Author Topic: Article - The Obamacare Retirement Plan  (Read 24500 times)

CarDude

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 609
  • Location: Chicago, IL
  • Beep Beep!
    • The CCD
Re: Article - The Obamacare Retirement Plan
« Reply #50 on: May 23, 2014, 09:57:26 AM »
And I don't get charged differently for those things depending on my income, or whether or not my private employer offers its own police department or library or drone fleet.

Of course you do.  Our progressive tax system ensures that you pay differently for government services depending on your income.

Yes; that's the same in every country. That's normal and is the way things should be. What he's saying is that he doesn't get charged *outside* of his taxes the way he does for healthcare. That part is uniquely American (at least compared to our fellow rich countries).

Nonsense.  There are plenty of countries where government provides neither doctors (like the UK) or insurance from taxes (like Canada or Germany).

http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/about/Pages/overview.aspx

Quote from: NHS
The NHS employs more than 1.7m people. Of those, just under half are clinically qualified, including, 39,780 general practitioners (GPs), 370,327 nurses, 18,687 ambulance staff and 105,711 hospital and community health service (HCHS) medical and dental staff.

Quote from: NHS
Funding for the NHS comes directly from taxation and is granted to the Department of Health by Parliament.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Article - The Obamacare Retirement Plan
« Reply #51 on: May 23, 2014, 10:01:39 AM »
Sorry, I guess that was confusing. The parentheses show countries that are examples:
The UK directly employs doctors (in addition to collecting funds from taxes to pay for them)
Canada and Germany pay private doctors out of taxes (but most are not employed directly by the government)
Switzerland does neither, and requires individuals to purchase insurance

PeteD01

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
Re: Article - The Obamacare Retirement Plan
« Reply #52 on: May 23, 2014, 10:11:10 AM »
Sorry, I guess that was confusing. The parentheses show countries that are examples:
The UK directly employs doctors (in addition to collecting funds from taxes to pay for them)
Canada and Germany pay private doctors out of taxes (but most are not employed directly by the government)
Switzerland does neither, and requires individuals to purchase insurance

Germany does not pay doctors from taxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany
« Last Edit: May 23, 2014, 10:14:48 AM by PeteD01 »

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Article - The Obamacare Retirement Plan
« Reply #53 on: May 23, 2014, 10:22:44 AM »
Sorry, I guess that was confusing. The parentheses show countries that are examples:
The UK directly employs doctors (in addition to collecting funds from taxes to pay for them)
Canada and Germany pay private doctors out of taxes (but most are not employed directly by the government)
Switzerland does neither, and requires individuals to purchase insurance

Germany does not pay doctors from taxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany

Yes they do. From your link:
"Provider compensation rates are negotiated in complex corporatist social bargaining among specified autonomously organized interest groups (e.g. physicians' associations) at the level of federal states (Länder)."

That means the doctors are compensated for services they provide, not because they are employees of the state -- which is what I said.

PeteD01

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
Re: Article - The Obamacare Retirement Plan
« Reply #54 on: May 23, 2014, 10:36:32 AM »
Sorry, I guess that was confusing. The parentheses show countries that are examples:
The UK directly employs doctors (in addition to collecting funds from taxes to pay for them)
Canada and Germany pay private doctors out of taxes (but most are not employed directly by the government)
Switzerland does neither, and requires individuals to purchase insurance

Germany does not pay doctors from taxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany

Yes they do. From your link:
"Provider compensation rates are negotiated in complex corporatist social bargaining among specified autonomously organized interest groups (e.g. physicians' associations) at the level of federal states (Länder)."

That means the doctors are compensated for services they provide, not because they are employees of the state -- which is what I said.

You might want to read the sentence you posted a little more carefully: The "complex corporatist social bargaining" is negotiated "among specified autonomously organized interest groups (e.g. physicians' associations) at the level of federal states (Länder)" simply because "physicians' associations" and others are organized at the state (Länder) level. The German federal government does NOT take part directly in these negotiations.
The German health care system is a multi-payer system with mandatory insurance. The private insurance system is, well, private and the public system consists of over a thousand independently managed not-for-profit "sickness funds" funded by employers, employees and government subsidies of insurance premiums for low income employees and welfare recipients. Tax dollars in Germany never go directly to a healthcare provider but are always funneled through the highly regulated insurance landscape.
Medicare and Medicaid make the US look almost socialist compared to Germany.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Article - The Obamacare Retirement Plan
« Reply #55 on: May 23, 2014, 10:44:05 AM »
Sorry, I guess that was confusing. The parentheses show countries that are examples:
The UK directly employs doctors (in addition to collecting funds from taxes to pay for them)
Canada and Germany pay private doctors out of taxes (but most are not employed directly by the government)
Switzerland does neither, and requires individuals to purchase insurance

Germany does not pay doctors from taxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany

Yes they do. From your link:
"Provider compensation rates are negotiated in complex corporatist social bargaining among specified autonomously organized interest groups (e.g. physicians' associations) at the level of federal states (Länder)."

That means the doctors are compensated for services they provide, not because they are employees of the state -- which is what I said.

You might want to read the sentence you posted a little more carefully: The "complex corporatist social bargaining" is negotiated "among specified autonomously organized interest groups (e.g. physicians' associations) at the level of federal states (Länder)" simply because "physicians' associations" and others are organized at the state (Länder) level. The German federal government does NOT take part directly in these negotiations.
The German health care system is a multi-payer system with mandatory insurance. The private insurance system is, well, private and the public system consists of over a thousand independently managed not-for-profit "sickness funds" funded by employers, employees and government subsidies of insurance premiums for low income employees and welfare recipients. Tax dollars in Germany never go directly to a healthcare provider but are always funneled through the highly regulated insurance landscape.
Medicare and Medicaid make the US look almost socialist compared to Germany.

Whether it takes place at a state or federal level is immaterial to my point.  My point is that Germany collects tax dollars to pay for healthcare, and eventually doctors get paid, but doctors are not employed by the state.

This is in contrast to systems like Switzerland, where individuals purchase insurance directly from insurance companies, and the premium is not a fixed percentage of salary.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Article - The Obamacare Retirement Plan
« Reply #56 on: May 23, 2014, 10:47:50 AM »
And anyway, my larger point was that this statement:

What he's saying is that he doesn't get charged *outside* of his taxes the way he does for healthcare. That part is uniquely American (at least compared to our fellow rich countries).

is wildly inaccurate.  There are plenty of countries with universal health coverage where you get charged for coverage outside of taxes.

PeteD01

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
Re: Article - The Obamacare Retirement Plan
« Reply #57 on: May 23, 2014, 10:52:00 AM »
Sorry, I guess that was confusing. The parentheses show countries that are examples:
The UK directly employs doctors (in addition to collecting funds from taxes to pay for them)
Canada and Germany pay private doctors out of taxes (but most are not employed directly by the government)
Switzerland does neither, and requires individuals to purchase insurance

Germany does not pay doctors from taxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany

Yes they do. From your link:
"Provider compensation rates are negotiated in complex corporatist social bargaining among specified autonomously organized interest groups (e.g. physicians' associations) at the level of federal states (Länder)."

That means the doctors are compensated for services they provide, not because they are employees of the state -- which is what I said.

You might want to read the sentence you posted a little more carefully: The "complex corporatist social bargaining" is negotiated "among specified autonomously organized interest groups (e.g. physicians' associations) at the level of federal states (Länder)" simply because "physicians' associations" and others are organized at the state (Länder) level. The German federal government does NOT take part directly in these negotiations.
The German health care system is a multi-payer system with mandatory insurance. The private insurance system is, well, private and the public system consists of over a thousand independently managed not-for-profit "sickness funds" funded by employers, employees and government subsidies of insurance premiums for low income employees and welfare recipients. Tax dollars in Germany never go directly to a healthcare provider but are always funneled through the highly regulated insurance landscape.
Medicare and Medicaid make the US look almost socialist compared to Germany.

Whether it takes place at a state or federal level is immaterial to my point.  My point is that Germany collects tax dollars to pay for healthcare, and eventually doctors get paid, but doctors are not employed by the state.

This is in contrast to systems like Switzerland, where individuals purchase insurance directly from insurance companies, and the premium is not a fixed percentage of salary.

You are making this nonsense up as you go, aren't you?

As far as Switzerland goes, here is a quote from Wikipedia (information at your fingertips, so to speak):

"(Switzerland) The insured person pays the insurance premium for the basic plan up to 8% of their personal income. If a premium is higher than this, the government gives the insured person a cash subsidy to pay for any additional premium"

Just FYI, I have worked in the German system, for the NHS in the UK, and in US healthcare and know a thing or two about the subject matter.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Article - The Obamacare Retirement Plan
« Reply #58 on: May 23, 2014, 10:58:11 AM »
You are making this nonsense up as you go, aren't you?

As far as Switzerland goes, here is a quote from Wikipedia (information at your fingertips, so to speak):

"(Switzerland) The insured person pays the insurance premium for the basic plan up to 8% of their personal income. If a premium is higher than this, the government gives the insured person a cash subsidy to pay for any additional premium"

Just FYI, I have worked in the German system, for the NHS in the UK, and in US healthcare and know a thing or two about the subject matter.

While my knowledge of the German system is perhaps overly simplified, my knowledge of the Swiss system is good and firsthand.  You've described a premium cap in Switzerland, which certainly exists, just as premium subsidies exist in the US to cap insurance premiums.  Just because premium subsidies are based on income doesn't mean that the premiums themselves are not a function of income.

And again, you're completely missing my point, which is that there are many other ways to provide universal healthcare than what CareSafetyGuy said:
What he's saying is that he doesn't get charged *outside* of his taxes the way he does for healthcare. That part is uniquely American (at least compared to our fellow rich countries).

PeteD01

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
Re: Article - The Obamacare Retirement Plan
« Reply #59 on: May 23, 2014, 11:06:36 AM »



Whether it takes place at a state or federal level is immaterial to my point.  My point is that Germany collects tax dollars to pay for healthcare, and eventually doctors get paid, but doctors are not employed by the state.


You are not getting it, there is no negotiation at the federal nor at the state government level. The healthcare system is just not organized like that.
Tax dollars are not spend directly on healthcare but as insurance premium subsidies. That's how it is done in Germany, Switzerland, and in the US as far as the person falls under the ACA.
Medicare and Medicaid are government run and tax funded pay for service entities.
Now, if a tax funded insurance premium subsidy and direct payment for service and government run healthcare (like the VA system or the NHS (UK)) is all the same to you because "it's the government paying for healthcare", then anything I could possibly say would be an immaterial subtlety to you anyways.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Article - The Obamacare Retirement Plan
« Reply #60 on: May 23, 2014, 11:15:04 AM »



Whether it takes place at a state or federal level is immaterial to my point.  My point is that Germany collects tax dollars to pay for healthcare, and eventually doctors get paid, but doctors are not employed by the state.


You are not getting it, there is no negotiation at the federal nor at the state government level. The healthcare system is just not organized like that.
Tax dollars are not spend directly on healthcare but as insurance premium subsidies. That's how it is done in Germany, Switzerland, and in the US as far as the person falls under the ACA.
Medicare and Medicaid are government run and tax funded pay for service entities.
Now, if a tax funded insurance premium subsidy and direct payment for service and government run healthcare (like the VA system or the NHS (UK)) is all the same to you because "it's the government paying for healthcare", then anything I could possibly say would be an immaterial subtlety to you anyways.

Please stop putting words in my mouth.  I'm happy to address the facts, and I'm quite willing to admit that I may be wrong on the German health care system.  But you're still not addressing my actual point, the one I've repeated three times!

If I'm wrong on the German example, my larger point still stands (and here I'll repeat it for a fourth time):
There are many other ways to provide universal health care than only paying taxes.

Edit: If you're saying that Germany does not collect taxes for health care, that in fact supports my larger point by providing another example.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2014, 11:24:27 AM by beltim »

PeteD01

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
Re: Article - The Obamacare Retirement Plan
« Reply #61 on: May 23, 2014, 11:56:37 AM »



Whether it takes place at a state or federal level is immaterial to my point.  My point is that Germany collects tax dollars to pay for healthcare, and eventually doctors get paid, but doctors are not employed by the state.


You are not getting it, there is no negotiation at the federal nor at the state government level. The healthcare system is just not organized like that.
Tax dollars are not spend directly on healthcare but as insurance premium subsidies. That's how it is done in Germany, Switzerland, and in the US as far as the person falls under the ACA.
Medicare and Medicaid are government run and tax funded pay for service entities.
Now, if a tax funded insurance premium subsidy and direct payment for service and government run healthcare (like the VA system or the NHS (UK)) is all the same to you because "it's the government paying for healthcare", then anything I could possibly say would be an immaterial subtlety to you anyways.

Please stop putting words in my mouth.  I'm happy to address the facts, and I'm quite willing to admit that I may be wrong on the German health care system.  But you're still not addressing my actual point, the one I've repeated three times!

If I'm wrong on the German example, my larger point still stands (and here I'll repeat it for a fourth time):
There are many other ways to provide universal health care than only paying taxes.

Edit: If you're saying that Germany does not collect taxes for health care, that in fact supports my larger point by providing another example.

I get your larger point but you got to get your facts straight or the discussion is going to be all over the place.
One is essentially dealing with three models:

1) Tax funded single payer system (Canada) (Medicaid, Medicare)
2) Tax funded universal health care system (UK) (VA system)
3) Tax subsidized heavily regulated insurance market system with universal mandate (Switzerland, Germany) (ACA)

As usual the US comes out the richest of all - it's got a mixture of all three.

In the US, the Government has already created a tax funded single payer system for some of the highest risk groups via Medicare and Medicaid and essentially determines what insurances have to cover via Medicare approval rules. I find it difficult to imagine such a system to be successfully complemented by a tax subsidized heavily regulated insurance market with universal mandate (ACA).
I personally think that the existence of the Medicare program alone almost guarantees that the US will gravitate towards a single payer system in the long run. I may be wrong, but I can't see a hybrid system surviving very long and the chances of terminating the Medicare program and moving to universal ACA like coverage are essentially nil.


MoneyCat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: New Jersey
Re: Article - The Obamacare Retirement Plan
« Reply #62 on: May 23, 2014, 01:46:37 PM »
I am really excited about the ACA even though I already have employer health coverage.  That's because now I don't have to worry that I won't be able to afford insurance if I decide to quit my job to start my own business.  That was a huge reason why I haven't tried it before.

thepokercab

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 484
Re: Article - The Obamacare Retirement Plan
« Reply #63 on: May 23, 2014, 04:48:59 PM »
I am really excited about the ACA even though I already have employer health coverage.  That's because now I don't have to worry that I won't be able to afford insurance if I decide to quit my job to start my own business.  That was a huge reason why I haven't tried it before.

I agree 100%.  I've got a job that i'm not totally in love with, and have really been strongly considering jumping ship and working as an independent contractor for some clients that i like.  But, right now my family is on my employer's insurance.  Well i went onto the ACA and saw some really decent family plans ranging from $400-500 a month.  Not exactly cheap, but totally doable.  (my employer already takes out something like $200 per pay period for premiums anyway)

A few years ago, this wouldn't of even been a possibility. 

Beaker

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 334
Re: Article - The Obamacare Retirement Plan
« Reply #64 on: May 27, 2014, 05:23:26 PM »
Health care is, or should be, a basic entitlement. Your lifestyle choices aren't.
Precisely backwards. Choosing how to live your life is a basic human right, health care is just a nice-to-have entitlement.

If someone gets cancer and can't afford the treatment, you're saying we should let them die?

No, I was making the point that the freedom to live as you please (to make your own "lifestyle choices") is more fundamental than healthcare. Freedom of speech, freedom of action, etc are rights that you naturally have until and unless someone takes them away from you. That's why they are called the natural rights.

Health care is something you don't have until and unless someone provides it to you (unless you're a doctor yourself). It is not a basic human right, it is an entitlement. A nice one, certainly, but nowhere near as important as the right to choose your own lifestyle. And if you believe healthcare is more basic and more important, then by all commit some crimes and claim your guaranteed prison healthcare.

That's not to say that creating a healthcare entitlement program is necessarily a bad idea - there's are reasonable arguments to be made for it. But "it's more basic than your freedom to choose your lifestyle" is not one of them.

Quote
It shocks me that people can think this way, that health care isn't a basic human right.
It shocks me that people can think government freebies are more important than their basic freedoms, and it shocks me that people don't understand the difference between a right and an entitlement.

Again, I'm not saying we should let people die in the streets. As a practical matter, guaranteed healthcare makes some sense. But I think it's important to be clear about which things are basic rights, which are merely nice-to-have entitlements, which are more important and exactly what the tradeoff is between them. Sloppy thinking can lead to sloppy, and poor, decisions.

Spartana

  • Guest
Re: Article - The Obamacare Retirement Plan
« Reply #65 on: May 27, 2014, 06:48:05 PM »
Which makes me wish all of us could just go to the doctor or hospital when we're sick, without paying, and without some complex insurance scheme. I don't get a bill if I have to call the police or fire department, send my kids to our local public school, or check out a book from the library, or if my government has to launch a missile at an Islamist militant. And I don't get charged differently for those things depending on my income, or whether or not my private employer offers its own police department or library or drone fleet.

Why should health care be any different? Just f'ing take it out of everyone's taxes, and be done with it. I'm sure it's impossible to do though, otherwise another developed country would have done it already....... Plus we'd obviously become - gasp! - SOCIALISTS!!!
I use a healthcare system like that. It's called the VA system - and it's so highly regarded it's been in the news a lot  lately for the fine service it renders :-(

Actually I have no beef with the VA and have had good service there (but long long waits and often months until I can get an appt.). But it is an example of what socialized government run medical services may be like.  But it did help me ER at an early age.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2014, 06:51:23 PM by Spartana »

Argyle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 904
Re: Article - The Obamacare Retirement Plan
« Reply #66 on: May 31, 2014, 05:58:40 PM »
The capitalist system doesn't necessarily make health care any more convenient.  I injured my knee and had to wait four months hobbling with canes before I could get in to see an orthopedist in this town.  There are just too few doctors for the population.  And that's with health insurance.  The uninsured people are even worse off.  Incidentally I pay $900 per month for employer-sponsored health insurance for me and family.  When I'm in Britain, where I live part-time, I invariably get in to see a doctor the next day.  Admittedly in Britain, voluntary procedures such as having a mole removed have taken up to six weeks to get in for.

iris lily

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5672
Re: Article - The Obamacare Retirement Plan
« Reply #67 on: June 01, 2014, 11:12:21 AM »

It shocks me that people can think government freebies are more important than their basic freedoms, and it shocks me that people don't understand the difference between a right and an entitlement.

+1

MoneyCat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: New Jersey
Re: Article - The Obamacare Retirement Plan
« Reply #68 on: June 01, 2014, 06:38:29 PM »
Libertarians are really silly.  Even Ayn Rand accepted Social Security in her old age, because when it comes down to it you should do what benefits you.  Obamacare benefits anybody who cannot get employer provided insurance.  Period.  All this nebulous nonsense about "rights" is irrelevant compared to the effectiveness of this policy.

Daleth

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1201
Re: Article - The Obamacare Retirement Plan
« Reply #69 on: June 01, 2014, 06:49:08 PM »
If the ACA results in some people choosing not to work, that will help with the unemployment rate, right? I know that's not the point of the OP, just something I thought of. You could think of it like you are paying a subsidy that makes it possible for someone else to have the job that was abandoned. Not sure if that is better.

That's a very good point, and I think it is better. More jobs for those who want and need them--that's for sure a good thing. And frankly I think if I'm doing something to help the unemployment rate, if I'm helping someone get a job they need, that's just as good for the nation as if I'm working myself.

lithy

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 178
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Mount Oliver, PA
  • Drink Indigenous
Re: Article - The Obamacare Retirement Plan
« Reply #70 on: June 01, 2014, 07:17:21 PM »
Libertarians are really silly.  Even Ayn Rand accepted Social Security in her old age, because when it comes down to it you should do what benefits you.  Obamacare benefits anybody who cannot get employer provided insurance.  Period.  All this nebulous nonsense about "rights" is irrelevant compared to the effectiveness of this policy.

So since it would be most effective to just have the police do a complete indiscriminate search of every house when looking for a criminal, the 4th Amendment is irrelevant?

MoneyCat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: New Jersey
Re: Article - The Obamacare Retirement Plan
« Reply #71 on: June 01, 2014, 08:10:03 PM »
Libertarians are really silly.  Even Ayn Rand accepted Social Security in her old age, because when it comes down to it you should do what benefits you.  Obamacare benefits anybody who cannot get employer provided insurance.  Period.  All this nebulous nonsense about "rights" is irrelevant compared to the effectiveness of this policy.

So since it would be most effective to just have the police do a complete indiscriminate search of every house when looking for a criminal, the 4th Amendment is irrelevant?

You'll find out soon since that is part of Obamacare.  It comes right after the part about the death panels.

prof61820

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 340
  • Location: Illinois
Re: Article - The Obamacare Retirement Plan
« Reply #72 on: June 02, 2014, 07:03:08 AM »
I'm planning my entire early retirement around the ACA subsidy.  I can get about 50 percent of my insurance through subsidy.   Silver plan for my wife and I would be about $4,000 to $5,000 if we kept our income low enough.  I'm planning to live on $50,000 annually in retirement from mostly passive income.  I'd still like to work enough to continue to fund our Roth IRA'S.   Which would be $13,000 so that really only leaves us with $37,000 annually for living expenses. It is a challenge.   We could probably use a withdrawal rate of 3% or less.  Who would have thought that the Obama Care would encourage frugality.

How do you feel about this paragraph?

Quote
If you're receiving transfers and services financed out of taxes, as we all are, you have an obligation. I can respect a person's choice not to work, but if you're going to opt out of that avoidable suffering, I wish you wouldn't do it at my expense.

I feel the same way about this strategy as I feel about "tax avoidance" strategies for corporations and high net worth individuals that move/hide taxable assets overseas or to other states that allow "dynsasty trusts."  I feel the same way about this strategy as Walmart and other corporations paying wages and benefits so low that their employees need to rely on food stamps, medicaid and other government programs to survive.  Just as most financial publications have no issues with corporations utilizing existing laws to maximize profits, the same publications should have no issues with middle class Americans using existing law to maximize their own personal benefits.  If we're going to "reform" behavior of those benefiting from living/working/existing in this great nation, we need to reform all behaviors (individual and corporate) that arguably take unfair advantage of existing law.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2014, 07:17:16 AM by prof61820 »

iris lily

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5672
Re: Article - The Obamacare Retirement Plan
« Reply #73 on: June 02, 2014, 09:47:03 AM »
I'm planning my entire early retirement around the ACA subsidy.  I can get about 50 percent of my insurance through subsidy.   Silver plan for my wife and I would be about $4,000 to $5,000 if we kept our income low enough.  I'm planning to live on $50,000 annually in retirement from mostly passive income.  I'd still like to work enough to continue to fund our Roth IRA'S.   Which would be $13,000 so that really only leaves us with $37,000 annually for living expenses. It is a challenge.   We could probably use a withdrawal rate of 3% or less.  Who would have thought that the Obama Care would encourage frugality.

How do you feel about this paragraph?

Quote
If you're receiving transfers and services financed out of taxes, as we all are, you have an obligation. I can respect a person's choice not to work, but if you're going to opt out of that avoidable suffering, I wish you wouldn't do it at my expense.

I feel the same way about this strategy as I feel about "tax avoidance" strategies for corporations and high net worth individuals that move/hide taxable assets overseas or to other states that allow "dynsasty trusts."  I feel the same way about this strategy as Walmart and other corporations paying wages and benefits so low that their employees need to rely on food stamps, medicaid and other government programs to survive.  Just as most financial publications have no issues with corporations utilizing existing laws to maximize profits, the same publications should have no issues with middle class Americans using existing law to maximize their own personal benefits.  If we're going to "reform" behavior of those benefiting from living/working/existing in this great nation, we need to reform all behaviors (individual and corporate) that arguably take unfair advantage of existing law.

I could have written Bateauxdriver's paragraph. The intent and numbers are eerily similar to mine.

That said, I do not disagree with your sentiment, or think that you are an ogre, for thinking that in some capacity this strategy is fleecing the taxpayers.

I don't think the ACA is a good thing for this country for many reasons. But I sure as h*ll will take advantage of it.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2014, 07:13:26 PM by iris lily »

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
Re: Article - The Obamacare Retirement Plan
« Reply #74 on: June 02, 2014, 11:35:44 AM »
I don't know why anyone would feel bad about taking an ACA subsidy. Every other country in the world subsidizes healthcare in some form. This is not an issue the United States is correct on.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Article - The Obamacare Retirement Plan
« Reply #75 on: June 02, 2014, 11:56:34 AM »
I don't know why anyone would feel bad about taking an ACA subsidy. Every other country in the world subsidizes healthcare in some form. This is not an issue the United States is correct on.

These statements are contradictory.  Healthcare subsidies in the US are already enshrined in law.  So what is the United States incorrect on?

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
Re: Article - The Obamacare Retirement Plan
« Reply #76 on: June 02, 2014, 12:48:37 PM »
I don't know why anyone would feel bad about taking an ACA subsidy. Every other country in the world subsidizes healthcare in some form. This is not an issue the United States is correct on.

These statements are contradictory.  Healthcare subsidies in the US are already enshrined in law.  So what is the United States incorrect on?

I guess I could have phrased that better. The pre-ACA status quo was incorrect.

KayakMom

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 35
  • Location: all over the place
Re: Article - The Obamacare Retirement Plan
« Reply #77 on: June 02, 2014, 03:33:49 PM »
Libertarians are really silly.  Even Ayn Rand accepted Social Security in her old age, because when it comes down to it you should do what benefits you.  Obamacare benefits anybody who cannot get employer provided insurance.  Period.  All this nebulous nonsense about "rights" is irrelevant compared to the effectiveness of this policy.

assume the US passed a law that it's everyones' "right" to have a fuel efficient car.  So they steal our money and buy the car that is deemed the most efficient by a bunch of old fat cats who know less about cars then me.  So after US gov goes into my bank account and takes $40K out of my bank account they plop a new diesel Jetta in my driveway because they've deemed that's better for the collective.
So then I (or Ayn Rand) look at that new car. We could go out and buy another car or use the car sitting in my driveway.  It doesn't make much sense, though.  The government doesn't give you your money back once they've stolen it.  Any rational person would use the car in the driveway (that the gov bought with his or her hard-earned dollars, remember) and that doesn't make him or her a hypocrite.   
Just because I believe my money shouldn't have been stolen in the first place doesn't mean I can't use to my benefit the car (or social program) my stolen money bought.

prof61820

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 340
  • Location: Illinois
Re: Article - The Obamacare Retirement Plan
« Reply #78 on: June 02, 2014, 03:53:12 PM »
Libertarians are really silly.  Even Ayn Rand accepted Social Security in her old age, because when it comes down to it you should do what benefits you.  Obamacare benefits anybody who cannot get employer provided insurance.  Period.  All this nebulous nonsense about "rights" is irrelevant compared to the effectiveness of this policy.

assume the US passed a law that it's everyones' "right" to have a fuel efficient car.  So they steal our money and buy the car that is deemed the most efficient by a bunch of old fat cats who know less about cars then me.  So after US gov goes into my bank account and takes $40K out of my bank account they plop a new diesel Jetta in my driveway because they've deemed that's better for the collective.
So then I (or Ayn Rand) look at that new car. We could go out and buy another car or use the car sitting in my driveway.  It doesn't make much sense, though.  The government doesn't give you your money back once they've stolen it.  Any rational person would use the car in the driveway (that the gov bought with his or her hard-earned dollars, remember) and that doesn't make him or her a hypocrite.   
Just because I believe my money shouldn't have been stolen in the first place doesn't mean I can't use to my benefit the car (or social program) my stolen money bought.

If your money was "stolen," call the cops.  Oh yeah, they stole your money to pay the cops, sorry.  How about the military?  Oh yeah...

KayakMom

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 35
  • Location: all over the place
Re: Article - The Obamacare Retirement Plan
« Reply #79 on: June 02, 2014, 04:47:35 PM »


If your money was "stolen," call the cops.  Oh yeah, they stole your money to pay the cops, sorry.  How about the military?  Oh yeah...
[/quote]

Cute, but certainly not a logical argument against my point.
Maybe I'll call some overweight, set-financially-for-life senator to help me, oh wait my money pays for them, too. 
It seems like it's harder and harder to find someone that my money doesn't pay for. 

Eric

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4057
  • Location: On my bike
Re: Article - The Obamacare Retirement Plan
« Reply #80 on: June 02, 2014, 05:07:48 PM »
It seems like it's harder and harder to find someone that my money doesn't pay for.

You know what this is?


prof61820

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 340
  • Location: Illinois
Re: Article - The Obamacare Retirement Plan
« Reply #81 on: June 02, 2014, 05:31:19 PM »


If your money was "stolen," call the cops.  Oh yeah, they stole your money to pay the cops, sorry.  How about the military?  Oh yeah...

Cute, but certainly not a logical argument against my point.
Maybe I'll call some overweight, set-financially-for-life senator to help me, oh wait my money pays for them, too. 
It seems like it's harder and harder to find someone that my money doesn't pay for.

I do believe that your "point" was based on your money being "stolen."  That would be a faulty premise.  Maybe you can explain what government programs are funded with "stolen" money and which ones are not?
« Last Edit: June 02, 2014, 05:34:03 PM by prof61820 »

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
Re: Article - The Obamacare Retirement Plan
« Reply #82 on: June 02, 2014, 06:21:11 PM »
assume the US passed a law that it's everyones' "right" to have a fuel efficient car.  So they steal our money and buy the car that is deemed the most efficient by a bunch of old fat cats who know less about cars then me.  So after US gov goes into my bank account and takes $40K out of my bank account they plop a new diesel Jetta in my driveway because they've deemed that's better for the collective.
So then I (or Ayn Rand) look at that new car. We could go out and buy another car or use the car sitting in my driveway.  It doesn't make much sense, though.  The government doesn't give you your money back once they've stolen it.  Any rational person would use the car in the driveway (that the gov bought with his or her hard-earned dollars, remember) and that doesn't make him or her a hypocrite.   
Just because I believe my money shouldn't have been stolen in the first place doesn't mean I can't use to my benefit the car (or social program) my stolen money bought.

This analogy makes no sense.

1. It's more like the government "stole" 40 cents from everyone's bank account. I think that's an important distinction.

2. The government has already passed many laws that's it's our "right" to have certain types of cars. Go try to buy a new car without seat belts, airbags, or electronic stability control.

3. Comparing cars to healthcare is silly. Completely different marketplaces.

4. Will your imaginary citizen give back the car once they've paid their 40K in taxes? Many people will receive more from SS and medicare than they paid in. Are they supposed to stop the checks at a certain point?

Beaker

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 334
Re: Article - The Obamacare Retirement Plan
« Reply #83 on: June 03, 2014, 08:23:45 AM »


If your money was "stolen," call the cops.  Oh yeah, they stole your money to pay the cops, sorry.  How about the military?  Oh yeah...

Cute, but certainly not a logical argument against my point.
Maybe I'll call some overweight, set-financially-for-life senator to help me, oh wait my money pays for them, too. 
It seems like it's harder and harder to find someone that my money doesn't pay for.

I do believe that your "point" was based on your money being "stolen."  That would be a faulty premise.  Maybe you can explain what government programs are funded with "stolen" money and which ones are not?

I think perhaps KayakMom shouldn't have used the incendiary term "stolen." I don't think the concept of theft is actually central to her point.

I believe the point she was making is that it's not hypocritical to use something that you're paying for, even if you opposed the idea of doing it in the first place. I may have opposed buying pizza for dinner, but if my wife does it anyway (with our joint funds) is it hypocritical for me to eat a slice? I'd say not. By the same token, even if I opposed the ACA, once it's the law I must pay for it, so it is not hypocritical for me to use it.

To MoneyCat's point about Ayn Rand and Social Security, she was required to pay into Social Security. Once she's paid for it, whether voluntarily or not, it's not hypocritical to use it.

foobar

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 731
Re: Article - The Obamacare Retirement Plan
« Reply #84 on: June 03, 2014, 11:15:56 AM »
Why not use the government? Private industry has had 80 years to come up for a solution. They have failed.  Why not go with a government solution that cost 50%+ less? We are paying a lot of ideology by ignoring reality.

There is a reason why no republican offered up an alternative to obamacare in the past 6 years. There are no easy solutions. You can shuffle deck chairs around to focus on different things but in the end there are a dozen or so participants with different desired outcomes. Not all of them can get what they want.



But that's another thing, why is there a presumption there's not another solution?

If you dissolved the artificial circumstances that make it cost more (I actually agree employer based insurance is one of those), the prices would go down.  More people could afford the treatment and the insurance, preventing these tragedies in the first place.

In the instances that couldn't, do you really think rational people won't solve that issue somehow without the government?

Also, again why can't we have a middle ground?  A good compromise might a tax cedit for catastrophic insurance.  I mean I don't like that idea but I like it better than the current system.  I just named that off the top of my head, I'm sure there are other ideas.

Spartana

  • Guest
Re: Article - The Obamacare Retirement Plan
« Reply #85 on: June 10, 2014, 04:02:54 PM »
I don't know why anyone would feel bad about taking an ACA subsidy. Every other country in the world subsidizes healthcare in some form. This is not an issue the United States is correct on.
Because in other countries universal healthcare is for everyone - rich and poor and in between - rather than just a select group as the ACA is. In other countries, health insurance is treated like our public education system is. Everyone is entitled to healthcare regardless of your income or your assets. The ACA doesn't work that way at all. Many people are not entitled to either the subsidies or Medicaid. If your taxable income is high, you can not get subsidies and have to pay for your health insurance premiums  100% yourself - and often at new higher premium levels - as well as pay additional taxes to pay for the health insurance costs of others (who may have a smaller taxable income but overall greater income from non-taxable sources as well as greater assets then you since assets and non-taxable income aren't means tested - many of us ER's are in that group). If you have a low taxable income (below the approx. $16K level) then you will not be able to get subsidies either - only Medicaid - and if you aren't in a Medicaid-expanded state then you must buy your own insurance without subsidies (again at new higher ACA premium levels) or go without.  So for many people, myself included, I don't think it is right for others to pay for my health insurance via subsidies or Medicaid (which as a low taxable income/high asset early retiree I can get) because I choose to quit work at a young age to pay volleyball on the beach all day and have the financial assets to pay for my own health insurance. I'd rather have low cost plans (catastrophic plans) be allowed to continue and pay for them myself. Now if we had true universal health insurance coverage for everyone - something everyone paid taxes for - then I'd be all for it.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2014, 04:14:28 PM by Spartana »