justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Sept 22, 2020 10:52:20 GMT -5
The affordable part of ACA didn't refer to the affordable that most think it does. Its purpose was to make plans offered not through employers 1) available to everyone regardless of preexisting conditions 2) as comprehensive as employer policies and 3) similar in costs to the entire cost of employer policies.
The only way to make it affordable in the way most view the word affordable is an entire revamping of our health care system. While some of the politicians who voted for ACA were likely influenced by health care companies to not go too far with ACA - the overriding cause of why ACA didn't make bigger strides towards making things truly affordable is because the Dems were trying to create a compromise to try and work the Repubs (that's why it was modeled over a Repub plan) instead of just running roughshod with their numbers in power to do what they want.
I'm not entirely sure they'll look for compromise across party lines again.
|
|
Clifford
Established Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 15:19:53 GMT -5
Posts: 422
|
Post by Clifford on Sept 22, 2020 11:29:17 GMT -5
If the ACA goes (and adding another anti-ACA SC Justice might do it), many of us will have some serious decisions to make.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 22:32:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2020 11:38:23 GMT -5
The ACA passage was no favor to most with as you note high premiums and even worse such high deductibles. It’s called ‘health care’ but not really it’s only a lame insurance policy. If politicians really want to help people the costs of health care need to decrease. Insurance companies and prescription middle companies are large components of these costs. But politicians are keeping insurance companies in business by telling folks to vote for them - they’ll save health care- Baloney they’re saving the insurance companies Sorry that you and others like you need to resort to this to get medical care. The ACA saved us somewhere between $7000-9000 over COBRA. The Medicaid expansion has helped many people, as well as getting rid of the pre-existing conditions loopholes for the insurance companies. The only problem with it is that it should have done more, not less. It's still a band-aid solution. It may have saved you in premium costs, but what if you had to actually use the plan for a major medical problem? What if you had gotten cancer or needed major surgery while on that plan? Most exchange plans have so many OOP costs and such high deductibles they make the coverage useless for most low-income people. And, most of the higher quality providers won't take it. When I was working and had to shop coverage, I would have had to pay hundreds each month for a policy that had a 12K OOP deductible before it covered anything. I was making $14 an hour... After taxes, my entire pay would have potentially paid premiums and then the deductible. That left nothing for any other living expenses...And, if you can't cough up the OOP, you can't even see anyone. So, what's the point of even having it? I'm not working just to pay for health coverage. I'd go without first. But, I also prefer not to seek medical help for non-er things and don't believe in all the current preventative bullshit they seem to require to establish with a doctor. Not everyone shares my views on that, I get it.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Sept 22, 2020 12:27:15 GMT -5
The ACA saved us somewhere between $7000-9000 over COBRA. The Medicaid expansion has helped many people, as well as getting rid of the pre-existing conditions loopholes for the insurance companies. The only problem with it is that it should have done more, not less. It's still a band-aid solution. It may have saved you in premium costs, but what if you had to actually use the plan for a major medical problem? What if you had gotten cancer or needed major surgery while on that plan?
Most exchange plans have so many OOP costs and such high deductibles they make the coverage useless for most low-income people. And, most of the higher quality providers won't take it.When I was working and had to shop coverage, I would have had to pay hundreds each month for a policy that had a 12K OOP deductible before it covered anything. I was making $14 an hour... After taxes, my entire pay would have potentially paid premiums and then the deductible. That left nothing for any other living expenses...And, if you can't cough up the OOP, you can't even see anyone. So, what's the point of even having it? I'm not working just to pay for health coverage. I'd go without first. But, I also prefer not to seek medical help for non-er things and don't believe in all the current preventative bullshit they seem to require to establish with a doctor. Not everyone shares my views on that, I get it. My best friend’s husband is a dentist. As he is independent, self employed he has purchased his family’s health insurance on the exchange since the beginning. His daughter got cancer, non Hodgkin lymphoma. While I am sure they paid thousands for her treatment on top of their health insurance, they did not pay hundreds of thousands. I know they traveled for the best treatment in Houston. Hell, I paid $13k OOP for my infection and surgeries OOP and I had excellent insurance through my employer. I probably could have gone cheaper because the biggest chunk of my OOP costs were due to my OON surgeon. Had I chosen someone in network, my deductibles would have been closer to $3000 (2 fiscal insurance years, disease really doesn’t care when your insurance year starts or ends). BTW....my bills totaled just about $750k. Healthcare is expensive.
|
|
GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl
Senior Associate
"How you win matters." Ender, Ender's Game
Joined: Jan 2, 2011 13:33:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,291
|
Post by GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl on Sept 22, 2020 13:14:35 GMT -5
I think your moral issue is that you don't NEED the help (tuition, Medicaid) but you are availing yourself of it.
The question to ask is if you are preventing someone else who NEEDS the help from receiving it.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Sept 22, 2020 13:50:14 GMT -5
The ACA saved us somewhere between $7000-9000 over COBRA. The Medicaid expansion has helped many people, as well as getting rid of the pre-existing conditions loopholes for the insurance companies. The only problem with it is that it should have done more, not less. It's still a band-aid solution. It may have saved you in premium costs, but what if you had to actually use the plan for a major medical problem? What if you had gotten cancer or needed major surgery while on that plan? Most exchange plans have so many OOP costs and such high deductibles they make the coverage useless for most low-income people. And, most of the higher quality providers won't take it. When I was working and had to shop coverage, I would have had to pay hundreds each month for a policy that had a 12K OOP deductible before it covered anything. I was making $14 an hour... After taxes, my entire pay would have potentially paid premiums and then the deductible. That left nothing for any other living expenses...And, if you can't cough up the OOP, you can't even see anyone. So, what's the point of even having it? I'm not working just to pay for health coverage. I'd go without first. But, I also prefer not to seek medical help for non-er things and don't believe in all the current preventative bullshit they seem to require to establish with a doctor. Not everyone shares my views on that, I get it. We chose the plan closest to what we had before-- it wasn't the cheapest plan. Pretty sure we did use it a bit during those 6 months or so, between the 4 of us, one being just a baby at the time.
|
|
Clifford
Established Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 15:19:53 GMT -5
Posts: 422
|
Post by Clifford on Sept 22, 2020 13:51:22 GMT -5
I think your moral issue is that you don't NEED the help (tuition, Medicaid) but you are availing yourself of it. The question to ask is if you are preventing someone else who NEEDS the help from receiving it. Agree. But how can this question be answered? I would guess that it doesn't prevent anyone else from receiving the aid, but it would overall impact the federal budget/taxpayers (Medicaid) or the private school's endowment (tuition).
|
|
Clifford
Established Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 15:19:53 GMT -5
Posts: 422
|
Post by Clifford on Sept 22, 2020 13:53:33 GMT -5
I think your moral issue is that you don't NEED the help (tuition, Medicaid) but you are availing yourself of it. The question to ask is if you are preventing someone else who NEEDS the help from receiving it. I think maybe I should have started with this instead: Say someone works 20 years and saves $1million. YMAM celebrates the milestone. They drop work and go minimalist, cutting down to $45,000 per year for living expenses, basically matching their investment income. Based on their income, their kid is eligible for Medicaid, and they sign up. Is this ethically bad, or not really an ethics question at all - just a money management one? This is not my scenario at all, but it feels like a safer question to have asked.
|
|
gs11rmb
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 12:43:39 GMT -5
Posts: 3,303
|
Post by gs11rmb on Sept 22, 2020 14:15:04 GMT -5
Well, I'm still in the "rubs me the wrong way" category . Medicaid is stretched very thin and, I think, it can be difficult to find providers. If only those who had no other option used Medicaid then two things could hypothetically happen: 1. Medicaid recipients could find providers more easily because providers cap the number of Medicaid patients they will accept. 2. Medicaid reimbursements to providers could be increased and more adequately cover the actual costs of care.
|
|
jerseygirl
Senior Member
Joined: May 13, 2018 7:43:08 GMT -5
Posts: 4,771
|
Post by jerseygirl on Sept 22, 2020 14:22:31 GMT -5
I think your moral issue is that you don't NEED the help (tuition, Medicaid) but you are availing yourself of it. The question to ask is if you are preventing someone else who NEEDS the help from receiving it. I think maybe I should have started with this instead: Say someone works 20 years and saves $1million. YMAM celebrates the milestone. They drop work and go minimalist, cutting down to $45,000 per year for living expenses, basically matching their investment income. Based on their income, their kid is eligible for Medicaid, and they sign up. Is this ethically bad, or not really an ethics question at all - just a money management one? This is not my scenario at all, but it feels like a safer question to have asked. If someone has $1million and puts their kid on Medicaid I’m thinking they don’t worry about their kids health much. Medicaid has serious problems when you need to find a specialist to treat someone really sick. I know dentist who will only take Medicaid patients if they are in foster care. Why are you so enamored about Medicaid?
|
|
Clifford
Established Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 15:19:53 GMT -5
Posts: 422
|
Post by Clifford on Sept 22, 2020 14:27:31 GMT -5
I think maybe I should have started with this instead: Say someone works 20 years and saves $1million. YMAM celebrates the milestone. They drop work and go minimalist, cutting down to $45,000 per year for living expenses, basically matching their investment income. Based on their income, their kid is eligible for Medicaid, and they sign up. Is this ethically bad, or not really an ethics question at all - just a money management one? This is not my scenario at all, but it feels like a safer question to have asked. If someone has $1million and puts their kid on Medicaid I’m thinking they don’t worry about their kids health much. Medicaid has serious problems when you need to find a specialist to treat someone really sick. I know dentist who will only take Medicaid patients if they are in foster care. Why are you so enamored about Medicaid? I'm not. It's just an income-based program being used as an example. I know there are issues with it, and we have experienced them as well. FWIW, we tried to put DD on our ACA plan, and because of her age it wasn't permitted, so it was Medicaid or find private insurance.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 21,309
|
Post by giramomma on Sept 22, 2020 14:29:27 GMT -5
I think your moral issue is that you don't NEED the help (tuition, Medicaid) but you are availing yourself of it. The question to ask is if you are preventing someone else who NEEDS the help from receiving it. I think maybe I should have started with this instead: Say someone works 20 years and saves $1million. YMAM celebrates the milestone. They drop work and go minimalist, cutting down to $45,000 per year for living expenses, basically matching their investment income. Based on their income, their kid is eligible for Medicaid, and they sign up. Is this ethically bad, or not really an ethics question at all - just a money management one? This is not my scenario at all, but it feels like a safer question to have asked. I dunno.
I think you should have stopped while you are ahead.
Now, I think you are confusing and your story is sort of a moving target.
|
|
Clifford
Established Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 15:19:53 GMT -5
Posts: 422
|
Post by Clifford on Sept 22, 2020 14:30:35 GMT -5
Well, I'm still in the "rubs me the wrong way" category . Medicaid is stretched very thin and, I think, it can be difficult to find providers. If only those who had no other option used Medicaid then two things could hypothetically happen: 1. Medicaid recipients could find providers more easily because providers cap the number of Medicaid patients they will accept. 2. Medicaid reimbursements to providers could be increased and more adequately cover the actual costs of care. That's a fair assessment. I think #2 drives #1. Providers cap their numbers because they don't get paid properly by the gov't.
|
|
TheOtherMe
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 14:40:52 GMT -5
Posts: 27,171
Mini-Profile Name Color: e619e6
|
Post by TheOtherMe on Sept 22, 2020 14:52:16 GMT -5
Providers who accept Medicare are not properly compensated either. I am astonished when I see the EOB's on what is paid vs what is billed.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 22:32:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2020 15:07:30 GMT -5
It may have saved you in premium costs, but what if you had to actually use the plan for a major medical problem? What if you had gotten cancer or needed major surgery while on that plan?
Most exchange plans have so many OOP costs and such high deductibles they make the coverage useless for most low-income people. And, most of the higher quality providers won't take it.When I was working and had to shop coverage, I would have had to pay hundreds each month for a policy that had a 12K OOP deductible before it covered anything. I was making $14 an hour... After taxes, my entire pay would have potentially paid premiums and then the deductible. That left nothing for any other living expenses...And, if you can't cough up the OOP, you can't even see anyone. So, what's the point of even having it? I'm not working just to pay for health coverage. I'd go without first. But, I also prefer not to seek medical help for non-er things and don't believe in all the current preventative bullshit they seem to require to establish with a doctor. Not everyone shares my views on that, I get it. My best friend’s husband is a dentist. As he is independent, self employed he has purchased his family’s health insurance on the exchange since the beginning. His daughter got cancer, non Hodgkin lymphoma. While I am sure they paid thousands for her treatment on top of their health insurance, they did not pay hundreds of thousands. I know they traveled for the best treatment in Houston. Hell, I paid $13k OOP for my infection and surgeries OOP and I had excellent insurance through my employer. I probably could have gone cheaper because the biggest chunk of my OOP costs were due to my OON surgeon. Had I chosen someone in network, my deductibles would have been closer to $3000 (2 fiscal insurance years, disease really doesn’t care when your insurance year starts or ends). BTW....my bills totaled just about $750k. Healthcare is expensive. The point of the exchange/ACA was to make "affordable" healthcare available to low income Americans who have no option to get it from an employer. If you are low-income, by definition, your chances of being able to fork over thousands of extra dollars for care are probably about zero once you pay your premiums, rent, buy food, etc... So, your premiums pay for the mandated preventative care and give you a medical card you can't use if you become seriously ill. Back in the day when I worked for a contractor for the county as an IT person for a company bought out by Xerox, I had to quit my job because my "great" insurance had a 10K OOP deductible. My late-DH needed to start dialysis. Since he was on my insurance, we were told we either had to pay 10K to the dialysis center or go on Medicaid before he could start treatment. We didn't have 10K or access to credit, so I had to quit my job, we had to apply for Medicaid, and then started his treatment. It delayed it about a month. This country needs tort reform and universal healthcare. I still say put the congress on Medicaid and watch how fast it changes. People only really care about things that directly affect them.
|
|
Clifford
Established Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 15:19:53 GMT -5
Posts: 422
|
Post by Clifford on Sept 22, 2020 15:24:23 GMT -5
I think maybe I should have started with this instead: Say someone works 20 years and saves $1million. YMAM celebrates the milestone. They drop work and go minimalist, cutting down to $45,000 per year for living expenses, basically matching their investment income. Based on their income, their kid is eligible for Medicaid, and they sign up. Is this ethically bad, or not really an ethics question at all - just a money management one? This is not my scenario at all, but it feels like a safer question to have asked. I dunno. I think you should have stopped while you are ahead. Now, I think you are confusing and your story is sort of a moving target. I see your point. I'm just not a fan of comments like "I resent your attitude and hoping your kids do better." Should have just gone with a hypothetical.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 21,309
|
Post by giramomma on Sept 22, 2020 15:41:21 GMT -5
I dunno. I think you should have stopped while you are ahead. Now, I think you are confusing and your story is sort of a moving target. I see your point. I'm just not a fan of comments like "I resent your attitude and hoping your kids do better." Should have just gone with a hypothetical. If you really do have a taxable worth 1mil, generating 50K in passive income...and that's what you are living off of..Yeah, I absolutely have a problem with what you are doing. You could have made other choices. We have a taxable account, not that size, but, enough to create passive income that pays for our kids' k-8 private tuition every year.
Crap, my 16 year old is worth low six figures already. I'm still working, two jobs, actually.
There's no way I would claim that we are poor to work the system. Because I would consider us taking away from those that really do need it. Because here's the thing, we aren't poor. No one with a NW of a million is poor.
ETA: When DH and I had our first kid, he was the SAHP. It never DAWNED on me to go down to one job, so that we could qualify for social services: WIC, maybe even other food benefits, CHIP, etc. Our net worth was not what it is now. But, I'd argue that someone with a quarter of a mil net worth is not "disadvantaged" or "poor."
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 22:32:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2020 15:44:17 GMT -5
I'm keeping my income artificially low by dumping everything I can into 401K and HSA to get financial aid for my college kid. I do not consider myself sponging off the government by doing so either. I think it's a win-win for everyone (assuming the kid graduates and contributes to society). It's good to have educated citizens and it's good to have old people with savings. :-)
|
|
Clifford
Established Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 15:19:53 GMT -5
Posts: 422
|
Post by Clifford on Sept 22, 2020 15:52:13 GMT -5
I see your point. I'm just not a fan of comments like "I resent your attitude and hoping your kids do better." Should have just gone with a hypothetical. If you really do have a taxable worth 1mil, generating 50K in passive income...and that's what you are living off of..Yeah, I absolutely have a problem with what you are doing.
I don’t have that and I’m still working. I meant to suggest that the exaggerated hypothetical would have been better to avoid personal attacks.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Sept 22, 2020 16:10:32 GMT -5
Healthcare and tuition are two things that are completely F'd up in this country, so I can't blame you to do what you have to in order to navigate the craziness of it all. Despite thinking that the ACA is better than the nothing we had before, I think we can and should do much, much better. As far as tuition is concerned, I feel like I'm on the losing end of that, though in hindsight, I know I should have and would have don't much better to get all my schooling over and done with back in the 90's. I may have a decent net worth, but you can also keep in mind that it is there to replace a pension for my elder years. Should that even count in the "morality" of it? In that case, you can only be moral taking advantage of these programs if you're dirt poor. And then there is the morality of corporations, who are seen as moral as long as they don't pollute or price gouge too much.
|
|
MN-Investor
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:44 GMT -5
Posts: 1,937
|
Post by MN-Investor on Sept 22, 2020 18:05:26 GMT -5
Let me start with a couple of famous quotes by Judge Learned Hand: "Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes."
Gregory v. Helvering, 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934)
"Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant."
Commissioner v. Newman, 159 F.2d 848, 851 (2d Cir. 1947) - dissenting opinion
At this point in my life, I paying my fair share of taxes. We saved and invested well. Now widowed, my tax rate is more than I like. However, it is what it is. I turned 65 in Dec of 2017 and discovered, when I applied for Medicare, that you can be charged more if your income exceeds certain limits. Oops, maybe I shouldn't have sold that stock. But, heck, that's the way tax laws work. Then my husband passed away in 2018 and I didn't touch our stocks and, low and behold, I qualified for that $1,200 stimulus check based on that lower income. Based on my portfolio, like many others, I didn't need the money but, heck, that's the way tax laws work. What I'm trying to get at is that there is nothing inherently wrong with using the law to your benefit. If the folks wanted a different result, they could have written the law a different way. If they decide folks are abusing the law, they can amend it.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,036
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Sept 24, 2020 12:57:47 GMT -5
I think your moral issue is that you don't NEED the help (tuition, Medicaid) but you are availing yourself of it. The question to ask is if you are preventing someone else who NEEDS the help from receiving it. Agree. But how can this question be answered? I would guess that it doesn't prevent anyone else from receiving the aid, but it would overall impact the federal budget/taxpayers (Medicaid) or the private school's endowment (tuition). Your choices don't sit well with me. Are there people who "missed out" on the assistance who needed it/were working as hard/long hours as they could or with disabilities or struggling to find work? Who knows, and you are right - doubtful if we can really get that question answered. What can be answered definitively is that other people ARE paying for it. Not the rich that everyone points their fingers at. Yes, the rich are hiding money, managing money, pushing for even more favorable laws and tax coding to shield more and more of their millions/billions from taxes. But its more the average person who is paying more to subsidize others. Via taxes, higher tuition rates, higher provider costs (because Medicaid doesn't even break even on medical services rendered. And I'm one of those people, paying more than my fair share because others aren't able or willing to pay theirs. And I'm fine covering those who are struggling. Not so fine covering those who choose not to work enough to pay their fair share. I qualified for many 'benefits' for about a decade. I choose not to apply for them. I even tried to refuse the EIC on my taxes, but they sent it anyway. And now the big impediment to my retirement planning is 6 figure student loans.
|
|
jerseygirl
Senior Member
Joined: May 13, 2018 7:43:08 GMT -5
Posts: 4,771
|
Post by jerseygirl on Sept 24, 2020 14:42:30 GMT -5
I think your moral issue is that you don't NEED the help (tuition, Medicaid) but you are availing yourself of it. The question to ask is if you are preventing someone else who NEEDS the help from receiving it. I think maybe I should have started with this instead: Say someone works 20 years and saves $1million. YMAM celebrates the milestone. They drop work and go minimalist, cutting down to $45,000 per year for living expenses, basically matching their investment income. Based on their income, their kid is eligible for Medicaid, and they sign up. Is this ethically bad, or not really an ethics question at all - just a money management one? This is not my scenario at all, but it feels like a safer question to have asked. Medicaid allows no more than $2000 in liquid assets (eg checking or savings accounts), NOT dependent on low income alone. Medicaid will look at your assets for last 5(7?) years. So not eligible in your example
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 22:32:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2020 15:04:10 GMT -5
I think maybe I should have started with this instead: Say someone works 20 years and saves $1million. YMAM celebrates the milestone. They drop work and go minimalist, cutting down to $45,000 per year for living expenses, basically matching their investment income. Based on their income, their kid is eligible for Medicaid, and they sign up. Is this ethically bad, or not really an ethics question at all - just a money management one? This is not my scenario at all, but it feels like a safer question to have asked. Medicaid allows no more than $2000 in liquid assets (eg checking or savings accounts), NOT dependent on low income alone. Medicaid will look at your assets for last 5(7?) years. So not eligible in your example Not in ACA expansion states. I have zero income and qualify for the OHP, which is Medicaid. I have about 70K sitting in the bank. The only thing they look at is income, not assets or liquid cash. I can't buy an exchange policy if I wanted to because my income is too low. That's how it works in expansion states.
|
|
jerseygirl
Senior Member
Joined: May 13, 2018 7:43:08 GMT -5
Posts: 4,771
|
Post by jerseygirl on Sept 24, 2020 16:45:15 GMT -5
Medicaid allows no more than $2000 in liquid assets (eg checking or savings accounts), NOT dependent on low income alone. Medicaid will look at your assets for last 5(7?) years. So not eligible in your example Not in ACA expansion states. I have zero income and qualify for the OHP, which is Medicaid. I have about 70K sitting in the bank. The only thing they look at is income, not assets or liquid cash. I can't buy an exchange policy if I wanted to because my income is too low. That's how it works in expansion states. Wow, took me almost 2 years to get my disabled from birth sister to get onto Medicaid. Looked at all bank accounts from our mom that went into a special needs trust. The funds in the trust had been used for her care and were$0 at start of the 2 year process. She was accepted about 3 years ago at 73.Then every year I had to send proof she had no more than $2000 in her checking account (SS money). She passed away in November and Medicaid looking for $$ to repay her large medical bills. Nope no money NJ is a Medicaid expansion Glad you are getting Medicaid!!
|
|
Clifford
Established Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 15:19:53 GMT -5
Posts: 422
|
Post by Clifford on Sept 24, 2020 17:02:40 GMT -5
Not in ACA expansion states. I have zero income and qualify for the OHP, which is Medicaid. I have about 70K sitting in the bank. The only thing they look at is income, not assets or liquid cash. I can't buy an exchange policy if I wanted to because my income is too low. That's how it works in expansion states. Wow, took me almost 2 years to get my disabled from birth sister to get onto Medicaid. Looked at all bank accounts from our mom that went into a special needs trust. The funds in the trust had been used for her care and were$0 at start of the 2 year process. She was accepted about 3 years ago at 73.Then every year I had to send proof she had no more than $2000 in her checking account (SS money). She passed away in November and Medicaid looking for $$ to repay her large medical bills. Nope no money NJ is a Medicaid expansion Glad you are getting Medicaid!! I really am sorry for your experience. There may be a difference by state or based on age. I applied for ACA. They said DW and I could get a marketplace plan. We were not permitted to add the teenagers and were assigned to a Medicaid case worker who reviewed all of our paperwork - in which we hid none of our assets or income. The kids were put on a free-to-us plan.
|
|
TheOtherMe
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 14:40:52 GMT -5
Posts: 27,171
Mini-Profile Name Color: e619e6
|
Post by TheOtherMe on Sept 24, 2020 17:22:26 GMT -5
Wow, took me almost 2 years to get my disabled from birth sister to get onto Medicaid. Looked at all bank accounts from our mom that went into a special needs trust. The funds in the trust had been used for her care and were$0 at start of the 2 year process. She was accepted about 3 years ago at 73.Then every year I had to send proof she had no more than $2000 in her checking account (SS money). She passed away in November and Medicaid looking for $$ to repay her large medical bills. Nope no money NJ is a Medicaid expansion Glad you are getting Medicaid!! I really am sorry for your experience. There may be a difference by state or based on age. I applied for ACA. They said DW and I could get a marketplace plan. We were not permitted to add the teenagers and were assigned to a Medicaid case worker who reviewed all of our paperwork - in which we hid none of our assets or income. The kids were put on a free-to-us plan. I used to volunteer as a rep payee. My clients were either in nursing homes or living in the community. All could not have assets in excess of $2000. Annual reporting was required. Periodically I would receive a long questionnaire from the state. Burial funds were excluded from the $2000 so if the client was going to exceed $2000, that is where I was instructed by the agency to put it. Iowa is a Medicaid expansion state. Before I became one woman's rep payee, her family had taken out a large life insurance policy. Medicaid found out about it and took her off Medicaid. Family converted it to a burial fund but she was off Medicaid for about 18 months. This woman was younger than me and had spent over 30 years in a nursing home. Her family requested help when the sister who had been taking care of her finances was diagnosed with Ahlzheimer's and they did not want the client to be at the mercy of the nursing home. Over time, all of my clients except for one passed away. I was sent huge bills from the state to pay from the "estate". There was less than $500 in every bank account at the time the client died. So instead of hundreds of thousands of dollars, the state got less than $500 for each one. That's when I learned about vultures from the past coming for money. When one client died (with no living relatives) the daughters or granddaughters of her friends said they had put funds in the trust account at the nursing home. Uh, I was putting money in the account and there was less than $100 in it when she died. They wanted their money returned. I told them it was first in, first out and their money was long gone. Since this 90 something woman had a little money in her account and a decent burial fund, we let her have some money to go to the dog track for an outing with the nursing home. I never saw her smile that much as when I gave her that money. She wanted $100. It was the only time she ever asked for money in the 5 years I paid her bills.
|
|
Clifford
Established Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 15:19:53 GMT -5
Posts: 422
|
Post by Clifford on Sept 24, 2020 17:38:52 GMT -5
Agree. But how can this question be answered? I would guess that it doesn't prevent anyone else from receiving the aid, but it would overall impact the federal budget/taxpayers (Medicaid) or the private school's endowment (tuition). Your choices don't sit well with me. Are there people who "missed out" on the assistance who needed it/were working as hard/long hours as they could or with disabilities or struggling to find work? Who knows, and you are right - doubtful if we can really get that question answered. What can be answered definitively is that other people ARE paying for it. Not the rich that everyone points their fingers at. Yes, the rich are hiding money, managing money, pushing for even more favorable laws and tax coding to shield more and more of their millions/billions from taxes. But its more the average person who is paying more to subsidize others. Via taxes, higher tuition rates, higher provider costs (because Medicaid doesn't even break even on medical services rendered. And I'm one of those people, paying more than my fair share because others aren't able or willing to pay theirs. And I'm fine covering those who are struggling. Not so fine covering those who choose not to work enough to pay their fair share. I qualified for many 'benefits' for about a decade. I choose not to apply for them. I even tried to refuse the EIC on my taxes, but they sent it anyway. And now the big impediment to my retirement planning is 6 figure student loans. I appreciate that. If I was 100% fine with it I wouldn’t have posted the question. Our household income ranged from 48-115k for 20 years, and we feel like we were definitely contributors. We were also YMAM types, so we tried to save as much as we could. For the last 5 years, our income ranged from 30-48k. We still pay taxes, but in the 10-12% range. The system is set up to scrutinize income and overlook assets. We are not at FI/RE levels, but have more than the average 40k earners cause that’s not what we always were. We even keep 15-20k in checking, so its not sheltered or hidden in any way, but I’ve been straight with everyone. Q: Would you really turn down free healthcare or tuition breaks on principle, seeing as how the tuition is a big obstacle for you now?
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,367
|
Post by Tiny on Sept 24, 2020 18:56:03 GMT -5
Just a thought in general: What does it say about America when a family of 4 with a gross income of 48K per year would qualify for social benefits? I know median income varies from place to place - but I think a saw where median income of America (as a whole) was 60K...
And another thought: Does if matter if the 48K income is coming from a single income, a single income and a spouse with lower paying part time or side job, or someone taking their 4% from their 1million dollar nest egg or someone who only needs to work 30 hours a MONTH to generate that 48K in income versus other people who are working 40 hour weeks? As for tuition - I don't know anyone that's paid 'full price' for their kids college schooling. Well, no one has fessed up to that. I have heard of couple kids getting very generous aide offers along with their acceptance letters. I have also heard of the parents and kid negotiating what kind of aide the kid will get as well. I know a couple of other kids graduated with 30K or less in SL (mostly because their parents wanted them to have skin in the game and/or the kid wanted to do something 'special' at school) they all transitioned into jobs with starting pay in the 30K range (and a career path that includes higher pay).
I'm pretty sure most of my relatives and friend's household incomes are 100K or more per year. I'm also pretty sure no one 'saved' 250K for each of their kids to go to college (70K * 4 years) - A sibling fessed up that his kid had $20K in his college fund. (at 70k per year - is your kid on a track to go into a 100K or more per year income job soon after graduation? )
From what I can tell... the "free" or the "low cost" college educations that my friends and relatives got - were only "free" like how a "dog is free to good home ( you have to take it to the vet, buy food, walk it, maybe fence your yard, deal with the cost of wear and tear on your house and furniture, etc... so, yeah, the dog might be free - but there are a lot of other on going expenses). My friends/relatives did a lot of leg work and took an active part in finding the best deal for their kids education sometimes starting as soon as the kid started HS (but usually starting in the kid's junior year). The kid usually put forth a lot of effort at school to position themselves for the scholarships, grants, or to even be considered for the program they wanted to pursue at college.
Getting into colleges for the price you want to pay is apparently pretty competitive and you can see what the costs will be BEFORE you agree to buy... you tend to have to negotiate or work for "free" tuition/schooling. I'm not sure I would take "free" healthcare in our current healthcare environment. No one really knows how much the cost of the services one receives actually is. I would imagine "free" healthcare offered in the current environment would be very limited in scope and probably not all that good. I'd basically be signing up for something that I had no idea how to value or if it was really free (as in kind of like that Free Dog) and I'd be paying for stuff even though I was getting something for "free".
|
|
Clifford
Established Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 15:19:53 GMT -5
Posts: 422
|
Post by Clifford on Sept 24, 2020 19:17:39 GMT -5
Just a thought in general: What does it say about America when a family of 4 with a gross income of 48K per year would qualify for social benefits? I know median income varies from place to place - but I think a saw where median income of America (as a whole) was 60K... And another thought: Does if matter if the 48K income is coming from a single income, a single income and a spouse with lower paying part time or side job, or someone taking their 4% from their 1million dollar nest egg or someone who only needs to work 30 hours a MONTH to generate that 48K in income versus other people who are working 40 hour weeks? As for tuition - I don't know anyone that's paid 'full price' for their kids college schooling. Well, no one has fessed up to that. I have heard of couple kids getting very generous aide offers along with their acceptance letters. I have also heard of the parents and kid negotiating what kind of aide the kid will get as well. I know a couple of other kids graduated with 30K or less in SL (mostly because their parents wanted them to have skin in the game and/or the kid wanted to do something 'special' at school) they all transitioned into jobs with starting pay in the 30K range (and a career path that includes higher pay). I'm pretty sure most of my relatives and friend's household incomes are 100K or more per year. I'm also pretty sure no one 'saved' 250K for each of their kids to go to college (70K * 4 years) - A sibling fessed up that his kid had $20K in his college fund. (at 70k per year - is your kid on a track to go into a 100K or more per year income job soon after graduation? ) From what I can tell... the "free" or the "low cost" college educations that my friends and relatives got - were only "free" like how a "dog is free to good home ( you have to take it to the vet, buy food, walk it, maybe fence your yard, deal with the cost of wear and tear on your house and furniture, etc... so, yeah, the dog might be free - but there are a lot of other on going expenses). My friends/relatives did a lot of leg work and took an active part in finding the best deal for their kids education sometimes starting as soon as the kid started HS (but usually starting in the kid's junior year). The kid usually put forth a lot of effort at school to position themselves for the scholarships, grants, or to even be considered for the program they wanted to pursue at college. Getting into colleges for the price you want to pay is apparently pretty competitive and you can see what the costs will be BEFORE you agree to buy... you tend to have to negotiate or work for "free" tuition/schooling. I'm not sure I would take "free" healthcare in our current healthcare environment. No one really knows how much the cost of the services one receives actually is. I would imagine "free" healthcare offered in the current environment would be very limited in scope and probably not all that good. I'd basically be signing up for something that I had no idea how to value or if it was really free (as in kind of like that Free Dog) and I'd be paying for stuff even though I was getting something for "free". I think your comment says a lot about America, highlighting plenty of opportunities to improve. We certainly worked hard to narrow down the school list for DS, running Net Price Calculators and establishing a budget. He only applied to schools that fit the criteria. As for how many people pay a gazillion dollars for schooling, DS's school is unusual, but FinAid Office reported that 43% of c/o 2022 students receive need-based aid and they don't offer any merit or athletic scholarships. That means 57% do not receive aid and are "full-pay," and some of those that receive aid might receive only a small amount. Most schools are thankfully not like this, but it does happen, especially in private schools.
|
|