(11-20-2018 03:47 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 03:33 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 03:28 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 02:50 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 02:45 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Are most "takers" already on Medicaid?

Nope, premiums are currently being subsidized for people all the way up to 400% the federal poverty line.

"mensa"

show work please

Quote: Income Criteria

To be eligible for the premium tax credit, your household income must be at least 100 – but no more than 400 – percent of the federal poverty line for your family size, although there are two exceptions for individuals with household income below 100 percent of the applicable federal poverty line. Remember that simply meeting the income requirements does not mean you’re eligible for the premium tax credit. You must also meet the other eligibility criteria.

For information about the two exceptions for individuals with household income below 100 percent of the federal poverty line, see the instructions to Form 8962.

https://www.irs.gov/individuals-and-fami...tax-credit

Thank you but I was referring to eligibility for Medicaid... not tax credits for people trying to afford private insurance through exchanges... apples and oranges.

That being said, businesses who offer health insurance to their employees are able to deduct those expenses... does that then make them takers, too? Surely if you consider a family of 4 making 100k or less, a taker for getting a tax break, then the employer who is afforded a similar break on a larger scale is also considered a taker?

You are really struggling to understand who a taker is and isnt, arent you?

(11-20-2018 03:53 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 03:47 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 03:33 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 03:28 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 02:50 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Nope, premiums are currently being subsidized for people all the way up to 400% the federal poverty line.

"mensa"

show work please

Quote: Income Criteria

To be eligible for the premium tax credit, your household income must be at least 100 – but no more than 400 – percent of the federal poverty line for your family size, although there are two exceptions for individuals with household income below 100 percent of the applicable federal poverty line. Remember that simply meeting the income requirements does not mean you’re eligible for the premium tax credit. You must also meet the other eligibility criteria.

For information about the two exceptions for individuals with household income below 100 percent of the federal poverty line, see the instructions to Form 8962.

https://www.irs.gov/individuals-and-fami...tax-credit

Thank you but I was referring to eligibility for Medicaid... not tax credits for people trying to afford private insurance through exchanges... apples and oranges.

That being said, businesses who offer health insurance to their employees are able to deduct those expenses... does that then make them takers, too? Surely if you consider a family of 4 making 100k or less, a taker for getting a tax break, then the employer who is afforded a similar break on a larger scale is also considered a taker?

You are really struggling to understand who a taker is and isnt, arent you?

No

One for all. All for one. Raise our taxes.

(11-20-2018 03:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 03:35 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 03:33 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 03:28 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 02:50 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Nope, premiums are currently being subsidized for people all the way up to 400% the federal poverty line.

"mensa"

show work please

Quote: Income Criteria

To be eligible for the premium tax credit, your household income must be at least 100 – but no more than 400 – percent of the federal poverty line for your family size, although there are two exceptions for individuals with household income below 100 percent of the applicable federal poverty line. Remember that simply meeting the income requirements does not mean you’re eligible for the premium tax credit. You must also meet the other eligibility criteria.

For information about the two exceptions for individuals with household income below 100 percent of the federal poverty line, see the instructions to Form 8962.

https://www.irs.gov/individuals-and-fami...tax-credit

Now show your work for sarcastically calling him "Mensa"....

He did in the post you quoted. Mensa is just butthurt over getting called out for being a talking point parrot and lashed out.

You were more fun when i was a drunk

(11-20-2018 11:03 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 09:41 AM)q5sys Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 09:05 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Your taxes would go up but your healthcare premium would go away... which would likely be a net gain.

plot twist. I dont have a healthcase premium... because I dont have health insurance. So this would be a net loss for me.
When Obamacare came into being, it was going to cost me $800 a month for my premiums as a single unmarried male in his mid 30s.
F that... I'll bank that money myself and pay for my healthcare needs out of my pocket if I need them.
For emphasis... as an ex service member... I can go to the VA for free if I want. Gov run health care is so bad, that I opt out of my free option and pay out of my hard earned money when I need medical care.

Some surgeries can cost upwards of $800k or more.
Good luck with the out of pocket. If you require it, God forbid, the taxpayer will cover your costs.

Any surgery that would cost $800k or more would have been a death sentence 50 years ago. I have no problem opting out of a surgery that costs that much. I don't want extraordinary means undergone to prolong my life. I see no reason to ask anyone to pay $800k for my surgery. Even if I pay was paying $1K a month for insurance. To expect my insurance to cover an $800k surgery is asking other people to pay for my medical care. That's extremely selfish to expect other people to pay for something like that.

(11-20-2018 11:41 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 09:59 AM)q5sys Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 09:51 AM)banker Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 09:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 09:41 AM)q5sys Wrote:  plot twist. I dont have a healthcase premium... because I dont have health insurance. So this would be a net loss for me.
When Obamacare came into being, it was going to cost me $800 a month for my premiums as a single unmarried male in his mid 30s.
F that... I'll bank that money myself and pay for my healthcare needs out of my pocket if I need them.
For emphasis... as an ex service member... I can go to the VA for free if I want. Gov run health care is so bad, that I opt out of my free option and pay out of my hard earned money when I need medical care.

Pray you don't get cancer...doubt you'll be able to bank enough money to pay for that!

And pray that if we get single payer that you don't need an knee replacement surgery.

Two months ago my mother had her hip replacement surgery denied by obamacare. I took out a loan to help cover the cost so she could have the surgery and be able to walk again.

As for the cancer comment. In the course of human history... cancer was a terminal condition. If you got it, you accepted it and dealt with it until you died.
Sure i'd like to life longer... but if I get cancer. I'm not going to run myself into the poor house just to die a year or two later. I'd rather live our my remaining life however I can, instead of doing the hospitals/Chemo shuffle.

How exactly did the ACA do this? Specifics please.

Roughly... they claimed it wasn't "necessary" as she was still ambulatory with a walker and morphine. However when it takes 2 minutes to walk 50 feet through the house... it's necessary in my book. Hence why I paid for her surgery myself.

(11-20-2018 04:05 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 03:53 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  You are really struggling to understand who a taker is and isnt, arent you?

No

Clearly you are

There is a massive difference between 'spending money to make money' (employee expenses like healthcare) and the government deciding that a company with 4 employees that makes less than $50,000 in revenue getting treated like a family of 4 earning less than 50k.

Hint.. company losses can generally only offset company gains... meaning that you eventually have to make money and pay taxes on that, while there are Millions of Americans who don't work and collect money from the government. Before you start, that's not a value judgement... it's just a difference between companies and people that you obviously don't know.

(11-20-2018 06:29 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 04:05 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 03:53 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  You are really struggling to understand who a taker is and isnt, arent you?

No

Clearly you are

There is a massive difference between 'spending money to make money' (employee expenses like healthcare) and the government deciding that a company with 4 employees that makes less than $50,000 in revenue getting treated like a family of 4 earning less than 50k.

Hint.. company losses can generally only offset company gains... meaning that you eventually have to make money and pay taxes on that, while there are Millions of Americans who don't work and collect money from the government. Before you start, that's not a value judgement... it's just a difference between companies and people that you obviously don't know.

there are companies who pay no taxes, and there are companies who pay millions, yet both are incentivised to offer health benefits to their employees and offset that cost. Likewise, there are individuals who pay no taxes and there are individuals who pay millions... I'm simply saying individuals who are required to purchase health insurance in the open market should be offered similar incentives and offsets offered to businesses, otherwise, its not affordable.

(11-20-2018 06:15 PM)q5sys Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 11:03 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 09:41 AM)q5sys Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 09:05 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Your taxes would go up but your healthcare premium would go away... which would likely be a net gain.

plot twist. I dont have a healthcase premium... because I dont have health insurance. So this would be a net loss for me.
When Obamacare came into being, it was going to cost me $800 a month for my premiums as a single unmarried male in his mid 30s.
F that... I'll bank that money myself and pay for my healthcare needs out of my pocket if I need them.
For emphasis... as an ex service member... I can go to the VA for free if I want. Gov run health care is so bad, that I opt out of my free option and pay out of my hard earned money when I need medical care.

Some surgeries can cost upwards of $800k or more.
Good luck with the out of pocket. If you require it, God forbid, the taxpayer will cover your costs.

Any surgery that would cost $800k or more would have been a death sentence 50 years ago. I have no problem opting out of a surgery that costs that much. I don't want extraordinary means undergone to prolong my life. I see no reason to ask anyone to pay $800k for my surgery. Even if I pay was paying $1K a month for insurance. To expect my insurance to cover an $800k surgery is asking other people to pay for my medical care. That's extremely selfish to expect other people to pay for something like that.

(11-20-2018 11:41 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 09:59 AM)q5sys Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 09:51 AM)banker Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 09:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Pray you don't get cancer...doubt you'll be able to bank enough money to pay for that!

And pray that if we get single payer that you don't need an knee replacement surgery.

Two months ago my mother had her hip replacement surgery denied by obamacare. I took out a loan to help cover the cost so she could have the surgery and be able to walk again.

As for the cancer comment. In the course of human history... cancer was a terminal condition. If you got it, you accepted it and dealt with it until you died.
Sure i'd like to life longer... but if I get cancer. I'm not going to run myself into the poor house just to die a year or two later. I'd rather live our my remaining life however I can, instead of doing the hospitals/Chemo shuffle.

How exactly did the ACA do this? Specifics please.

Roughly... they claimed it wasn't "necessary" as she was still ambulatory with a walker and morphine. However when it takes 2 minutes to walk 50 feet through the house... it's necessary in my book. Hence why I paid for her surgery myself.

The ACA or the insurance company? What in the ACA made the insurance company claim it was not necessary?

(11-19-2018 09:05 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Your taxes would go up but your healthcare premium would go away... which would likely be a net gain.

(11-21-2018 11:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 06:15 PM)q5sys Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 11:03 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 09:41 AM)q5sys Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 09:05 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Your taxes would go up but your healthcare premium would go away... which would likely be a net gain.

plot twist. I dont have a healthcase premium... because I dont have health insurance. So this would be a net loss for me.
When Obamacare came into being, it was going to cost me $800 a month for my premiums as a single unmarried male in his mid 30s.
F that... I'll bank that money myself and pay for my healthcare needs out of my pocket if I need them.
For emphasis... as an ex service member... I can go to the VA for free if I want. Gov run health care is so bad, that I opt out of my free option and pay out of my hard earned money when I need medical care.

Some surgeries can cost upwards of $800k or more.
Good luck with the out of pocket. If you require it, God forbid, the taxpayer will cover your costs.

Any surgery that would cost $800k or more would have been a death sentence 50 years ago. I have no problem opting out of a surgery that costs that much. I don't want extraordinary means undergone to prolong my life. I see no reason to ask anyone to pay $800k for my surgery. Even if I pay was paying $1K a month for insurance. To expect my insurance to cover an $800k surgery is asking other people to pay for my medical care. That's extremely selfish to expect other people to pay for something like that.

(11-20-2018 11:41 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 09:59 AM)q5sys Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 09:51 AM)banker Wrote:  And pray that if we get single payer that you don't need an knee replacement surgery.

Two months ago my mother had her hip replacement surgery denied by obamacare. I took out a loan to help cover the cost so she could have the surgery and be able to walk again.

As for the cancer comment. In the course of human history... cancer was a terminal condition. If you got it, you accepted it and dealt with it until you died.
Sure i'd like to life longer... but if I get cancer. I'm not going to run myself into the poor house just to die a year or two later. I'd rather live our my remaining life however I can, instead of doing the hospitals/Chemo shuffle.

How exactly did the ACA do this? Specifics please.

Roughly... they claimed it wasn't "necessary" as she was still ambulatory with a walker and morphine. However when it takes 2 minutes to walk 50 feet through the house... it's necessary in my book. Hence why I paid for her surgery myself.

The ACA or the insurance company? What in the ACA made the insurance company claim it was not necessary?

Because she had health insurance previously but when ACA came into force... her plan was dropped as previous company stopped operating in Maryland. Her only option was to get a 'new' plan with another company. They denied her surgery.
Her old policy would have covered the surgery, she knew people who were approved for hip surgeries that had better mobility than she did under the same company/plan.

ACA caused her company to leave the state. ACA forced her to get a policy with a new company. The new company denied her surgery.
A -> B -> C

There's a direct cause-effect chain. So yes... ACA is the reason her surgery was denied.

I realize you can't accept this because you refuse to accept that people have gotten screwed over by ACA. I realize you're going to want to try to 'prove' how ACA isn't responsible. But, unless you're willing to cut a check to cover the expenses, shut your f*cking mouth about something that you know nothing about and stop your virtue signaling.Frankly I'm sick to death of self righteous leftist acting like ACA is a positive thing. You're argument is nothing more than your moral grandstanding for your something that Obama and the democrats passed. You don't care one bit about real people in the real world. You only care that your agenda is pushed and defended as being good.

There's a whole lot about insurance and the ACA that Tom doesnt understand.

(11-21-2018 01:20 PM)q5sys Wrote:  

(11-21-2018 11:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 06:15 PM)q5sys Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 11:03 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 09:41 AM)q5sys Wrote:  plot twist. I dont have a healthcase premium... because I dont have health insurance. So this would be a net loss for me.
When Obamacare came into being, it was going to cost me $800 a month for my premiums as a single unmarried male in his mid 30s.
F that... I'll bank that money myself and pay for my healthcare needs out of my pocket if I need them.
For emphasis... as an ex service member... I can go to the VA for free if I want. Gov run health care is so bad, that I opt out of my free option and pay out of my hard earned money when I need medical care.

Some surgeries can cost upwards of $800k or more.
Good luck with the out of pocket. If you require it, God forbid, the taxpayer will cover your costs.

Any surgery that would cost $800k or more would have been a death sentence 50 years ago. I have no problem opting out of a surgery that costs that much. I don't want extraordinary means undergone to prolong my life. I see no reason to ask anyone to pay $800k for my surgery. Even if I pay was paying $1K a month for insurance. To expect my insurance to cover an $800k surgery is asking other people to pay for my medical care. That's extremely selfish to expect other people to pay for something like that.

(11-20-2018 11:41 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 09:59 AM)q5sys Wrote:  Two months ago my mother had her hip replacement surgery denied by obamacare. I took out a loan to help cover the cost so she could have the surgery and be able to walk again.
As for the cancer comment. In the course of human history... cancer was a terminal condition. If you got it, you accepted it and dealt with it until you died.
Sure i'd like to life longer... but if I get cancer. I'm not going to run myself into the poor house just to die a year or two later. I'd rather live our my remaining life however I can, instead of doing the hospitals/Chemo shuffle.

How exactly did the ACA do this? Specifics please.

Roughly... they claimed it wasn't "necessary" as she was still ambulatory with a walker and morphine. However when it takes 2 minutes to walk 50 feet through the house... it's necessary in my book. Hence why I paid for her surgery myself.

The ACA or the insurance company? What in the ACA made the insurance company claim it was not necessary?

Because she had health insurance previously but when ACA came into force... her plan was dropped as previous company stopped operating in Maryland. Her only option was to get a 'new' plan with another company. They denied her surgery.
Her old policy would have covered the surgery, she knew people who were approved for hip surgeries that had better mobility than she did under the same company/plan.
ACA caused her company to leave the state. ACA forced her to get a policy with a new company. The new company denied her surgery.
A -> B -> C
There's a direct cause-effect chain. So yes... ACA is the reason her surgery was denied.
I realize you can't accept this because you refuse to accept that people have gotten screwed over by ACA. I realize you're going to want to try to 'prove' how ACA isn't responsible. But, unless you're willing to cut a check to cover the expenses, shut your f*cking mouth about something that you know nothing about and stop your virtue signaling.Frankly I'm sick to death of self righteous leftist acting like ACA is a positive thing. You're argument is nothing more than your moral grandstanding for your something that Obama and the democrats passed. You don't care one bit about real people in the real world. You only care that your agenda is pushed and defended as being good.

But if you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance.

(11-21-2018 10:36 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  there are companies who pay no taxes, and there are companies who pay millions, yet both are incentivised to offer health benefits to their employees and offset that cost. Likewise, there are individuals who pay no taxes and there are individuals who pay millions... I'm simply saying individuals who are required to purchase health insurance in the open market should be offered similar incentives and offsets offered to businesses, otherwise, its not affordable.

a) that's not what you said before and the distinction you're now drawing doesn't change my response
b) you ARE aware that people making less then 4 times the poverty limit DO get incentives, right?

And the 'incentive' you're talking about is the ability to not have that expense count against the company's profit... Individuals similarly get a deduction from their taxes (an incentive) for pre-tax payments for healthcare and/or they can itemize and/or they can take the standard deduction... and of course if you make less than 4x the PL, you get that as well.

In other words, you STILL don't now who the givers and takers are

FTR, not drawing a value judgement on the above.. merely pointing out that what you're saying isn't true

(11-19-2018 06:51 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Fine, we can pay for it with revoking the 2017 tax bill and taxing carried interest at ordinary income rates.

But I thought the tax cuts were "crumbs".

(11-21-2018 04:36 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  There's a whole lot about insurance and the ACA that Tom doesnt understand.

There is a whole lot about life and everything Tom doesn’t understand.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(11-20-2018 03:01 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 01:48 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 01:32 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 01:21 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 01:10 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Do you think between employee premiums, employer premiums and government payments there is not enough money in our current system to reallocate without raising costs for individuals?

Another question isn't an answer. As was requested show your work.

Or admit you are just parroting a leftist talking point.

It is just a leftist talking point to dupe the sheeple into thinking they will be getting something for nothing..........ie. - someone else will pay for it.

Bottom line - the tax paying American public will never go for it unless the left lies about it knowingly JUST LIKE THEY DID WITH OBAMACARE.

And the right can’t get rid of Obamacare because there’s no answer for people with preexisting conditions and the tax paying American public wouldn’t fall for the lies being told about how they would have still been covered.

I'll freely admit that I have a problem with FORCING a company to sell their product/service to people regardless. We don't require any other type of business to offer their product/service no matter the cost or risk. I don't see how the court can rule that someone doesn't have to bake a cake due to "religious" objections but can turn around and tell another they MUST cover expensive, high-risk customers. Then again, I come from the camp that doesn't believe healthcare is a right.

I freely admit that this isn't a popular position and I'm in the minority.

That being said, you CAN come up with plans/alternatives to Barrycare that will cover preexisting conditions and STILL kill the Frankenstein's Monster known as the ACA.

You can come up with plans that will offer coverage in theory, but it’s simply a math equation that does not work. Same as single payer is a math equation that simple doesn’t work. Bismark is the answer but no side is anywhere close to proposing it.

(11-21-2018 09:58 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(11-21-2018 04:36 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  There's a whole lot about insurance and the ACA that Tom doesnt understand.

There is a whole lot about life and everything Tom doesn’t understand.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There's a whole lot about the Spin Room AUP that neither of you two trolls understand.

(11-23-2018 01:46 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-21-2018 09:58 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(11-21-2018 04:36 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  There's a whole lot about insurance and the ACA that Tom doesnt understand.

There is a whole lot about life and everything Tom doesn’t understand.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There's a whole lot about the Spin Room AUP that neither of you two trolls understand.

My post is proper. You were on here (and still are) touting your knowledge of the ACA and insurance, and you didnt understand what a deductible was. Which is very relevant, because one of the most insidious issues with the ACA is that not only did premiums skyrocket (by values much, much higher than they had been pre ACA) but that the deductibles also skyrocketed, which led to the removal to the access of care for many of those who previously had access to care.