Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Simple: Do NOT use medical care. Practice what you preach. People have died at home since the beginning of time. By doing so, you are neither contributing to Big Med or leeching off of others by using it, than not paying your tab.
I couldn't agree more .... simple ... DON'T FORCE PEOPLE TO BUY MEDICAL ISURANCE while smugly suggesting that people have the option/obligation to die at home without medical treatment.
Pay as you go ... no pay ... no go. Very simple, and very "conservative" of you, bob!
As a confirmed C-D liberal, I had to take a Hall's Mentholatum to keep from choking while I write this next part.
While we rarely agree on many things, I haven't found you to be the "typical" liberal, insofar as the customary demagoguery that seems a prerequisite. I cite this portion of your comments in support of my perception, as you reach for some middle ground, acknowleging merrit in the opposing view, even if it causes some breathing difficulties.
Your problem here is not a reflection of the typical lack of compassion, or the dogged refusal to allow facts to alter your idealogical position .... the issue you suffer is simple naivete' in your belief of the true nature of government, and these social programs you defend. In other words, idealism supplants practical reality, blinding you to the realization that the advertised purpose of these programs have no connection whatsoever to their TRUE purpose and intent. I will elaborate, and hopefuly you will give honest hearing:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx
There is more than a grain of truth to what AeroguyDC is talking about but because of the veil of partisanship it's hard to grasp in the telling and harder to grasp in the hearing.
Here is his valid point.
The Medicaid system we're talking about has been around for a long time, as has been the means testing and forfeiture requirements.
The nasty thing that the ACA does is change the criteria of eligibility from the base line poverty level to 133% of the poverty level. That brings a whole other financial demographic into the asset forfeiture situation. The sad fact about the law, is that if those who apply for the ACA meet a certain income threshold of 133% then they are automatically shunted to the state Medicaid site, thus making their assets liable to forfeiture if they get a severe illness. Although this has been the case with private hospital bills through the court system, the ACA increases the pool of people liable to forfeiture through government action rather than civil proceedings. I understand why this would make a conservative jump. To be fair though, the official poverty level is way too low and hasen't been adjusted in quite a while. 133% is a fair figure to guage who should qualify for full Medicaid coverage. Which is something most those in that financial demographic don't actually have.
What you describe and acknowledge here is the "starting point". Yes, under these new rules, more people than ever before will be pushed toward the subsidized coverage, and the asset forfeiture situation. Again .. this is right out of the gate, and as economic conditions continue to decline, and private insurance costs continue to climb higher, more and more people will be pushed into that category. Today it is 133% of the poverty line, which can be increased in percentage in order to accommodate those unable to afford those escallating private insurance costs, or the official poverty line can be raised, circumventing any need to alter the 133% figure. Once the precedent is established, and private insurance becomes unaffordable to all but the most fortunate, there could quickly be a doubling or tripling of those qualified (read: forced) into the subsidized demographic ... this is where available assets (homes, property, etc) dramatically increase. Those traditionally under the poverty line simply have no assets to confiscate, but as the bar is raised, more people with assets, however meager, increases.
You believe this is some accident or flaw in the program that can be fixed. I'm telling you that it is not an accident and that it is ALREADY FIXED to do precisely what it will do, as it is currently structured. Remove those liberal rose colored glasses for five seconds and you might be able to read the writing on the wall.
Wall street has been looting the financial sector with unabashed hubris to the tune of TRILLIONS over the past 20 years ... total, unbridled criminality never before seen.
ObamaCare is just another mechanism of wholesale fraud to institute an old paradigm which can justly be named "neo-feudalism", where you will sacrifice your assets to satisfy a god damned health insurance mandate, relegating all but the top 3% as vassals and serfs.
Tyranny and despotism rarely barges in with it's full tyranical arms outstretched. Too many would recognize such an obvious assault. So incrementalism is almost always the preferable tactic ... the "frog in the pot of warm water" is an analogy most are familiar with, but fequently fail to recognize when they happen to be the frog. Don't be a frog ... your future is certain, and it is not a pleasant ending.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx
Something that needs to be addressed in one of the numerous fixes required to make this ACA turkey to work.
And there it is ... evidence of what I opened with as the problem you are suffering ...this scenario is not an error, or some type of "oversight" ... this is BY DESIGN, with no intention of being FIXED.
Newsflash - the government holds a monopoly on making laws, enforcing laws, thus life and death over every citizen. This means they can seize whatever they want of yours whenever they want, and dare you to do something about it. This is not an invention of ObamaCare, it pretty much started right after the Articles of Confederation gave way to the US Constitution.
While we rarely agree on many things, I haven't found you to be the "typical" liberal, insofar as the customary demagoguery that seems a prerequisite. I cite this portion of your comments in support of my perception, as you reach for some middle ground, acknowleging merrit in the opposing view, even if it causes some breathing difficulties.
Your problem here is not a reflection of the typical lack of compassion, or the dogged refusal to allow facts to alter your idealogical position .... the issue you suffer is simple naivete' in your belief of the true nature of government, and these social programs you defend. In other words, idealism supplants practical reality, blinding you to the realization that the advertised purpose of these programs have no connection whatsoever to their TRUE purpose and intent. I will elaborate, and hopefuly you will give honest hearing:
What you describe and acknowledge here is the "starting point". Yes, under these new rules, more people than ever before will be pushed toward the subsidized coverage, and the asset forfeiture situation. Again .. this is right out of the gate, and as economic conditions continue to decline, and private insurance costs continue to climb higher, more and more people will be pushed into that category. Today it is 133% of the poverty line, which can be increased in percentage in order to accommodate those unable to afford those escallating private insurance costs, or the official poverty line can be raised, circumventing any need to alter the 133% figure. Once the precedent is established, and private insurance becomes unaffordable to all but the most fortunate, there could quickly be a doubling or tripling of those qualified (read: forced) into the subsidized demographic ... this is where available assets (homes, property, etc) dramatically increase. Those traditionally under the poverty line simply have no assets to confiscate, but as the bar is raised, more people with assets, however meager, increases.
You believe this is some accident or flaw in the program that can be fixed. I'm telling you that it is not an accident and that it is ALREADY FIXED to do precisely what it will do, as it is currently structured. Remove those liberal rose colored glasses for five seconds and you might be able to read the writing on the wall.
Wall street has been looting the financial sector with unabashed hubris to the tune of TRILLIONS over the past 20 years ... total, unbridled criminality never before seen.
ObamaCare is just another mechanism of wholesale fraud to institute an old paradigm which can justly be named "neo-feudalism", where you will sacrifice your assets to satisfy a god damned health insurance mandate, relegating all but the top 3% as vassals and serfs.
Tyranny and despotism rarely barges in with it's full tyranical arms outstretched. Too many would recognize such an obvious assault. So incrementalism is almost always the preferable tactic ... the "frog in the pot of warm water" is an analogy most are familiar with, but fequently fail to recognize when they happen to be the frog. Don't be a frog ... your future is certain, and it is not a pleasant ending.
And there it is ... evidence of what I opened with as the problem you are suffering ...this scenario is not an error, or some type of "oversight" ... this is BY DESIGN, with no intention of being FIXED.
Good post and thanks for responding in true debate rather than hyper partisan dialogue.
A cold hard fact about the ACA is that it is not going away. You cannot put the Genie back in the bottle nor close Pandora's box, once opened. Even if Republicans were to gain total control of the government, it's too late to just completely scrap the ACA. I'm convinced that there will be massive changes to the program by democratic and republican administrations but neither will flat out cancel the program. Too many vested interests involved. People who couldn't get health care before will now get it and they will scream bloody murder if someone tries to take it away. The insurance industry will never allow the ACA to go away as it is a cash cow for them. By 2016 any politician who talks about the ACA will be talking how to fix it rather than how to dismantle it.
I'll be the first liberal to admit that the whole intent of the ACA was to lay the groundwork for national, universal health care. Something that is anathema to a conservative republican.
So in the end, the Democrats will continually push for more coverage and the republicans will continue to push for more restrictions while the business interests will hover on the fringes of the heard like a pride of lions and grab every financial opportunity that they can through every loophole, flaw and of those who run slow and fail to keep up with the migration.
Republicans are fighting a loosing battle to completely rescind the ACA. They need to regroup, acknowledge the ACA and then step in as the saviors with amendments and fixes that will bring it more in line with the middle way.
Just an FYI: My solution to the whole situation would have been for the Federal government to lower the age of Medicare eligibility to 55 years old. Raise the age for children to stay on their family policy to 25 and have an employer mandate for insurance for those 25 to 55. Keep Medicaid for the truly poor and at the base line poverty level. Create a private insurance pool for those who are unemployed between 25 and 55. Those who were in the pool would be required to sign up for the insurance and if they couldn't pay the premiums or the medical bills, the government would pay them but the individual would be responsible for repayment, similar to a student loan.
The above plan is a middle of the road compromise between total private insurance and socialized/subsidized health care. Both sides would have been unhappy with the deal, which is the way it should be. That's how I would have done it.
You aren't eligible for Medicaid until virtually all your assets are gone. And if you try and get Medicaid while hiding assets, you'll go to jail, on top of losing the assets.
After my Dad scrimped and saved his whole life, ending up in a nursing home at $6,000 a month (7 years ago) quickly took his life savings. Had he NOT saved that nest egg, Medicaid would have picked up the entire tab.
I'm not sure why anyone works hard and tries to save money anymore.
Pretty sad and sorry your family had to go thru that. Your dad should have started gifting family members the money years prior and only kept so much in "his" nest egg. We are trying to get my parents to do that but he refuses to believe something like that will happen.
Pretty sad and sorry your family had to go thru that. Your dad should have started gifting family members the money years prior and only kept so much in "his" nest egg. We are trying to get my parents to do that but he refuses to believe something like that will happen.
That is not sad.
Monies accumulated or saved should be spent to take care of oneself.
Once children are grown, they should be taking care of themselves just as the parents are taking care of themselves.
Why do the 'kids' have it coming at the expense of taxpayers? They didn't earn it.
Just more liberal clap trap that they taxpayers in general should donate to their personal welfare?
That is not sad.
Monies accumulated or saved should be spent to take care of oneself.
Once children are grown, they should be taking care of themselves just as the parents are taking care of themselves.
Why do the 'kids' have it coming at the expense of taxpayers? They didn't earn it.
Just more liberal clap trap that they taxpayers in general should donate to their personal welfare?
The money isn't for the kids, it's to hide it. So what your saying is if there is a surviving spouse they should be put into poverty before they can pull from a fund they've paid into one check at a time their entire working life?
The money isn't for the kids, it's to hide it. So what your saying is if there is a surviving spouse they should be put into poverty before they can pull from a fund they've paid into one check at a time their entire working life?
There are restrictions on asset recovery when there is a surviving spouse as well as in some other instances.
There are restrictions on asset recovery when there is a surviving spouse as well as in some other instances.
You are correct. Just talked to the wife, she works in that field. If there is a surviving spouse they are left with a primary residence, one vehicle and 50% of the total monetary assets.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
