Medicaid. So people still don't go to the doctor and go to the ER instead. And more people lost their insurance than got usable insurance.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> That's not the case. Employer subsidized health insurance is also heavily subsidized by the government, to the tune of $250 billion per year. That's more than twice the Obamacare subsidy cost.
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...uge-health-care-subsidy-everyone-is-ignoring/


By which you mean it is not taxable. I would happily let you write off the premium you personally pay off your taxes. 
Now a better analogy would be if the government gave back to the company a tax credit for what they spend on employee health care.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Molly Mckee said:


> I'm not going to read someone's blog. If your employer pays for you health insurance, or part of it, it reduces the amount of the cash you get paid, even if you have no choice. Does the employer get a break in cost? Yes, it's cheaper for the insurance company to sell 500 or 5000 policies to one place rather than500 individual policies. Does the company get to reduce taxes they pay? Yes, but they write off wages as well, so that doesn't make a difference. Was our old system working well for everyone? No, but here in WA at least fewer people have access to health care because lots doctors don't take Medicaid. So people still don't go to the doctor and go to the ER instead. And more people lost their insurance than got usable insurance.


What about others paying for insurance allowing some to accumulate wealth? That OK for some folks but not everyone?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Molly brought out the puppets and crayons what Moore can she do?


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

painterswife said:


> You own a vehicle. You buy insurance.
> You own a body, you buy health care.


That's not how it is. Should read:

You own a car. You buy auto insurance.
You own a body, you pay for you and your families healthcare plus we will use guns to take your money to pay for others. 

Doesn't quite have to same rhythm though.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> What about others paying for insurance allowing some to accumulate wealth? That OK for some folks but not everyone?


That is what obamacare does. Allows a person with a million dollar roth or a million dollar house or a self employed person put money into their business , etc, to have the taxpayer pay for their health insurance- the same tax payer who will never be able to accumulate those same things as they do not qualify for a subsidy even if they have less earnings. Now what is so fair about that?


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

ErinP said:


> I can't help but wonder how many people made these same arguments against public education when it first got startedâ¦
> 
> "If I want to educate my kids I can pay for it myself, thanks!"
> "People who don't want to pay for private education just want _freebies_!"


I would still make those arguments if they had any chance of success, but public schools have succeeded in convincing the vast majority of the populace that they are the only way to effectively educate our kids.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

ErinP said:


> Up to a 12th grade education for the general populace is a beneficial, social accommodation.
> Basic health care for the general populace is legal theft.
> 
> 
> I honestly can not understand the logic in this argument. :shrug:


If the ACA stopped at that point, it would just be more welfare, and sure as shootin' people would complain about that, but it doesn't stop there. I'm used to the welfare state. I'm more annoyed by the part that goes well past welfare.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I wish they wouldn't call it a tax. Calling it a tax suggests that congress can do what it wants with it. It should be called the insurance contribution that it is.


You might want to look into that more. FICA is a tax, nothing more.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

ErinP said:


> Not everyone has a vehicle, hence you're not likely to get agreement on universal auto. But as far as I can tell, _everyone_ still has a body they need to take care of&#8230; :shrug:


But not everybody needs health insurance to take care of their body. I don't need it because the only offerings of the health care system that I use or would use are affordable for me. And I also don't have a uterus and related parts, so I don't need coverage for those, but Obama says I do....


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> That's not the case. Employer subsidized health insurance is also heavily subsidized by the government, to the tune of $250 billion per year. That's more than twice the Obamacare subsidy cost.
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...uge-health-care-subsidy-everyone-is-ignoring/



Here we go again! Employer-paid health insurance is not "subsidized". 

Just because something exists and is not taxed does not make it a subsidy. (Read this several times, hopefully it will sink in.)

Back when it was mere chump change, Uncle Sam decided to leave employee benefits out of taxable income. Now that it is big money, not to mention Uncle is $17 trillion in debt, he is looking at this money stream and drooling like a hungry stray dog. 

That $250 billion per year figure is pure fantasy, too. There are only around 243 million adults in the US, so that's planning on collecting more than $1000 per person even before taking into consideration how many of that 243 mil are retired or unemployed. But even that's not the whole picture. Subtract the ones who don't get health insurance thru their employer. Then subtract out the portion that the employees pay for themselves. No way in the world there would be enough left to generate $250 billion a year in taxes! 

I have explained this same thing to you before in other threads. You can repeat it as many times as you want, it won't make it true.


----------



## maddy (Oct 30, 2010)

_Don't get the "I do not make enough money to qualify for subsidies that my wealthier counterparts do" Have you applied at healthcare.gov? Subsidies are based on adjusted gross income. If you have a major health event and can't pay your bills then who will? Emergency rooms have been used for free health care for years. Who pays for that?

_It's a fact that if you fall below a certain income threshold (and it's not all that low), you are not eligible for any subsidy. If you apply at the .gov website, you will be put into Medicaid whether you like it or not. Research it if you don't believe me.

What would I do in the event of an emergency? I've dealt with that eventuality by joining a health care sharing ministry. (The fact that my share is hardly more than $150 a month should tell you something about what insurance costs should be--even in this cost-inflated environment--when everybody is paying their fair share.) And if that doesn't cover it, I'll simply go without. I'm flatly unwilling to enable the current system, which rewards dependency and which is obviously designed, first and foremost, to line the pockets of insurance companies, hospitals, and drug manufacturers.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Clarification needed--

Several people have stated that they do not qualify for subsidies but yet they're still complaining about the government "taking" from them. 



Folks, if you don't make enough to qualify for the bottom tier of ACA (and are supposed to fit your state's expanded Medicaid), _you're not paying_ for Obamacare. 
Good heavens, _you_ don't pay income taxes! And you are exempt from the health-care tax/fine. 
If your income is that low, you don't pay a cent beyond basic payroll taxes (SS/Medi_care_).


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

A couple of comments: About New York using property taxes to pay for Medicaid:
Each state sets up its own program and pays for it as it wishes, with the Feds picking up a part of it. The "expansion" has the Feds paying for all the expansion for about three years, then dropping the whole thing on the state taxpayer. In short, sleeping with the babe until she's pregnant, then skipping out.

Second point: Nevada says " Employer subsidized health insurance is also heavily subsidized by the government, to the tune of $250 billion per year. That's more than twice the Obamacare subsidy cost." 

Somehow I have never understood how allowing a company, or an employee, to keep their own money turns out to be a subsidy. It is like the liberals who go nuts when a tax exemption is granted---it is OUR money, allowing us to keep it is NOT some sort of gift.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

ErinP said:


> Clarification needed--
> 
> Several people have stated that they do not qualify for subsidies but yet they're still complaining about the government "taking" from them.
> 
> ...


There are many other reasons for not qualifying for obamacare beside income. If you qualify for health insurance, even if it is pretty poor insurance, you have to pay more for it than you would subsidized obamacare and you make less than the guideline is one big one.

I now qualify for medicare and pay much more for the combination of the premium and supplemental insurance than I would for subsidized obamacare with my income. This medicare comes with lots of quirky won't-covers, which was never true with the insurance I had before. My old health insurance is no longer available to me and I sadly miss it. Some general doctors and more specialists won't deal with medicare at all. 

And part of obamacare is those "death panels" which is really an appointed group whose sole purpose is to keep medicare costs down. The death part is only incidental.

Then all those fees and regulations are just phasing in, increasing the cost of providing insurance to employees. And that is not even the straight forward increases in taxes. It's going to get worst for those not qualifying for obamacare.

Never have so many paid the price for so few to have so much benefit.


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

where I want to said:


> That is what obamacare does. Allows a person with a million dollar roth or a million dollar house or a self employed person put money into their business , etc, to have the taxpayer pay for their health insurance- the same tax payer who will never be able to accumulate those same things as they do not qualify for a subsidy even if they have less earnings. Now what is so fair about that?


You also wrote;
Again not medicaid expansion which was sold as a 'freebie' to states because the feds took on the whole burden of paying for it under obamacare.

Some states expanded medicaid and others didn't. If your state expanded medicaid, Obamacare says that the feds will pay for 100% of the increased medicaid coverage until 2016. Then the amount they pay will decline to 90% by 2022 and stay there. Many states refused to expand medicaid because they say that even their 10% share would bust their budget and they don't trust that the federal gooberment can continue to pay their 90% share so that will be paid by the states too.

If your state didn't expand medicaid, then the old rules apply. There are income and asset tests for qualification. Many don't cover single adults too. Each state sets their own regulations.

If your state did expand medicaid, it has to follow the Obamacare regulations. There is no asset test. Everyone is eligible (I think. Single adults definitely are). The income requirement is that you have to make less than 133% of the federal poverty level. This varies with the size of your family. You can live in a McMansion and drive a Beamer but qualify for medicaid if your income is low enough. 

There are now millions of people in states that expanded medicaid that qualify for it that didn't before. This is why many states didn't expand medicaid, they felt that their 10% share of the new millions would break their budgets. 

For now the gooberment is paying 100% of the medicaid coverage for these folks and it won't go down much.

In all states, if you make over 133% of the federal poverty level, you qualify for subsidies. The less you make the higher the subsidies. The subsidy amount declines as you income rises until at some income level you don't get any subsidy. 

Those who buy insurance using subsidies get a lower premium but still have to pay deductibles and co-pays. These are substantial. Those who are earning close to the federal poverty level, and live in states that expanded medicaid, would be money ahead to earn less so they are under the level and get free medicaid. 

The subsidies are also payed by the federal gooberment. This means that the income tax payer is picking up the subsidies and the cost of providing medicaid. The premise that obamacare would be taxpayer neutral is a joke. 

The Supreme Court is in the process of deciding if the law allows those who live in states that didn't expand medicaid to get subsidies at all. The law says that you can only get subsidies if you go through the website of a state that expanded medicaid. The federal gooberment set up it's own web site for those that live in states that didn't expand medicaid. The argument is that those who go through the federal website don't qualify for subsidies.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> There are many other reasons for not qualifying for obamacare beside income


There are indeed, but I _thought_ I was pretty clear I was speaking to those who are in that financial black hole between ACA and traditional Medicaid. (Since we've heard from several&#8230


----------



## maddy (Oct 30, 2010)

_Folks, if you don't make enough to qualify for the bottom tier of ACA (and are supposed to fit your state's expanded Medicaid), you're not paying for Obamacare. _

When I get a bill from a hospital that charges me $4,000 for an MRI and $10 for an aspirin, that is exactly what I'm doing. I'm paying not not only for the cost of that service, but for the services rendered to 10 other non-paying people. That's the whole idea behind cost-shifting, and it's the bedrock principle upon which Obamacare is based.


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

maddy said:


> _Folks, if you don't make enough to qualify for the bottom tier of ACA (and are supposed to fit your state's expanded Medicaid), you're not paying for Obamacare. _
> 
> When I get a bill from a hospital that charges me $4,000 for an MRI and $10 for an aspirin, that is exactly what I'm doing. I'm paying not not only for the cost of that service, but for the services rendered to 10 other non-paying people. That's the whole idea behind cost-shifting, and it's the bedrock principle upon which Obamacare is based.


All taxpayers are paying for Obamacare subsidies and people on medicaid. Not sure but even someone who makes 132% of he federal poverty level pays some income tax so they are paying toward their health care.

The outrageous amounts the hospital charges cash customers is because so many people go to the emergency room and don't pay anything. Anyone on Obammacare has their medical bills paid by the insurance companies. Anyone on medicaid has their medical bills paid by the federal gooberment.

No one has addressed the real problem, health care in this country costs way too much. When you need health care you will pay anything for it, what economists call inelastic demand. The people providing health care know they can charge anything they want and the people will pay it if they can. The people providing health care are incredibly greedy and there are way too many unproductive people who work in the health care field. We need to get a handle on health care costs. Maybe do away with insurance companies, have the gooberment collect premiums, pay for treatment at the rate of medicaid, and let the health care providers decide how many of them that will support. 

You can not argue that medicaid doesn't pay enough. I live in one of the poorest counties in MN and went on medicaid last spring. I have had no trouble finding doctors and hospitals and a dentist. Seems most of them accept medicaid. They have had no trouble doing exams and tests on me and getting paid what medicaid allows. They wouldn't be eager to accept medicaid if they were not making money.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Well it sure is hard in WI to find a dentist I have prove on that. I had a list of 15 dentists in my area not ONE of them would take New medicare folks OR just took in children.
If I had not found one by accident I would have had to travel 90 miles away to get to a dentist that would take NEW Medicaid adults. ANd I was put on a waiting list of 20 people before i could see even that dentist and when it came to getting a couple of teeth pulled I HAD to go to a Community College 40 miles away and have Students do it~! 
So it IS getting harder and harder to find doctors and dentists for people Medicaid.
And this was 3 years ago I am sure it is harder now and will be a Whole lot harder if this influx of illegals get settled into this country. We have not seen anything yet as to what these illegals will put on the medical system. WOW People ought to be having nightmares about what Obama just did to this country and its people.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

How hard it is to find a doctor depends on where you live. We lost about150 doctors about five years ago when we had only one medical malpractice insurance company left in the state. The cost of insurance was too much in some specialities and for some younger doctors that also had huge school debts. They left and we haven't caught back up. That's just in the Eastern WA area.

In many states malpractice insurance limits the number of Medicaid patients a doctor can see. About 90% of malpractice law suits are filed by Medicaid and other charity patients. And Medicaid is charity in many areas. Our DS is in hospital administration. When he was in OR the state was paying 13%of normal charges for Medicaid patients! and paying very slowly. Slow payment is a big problem with Tri care as well.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> That's not the case. Employer subsidized health insurance is also heavily subsidized by the government, to the tune of $250 billion per year. That's more than twice the Obamacare subsidy cost.
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...uge-health-care-subsidy-everyone-is-ignoring/


Not so sure you are right here but guess how many folks USED TO get ins. thru work? Maybe 100 million? More? So, twice as much $ for 100 mill+ as the 6 mill on ObummerUNcare? Sounds like a deal to me!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

where I want to said:


> There are many other reasons for not qualifying for obamacare beside income. If you qualify for health insurance, even if it is pretty poor insurance, you have to pay more for it than you would subsidized obamacare and you make less than the guideline is one big one.
> 
> I now qualify for medicare and pay much more for the combination of the premium and supplemental insurance than I would for subsidized obamacare with my income. This medicare comes with lots of quirky won't-covers, which was never true with the insurance I had before. My old health insurance is no longer available to me and I sadly miss it. Some general doctors and more specialists won't deal with medicare at all.
> 
> ...


Another Post of the Decade Award.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Just thought I'd post this...a little fyi for those who don't watch fox-


&#8220;This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure the CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies,&#8221; Gruber said in one of several videos recently uncovered of him explaining at forums and panels over the last several years how Obamacare was dishonestly sold to the public. 


http://joemiller.us/2014/11/dont-mi...how-president-obama-liar/#5GI21pvvBJbeRG4F.99

And a lilttle more-
&#8220;Lack of transparency is a huge advantage. And basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever. But basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.&#8221;

&#8220;Economists have called for 40 years to get rid of the regressive, inefficient and expensive tax subsidy provided for employer provider health insurance,&#8221; Gruber said in another video, speaking at the Pioneer Institute in Boston in 2011.

&#8220;It turns out politically it&#8217;s really hard to get rid of,&#8221; he went on. &#8220;And the only way we could get rid of it was first by mislabeling it, calling it a tax on insurance plans rather than a tax on people when we all know it&#8217;s a tax on people who hold those insurance plans.&#8221;

How many still think ObummerUNcare is constitutional?


----------

