Over and over again, here's the pattern we get in nearly every exchange on this thread with the, ah, well, call 'em what you will; I'll use toads and toadies -

Toad/toadie - Says something really stupid, a 1/2 truth or an outright lie

Playwrite - Tells toad/toadie that is really stupid, a 1/2 truth, or an outright lie based on facts, facts, facts, facts, facts. Prove me wrong toad or toadie

Toad/toadie Begins to shovel more horeshit (i.e., really stupid assertions, 1/2 truths, and outright lies) to bury initial horseshit. Also tells Playwrite he is a meanie, that they are going to ignore, master is a liar, etc. etc.

Playwrite - Notes that toad/toadie still hasn't back up their initial assertion, 1/2 truth, or outright lie but instead have simply given just more horseshit. He does so with facts, more facts and still more facts.

toad/toadies -Blow gasket. "You lie, Playwrite!" You should die, Playwrite", etc. etc.

It's all good, but one should wonder what the toads/toadies are posting on other threads that I don't monitor.

Actually no one should really wonder about this - what they post begins with an "h" and ends in "shit."

Originally Posted by playwrite

The ONLY way one can rationally complain about this is that they believe HEALTH INSURANCE should have INCOME GUARANTEE PROVISIONS. That opens a whole can of worms that nobody here who has raised the bankruptcy 'issue' SO FAR has indicated they have the intellectual capacity to comprehend. But surprise me.

Are you finally coming around to that old libertarian idea of a guaranteed basic income? (Agrarian Justice by Thomas Paine, published 1807)

Anyway, median-income patients who cap their OOP costs will be on the hook for $10,000 in annual healthcare spending. That's 25% of the median income before taxes and cost of living are considered.

It's possible to pull off - if we pretend such a serious illness has absolutely no impact on said workers' ability to work and earn income. It gets uglier if we start plugging in median family incomes and family OOP maximums - up to 32% of household income dedicated to medical costs - if said medical costs have no negative effect on income.

Long story short, the median American still can't afford to get sick.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Are you finally coming around to that old libertarian idea of a guaranteed basic income? (Agrarian Justice by Thomas Paine, published 1807)

Anyway, median-income patients who cap their OOP costs will be on the hook for $10,000 in annual healthcare spending. That's 25% of the median income before taxes and cost of living are considered.

It's possible to pull off - if we pretend such a serious illness has absolutely no impact on said workers' ability to work and earn income. It gets uglier if we start plugging in median family incomes and family OOP maximums - up to 32% of household income dedicated to medical costs - if said medical costs have no negative effect on income.

Long story short, the median American still can't afford to get sick.

Ref. GBI - I think I'd rather have guaranteed employment in the form of block grants to states/local who would then contract to non-profits, but I'm open to good arguments (I can be bought! ). I don't think having it part and parcel of health insurance is the way to go, however.

On the $10 grand, I assume that is maxing out the OOP and adding in the premiums. I have a problem with that as being stated as the norm - how many people will be maxing out? If you extrapolate out all the insurer will be paying when the insured is paying out $6 grand that's a lot of health care.

Also, what's the income level you're talking about? - I believe the subsidies go to zero at 400% FPL which is over $90 grand a year income for a family of four.

And I'm sure you know this but just to make extra clear - it is medical condition not medical cost that has the impact on income. I've never said medical condition sufficient to disrupt income can not be the ultimate source leading to bankruptcy - I've just said it has nothing to do with health insurance (unless you want to add that GBI to everyone's premium payments OR federal taxes in our non-MMT world that we've unfortunately decided to live in ).

Originally Posted by playwrite

After ACA coverage, certainly by Medicaid and by the limits on OPE imposed on private insurers, no one is going to go bankrupt based on owing the upper limit of $6350. If someone can find a case of bankruptcy based on ANY non-payment, medical or otherwise, of $6350, I sure like to see it (I was counting on Justin but he's to busy looking at people's stool samples; Rani was my back-up but her brain fart condition seems to be getting the better of her at the moment; Kepi is off in a corner shedding crocodile tears over other Millies not being able to afford his heavily-subsidized, employer-based Cadillac plan).

Does that mean people will not be going bankrupt as a result of income lost due to some long-term malady? Absolutely not, bankruptcies will continue to be the way people get out from under non-payment situations, but the debt they owe is going to be much larger than $6350 and its going to about their NON-MEDICAL bills.

The ONLY way one can rationally complain about this is that they believe HEALTH INSURANCE should have INCOME GUARANTEE PROVISIONS. That opens a whole can of worms that nobody here who has raised the bankruptcy 'issue' SO FAR has indicated they have the intellectual capacity to comprehend. But surprise me.

Just to play devil's advocate, suppose someone gets a very expensive, chronic condition and keeps bumping up against the $6,350 each year, and, because they don't have that cash lying around, it goes on the credit card. After five years, that person is $31,750 in debt, plus interest. That could be a genuine hardship, perhaps leading to bankruptcy.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Just to play devil's advocate, suppose someone gets a very expensive, chronic condition and keeps bumping up against the $6,350 each year, and, because they don't have that cash lying around, it goes on the credit card. After five years, that person is $31,750 in debt, plus interest. That could be a genuine hardship, perhaps leading to bankruptcy.

But it's not medical, you see. The money to pay the health insurance subscription and the health care provision cartel's prices comes off the top. There's always the gross income to cover it, as playwrite keeps arguing.

So the deadbeats in your example weren't driven off the financial cliff by medical costs, but by their foolish choice to spend money they didn't have in their net after-healthcare-after-taxes income on secondary luxuries like food and rent. Their financial situation has nothing to do with health care at all!

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Just to play devil's advocate, suppose someone gets a very expensive, chronic condition and keeps bumping up against the $6,350 each year, and, because they don't have that cash lying around, it goes on the credit card. After five years, that person is $31,750 in debt, plus interest. That could be a genuine hardship, perhaps leading to bankruptcy.

Technically, that's not a $6350 bankruptcy that I was talking about but a $31,750 bankruptcy.

But I concede your point. However, it's hard to imagine the credit industry (including the credit bureaus) allowing $32K unpaid roll-up along with the health providers over 5 years. I guess it's possible but does anyone have any evidence of such an actual situation having happened. I somehow doubt it, but possible.

I believe prior to the ACA, what typically happens is a fast, nearly astonishing roll-up on debt in a matter of weeks, a quick recognition that these things aren't going to be paid off by the guy in intensive care rather than at work, the insurer bowing out at some point, govt services coming in, the hospitals and health care providers doing what they can (cost wise as well as health wise) and then the court stepping in to work a bankruptcy deal - the primary purpose of which is not to totally ruin somebody - people kind of forget this. It is more than likely a lot of other creditors (mortgage, utilities, taxes, car loans, credit cards) got thrown into the mix as well making bankruptcy more of a certainty.

With the ACA, the medical cost of this are limited. If the guy is not at work, no income, he gets Medicaid and the health bill situation end His assets may come into play but his biggest asset, his home, doesn't disqualify him. Also if his car is needed by the family that doesn't disqualify him. He may need to burn off (or, more likely transfer ownership) some assets (e.g. 401K) but without income, he is going to get Medicaid. That ends medical costs as a reason for bankruptcy. However, that doesn't mean his medical CONDITION isn't at the root of his eventual bankruptcy due to NON-medical debts.

The only way to make this an insurance issue, post-ACA, is to believe that health insurance should have income guarantee provisions - essentially SS Disablity on steroids. Funny how are resident anarchist appears so willing to start another huge govt/industry program.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

... the health care provision cartel's prices comes off the top.

If you want to switch to that, you would likely find us in much greater agreement than not.

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

Careful. Rani will have you banned, and Glick will archive your posts on stone tablets.

No moderator = no bans. As much as I prefer a more open environment, I'm not sure this is all for the good. It seems we're alone here.

When we are talking about bankruptcy, we may need to look at increasing inequality and growing poverty in this country.

With the country struggling to recover income lost during the recession, the study isn’t the first to make clear the desperate state of so many Americans' finances. Back in March, it was estimated that less than a third of American workers had savings of $1,000 or less, according to a study by the Employee Benefit Research Institute.

That lack of savings means most Americans have little in the way of a backup plan when things get tough. Indeed, over two thirds of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, a survey by the American Payroll Association found last month.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2003285.html

So not having money in the bank can send a growing number of Americans toward bankruptcy.

Not only is the climb to middle-class stability increasingly steep, the fall into poverty is more likely. The Great Recession brought home an ugly reality: nowadays it only takes one pink slip, foreclosure notice or catastrophic medical bill to push economically secure people into the ranks of the poor — even people with college diplomas and impressive resumes.

Dear middle class: Welcome to poverty

With income inequality surging, the middle class is disappearing into the chasm

Poverty For All?

New research shows that four out of five U.S. adults will struggle with joblessness, near-poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives. What’s especially interesting is that the face of poverty is changing. You are still more likely to be poor if you are black or brown, but census data show that race disparities in the poverty rate have significantly narrowed since the 1970s. By the time they turn 60, a whopping 76 percent of whites will experience economic insecurity, defined as a year or more of periodic joblessness, reliance on government assistance like food stamps or income below 150 percent of the poverty line.

You read that correctly. Three out of four white people will get a chance to know economic panic before they reach retirement age.

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/08/dear...verty_partner/

Originally Posted by playwrite

Ref. GBI - I think I'd rather have guaranteed employment in the form of block grants to states/local who would then contract to non-profits, but I'm open to good arguments (I can be bought! ). I don't think having it part and parcel of health insurance is the way to go, however.

As soon as I find some time in between proving I have insurance and figuring out if I actually do have insurance, I'll try to post on the UBI thread. Mostly, I wanted to emphasize the difference between libertarianism & objectivism with a convenient zinger.

On the $10 grand, I assume that is maxing out the OOP and adding in the premiums. I have a problem with that as being stated as the norm - how many people will be maxing out? If you extrapolate out all the insurer will be paying when the insured is paying out $6 grand that's a lot of health care.

Also, what's the income level you're talking about? - I believe the subsidies go to zero at 400% FPL which is over $90 grand a year income for a family of four.

Incomes I'm talking about are median: about $39,900 for an individual full-time worker, and about $53,000 for a median household. Half the population makes less than that. Medicaid expansion kicks in around $15,000 for an individual and $32,000 for a family of four. That leaves about a quarter of the population (working poor) in a situation where they have pretty significant healthcare cost and insurance they can't afford to use. The examples I gave above were from the median though, so that's the better half of the 75-80 million Americans who really can't afford the ACA. Of course, they'd have no problem getting $30,000 or $50,000 or maybe even $100,000 in revolving credit to turn their medical problems in to financial nightmares.

And I'm sure you know this but just to make extra clear - it is medical condition not medical cost that has the impact on income. I've never said medical condition sufficient to disrupt income can not be the ultimate source leading to bankruptcy - I've just said it has nothing to do with health insurance (unless you want to add that GBI to everyone's premium payments OR federal taxes in our non-MMT world that we've unfortunately decided to live in ).

If the reforms can't be made directly to healthcare, then they will have to be made elsewhere. In the meantime, America's medical cost crisis hasn't gone anywhere. The costs have been shifted around a very little bit, but all of the old incentives and structural problems remain. This is a real opportunity cost on America's ability to be competitive in the global economy, and much more importantly, it has a real opportunity cost in terms of quality of life and health.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Weren't you applying for the new and improved California Medicaid?
(I'm wondering why you are still waiting.)

I applied on-line at http://coveredca.org, which is advertised ad nauseum here in CA, but did not hear back. I'm not sure where else to apply at this point.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Over and over again, here's the pattern we get in nearly every exchange on this thread with the, ah, well, call 'em what you will; I'll use toads and toadies -

Toad/toadie - Says something really stupid, a 1/2 truth or an outright lie

Playwrite - Tells toad/toadie that is really stupid, a 1/2 truth, or an outright lie based on facts, facts, facts, facts, facts. Prove me wrong toad or toadie

Toad/toadie Begins to shovel more horeshit (i.e., really stupid assertions, 1/2 truths, and outright lies) to bury initial horseshit. Also tells Playwrite he is a meanie, that they are going to ignore, master is a liar, etc. etc.

Playwrite - Notes that toad/toadie still hasn't back up their initial assertion, 1/2 truth, or outright lie but instead have simply given just more horseshit. He does so with facts, more facts and still more facts.

toad/toadies -Blow gasket. "You lie, Playwrite!" You should die, Playwrite", etc. etc.

Hee Hee, Playwrite said toadie.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

As soon as I find some time in between proving I have insurance and figuring out if I actually do have insurance, I'll try to post on the UBI thread. Mostly, I wanted to emphasize the difference between libertarianism & objectivism with a convenient zinger.

So noted, and as such, points given. Have you seen this -


http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...#ixzz2pMmIpUzc

Five Economic Reforms Millennials Should Be Fighting For
Guaranteed jobs, universal basic incomes, public finance and more

It has the Right wingnuts going apocalyptic -

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...lism-socialism

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Incomes I'm talking about are median: about $39,900 for an individual full-time worker, and about $53,000 for a median household. Half the population makes less than that. Medicaid expansion kicks in around $15,000 for an individual and $32,000 for a family of four. That leaves about a quarter of the population (working poor) in a situation where they have pretty significant healthcare cost and insurance they can't afford to use. The examples I gave above were from the median though, so that's the better half of the 75-80 million Americans who really can't afford the ACA. Of course, they'd have no problem getting $30,000 or $50,000 or maybe even $100,000 in revolving credit to turn their medical problems in to financial nightmares.

So we're good with those moving into Medicaid (most people ignore this incredible accomplishment by the ACA), but it's that group making less than the medium income but too much for Medicaid that you are concerned for - a family of four making between $32K and $53K.

That corresponds closely with 150% and 250% of the FPL -



which then derives the following limitations on their contributions to the premiums -

Up to 133% FPL – 2% of income

133 – 150% FPL – 3% – 4% of income

150 – 200% FPL – 4% – 6.3% of income

200 – 250% FPL – 6.3% – 8.05% of income

250 – 300% FPL – 8.05% – 9.5% of income

350 – 400% FPL – 9.5% of income

These limitations are based on "silver plans" which have to have an actuarial value of 70% relative to the "bronze plan" that have an actuarial value of only 60%. Given that the silver plans are more expensive than the bronze plans but both are limited by the same OOP, it makes sense that the bronze plans are going to have deductables/co-pays bumping right up against those limitations while the silver plans are going to reduce that by more than just the 10% difference (actually it's 14% difference) to make up for their higher premiums and higher actuarial value.

I think this is why a lot of people in the range of concern seem to be going with the silver plans - they're getting a lot of help on the premiums on the front-end and reducing their exposure on the back-end with the silver plan's lower deductables/copays. If that's the case, then it is likely under worst-case health condition scenarios, they are staying under 10% of income for ALL health maladies that may come their way. That seems like a bargain to me. However, we need to know what those plans (bronze and silver) are actually doing in regard to premiums and deductables/copays.

It's possible that the 'hit,' if there is one, will be more about those making more than the medium, at least up to a point of income in which their affluence makes this all pretty much a moot issue.

To paraphrase Nancy Pelosi's famous/infamous words, I think we need this to play out some more before we know what we got.

One thing it does point to is a possible future. One that is very similar to how SS evolved.

Simply cut in 1/2 the income limits at each level of FPL that people have to pay in premiums and things get pretty nice for a lot more people. Imagine cutting their share by a 1/4! The Debs of the world will go nuts about the evil insurers getting more govt money, but the evil ones won't be getting any more money than they did before - its just that it will be federal govt money (have I mentioned to you this thing called MMT? )

There may, however, be something to keeping the deductibles about the same as an obvious skin-in-the-game cost control measure; you know, leave it to the individual decision as opposed to a govt death panel. (Stand aside Ayn, PW is taking the helm!) The ONLY thing us MMTers worry about is inflation!

What's new is we now have the 'platform' on which to evolve such things. I know, I know, - a lot less fun for the revolutionaries, but we'll let them still screech on internet chat rooms.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

If the reforms can't be made directly to healthcare, then they will have to be made elsewhere. In the meantime, America's medical cost crisis hasn't gone anywhere. The costs have been shifted around a very little bit, but all of the old incentives and structural problems remain. This is a real opportunity cost on America's ability to be competitive in the global economy, and much more importantly, it has a real opportunity cost in terms of quality of life and health.

Keep those deductables high but throw in that guaranteed income and keep everyone happy? "Gee, I can pay for that MRI of that knee that's bothering me or I go to Disney World. Hmm."

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Hee Hee, Playwrite said toadie.

[/INDENT]

Hey, how did you get that picture of me and Rani???

You know, we've both have worked hard at being incognito!

I'm just curious, PW ... I'm an old retired geezer, and STILL I wonder how you find the time for all this. Don't you have anything to do besides Fourth Turning Forum?

Originally Posted by TnT

I'm just curious, PW ... I'm an old retired geezer, and STILL I wonder how you find the time for all this. Don't you have anything to do besides Fourth Turning Forum?

Well, we all age differently. If those two sentences took you nearly an hour to write, you should have a talk with your doctor. Fortunately, it will be covered by your Medicare/Medicaid. Best of luck, old geezer.

On a more serious note, my career as a writer has been on the downswing (or, it could just be writer's block ) and I'm comfortable with the marks I have made over several decades in that field. I have always been involved in 'causes' - more charitable than political, but given the nature of today's political realities, the two have become quite jumbled up. A growing aspect of this has been fund raising which has waxed while my writing has waned. The thing about fund raising is if you are asking someone to donate 6 or 7 figures, you better know your shit and be pretty damn persuasive. Any guess what issues/campaigns I might be involved in?

Egad!


Prince

PS: !

Most writers write pretty quickly and can wax long on topics they care about, especially in a post when they're not editing. (I speak for myself.)

Originally Posted by playwrite

... The thing about fund raising is if you are asking someone to donate 6 or 7 figures, you better know your shit and be pretty damn persuasive. Any guess what issues/campaigns I might be involved in?

Donations to help high school debate teams travel around and compete?

Originally Posted by playwrite

snip

I'm not sure how you can improve on the model overall. Single payer has the potential for deeper pockets to pay for more rescue squads - but that gets you not only more lifeboats to harbor but more flotsam and jetsam as well - given my MMT beliefs, I'm okay with that, but politically it's a loser in the current environment.

I think the answer is on the tech side - making the lifeboats much more obvious and cheaper to pluck - I think that is coming in the next few years. I particularly hope it does for you and your wife's needs.

Fish pond diagram of MMT here.


But, where there are ponds, there may be ................................ TOADS.

"I have been examining the monthly jobs reports for a decade or longer. I must say that I am struck by the December report. Normally, a mainstay of jobs gain is the category “education and health services,” with “ambulatory health care services” adding thousands of jobs. In December the net contribution of “education and health services” was zero, with “ambulatory health care services” losing 4,100 jobs and health care losing 6,000 jobs. If memory serves, this is a first. Perhaps it reflects adverse impacts of the ripoff known as Obamacare, possibly the worst piece of domestic legislation passed in decades." Paul Craig Roberts

Originally Posted by Deb C

"I have been examining the monthly jobs reports for a decade or longer. I must say that I am struck by the December report. Normally, a mainstay of jobs gain is the category “education and health services,” with “ambulatory health care services” adding thousands of jobs. In December the net contribution of “education and health services” was zero, with “ambulatory health care services” losing 4,100 jobs and health care losing 6,000 jobs. If memory serves, this is a first. Perhaps it reflects adverse impacts of the ripoff known as Obamacare, possibly the worst piece of domestic legislation passed in decades." Paul Craig Roberts

Yea, that makes a lot sense since about 7 million uninsured will be getting insurance in 2014 and be able to access the medical system; millions more in the coming years - of course, that is going to reduce employment in the medical fields!

But it is true, Obamacare is likely responsible for the lack of economic growth, jobs, Gov. Christie's bridge closing, 9/11, erectile dysfunction, and of course, why the Game of Thrones wasn't even nominated for a Golden Globe this year! Evils, I tell ya, evils!

It must be great living in such a simple world!

Obamacare! Obamacare! Mufasa! Mufasa!

Good news: I have access to healthcare.
Bad news: I'm looking at a future of declining income.

Which one should I concentrate on politically?

Originally Posted by Kepi

Nothing new for trash like you. I don't read advice from human excrement. Here's my advice for you, you condescending moron.

First, buy a .45. It doesn't have to be expensive, you'll only be using it once.

Second, buy ammo that fits the weapon.

Third, pay someone to load and ready it for you. I know you'll need to pay someone because nobody can tolerate talking to you. Standing next to you requires great penance, I'm sure.

Fourth, like everything else you've ever gotten your grubby little mitts on, stick it in your mouth.

Fifth, sqeeze the trigger and instantly the world is a better place.

This seems like a waste of a perfectly good bullet.

Always remember that the really cheap prostitutes usually end up suffering from some horrible disease long before being killed by their pimps or johns, then stuffed into a dirty mattress or simply shoved behind a soiled dumpster in a poor neighborhood.

Patience lad.

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

Good news: I have access to healthcare.
Bad news: I'm looking at a future of declining income.

Which one should I concentrate on politically?

I heard it suggested that if you're looking at a future of something declining or that it's possible to lose, experiment with going without, or at least do a thought experiment on what it would be like without, and take your evaluations from there. It was also noted that workarounds tend to present themselves if you do it for, say, a week or a month.

This should help clarify which one is the more dire prospect.