Author Topic: Kathleen Sebelius is an anti-mustachian Pro  (Read 8713 times)

mpbaker22

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
Kathleen Sebelius is an anti-mustachian Pro
« on: October 23, 2013, 06:59:35 PM »
Did anyone see her interview on John Stewart?  She was talking about Obamacare subsidies and why they are necessary to make healthcare affordable.

“There are people who will pay money. And many of them will pay less than they pay for their cable or their cell phone bill. And God knows we all [love cable.]”

My question is - why the hell does she feel that it's necessary to subsidize healthcare for people who have cable and cell phones (but mostly cable)!

capital

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 451
Re: Kathleen Sebelius is an anti-mustachian Pro
« Reply #1 on: October 23, 2013, 07:10:23 PM »
Health insurance is one hell of a lot more expensive than cable TV for a lot of people.

mpbaker22

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
Re: Kathleen Sebelius is an anti-mustachian Pro
« Reply #2 on: October 23, 2013, 07:15:41 PM »
Health insurance is one hell of a lot more expensive than cable TV for a lot of people.

As it should be.  So, why are we subsidizing health insurance for people who can afford cable TV - a luxury I cannot afford.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Kathleen Sebelius is an anti-mustachian Pro
« Reply #3 on: October 23, 2013, 07:48:52 PM »
That implies that you would also receive a subsidy.

mpbaker22

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
Re: Kathleen Sebelius is an anti-mustachian Pro
« Reply #4 on: October 23, 2013, 08:36:40 PM »
That implies that you would also receive a subsidy.

You assume both uses of the word afford are in the financial sense.  I financially can afford to purchase cable (though I definitely choose not to).  I cannot afford physically to have cable, and in fact, having cable would increase my need for health insurance!

On that last note, HHS should be putting a tax on cable if they were serious about making healthcare affordable.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Kathleen Sebelius is an anti-mustachian Pro
« Reply #5 on: October 23, 2013, 09:12:08 PM »
That implies that you would also receive a subsidy.

You assume both uses of the word afford are in the financial sense.  I financially can afford to purchase cable (though I definitely choose not to).  I cannot afford physically to have cable, and in fact, having cable would increase my need for health insurance!

On that last note, HHS should be putting a tax on cable if they were serious about making healthcare affordable.

Oh brother.  Okay, Mr. "I just used the same word twice in the same sentence but assumed you knew that when I was talking about me, I meant definition 1, whereas talking about people who have cable, I mean definition 2," then what you really meant was that the mere act of having cable is enough to increase your need for healthcare.  Obviously whether or not you USE it isn't important – your having cable alone is enough to increase your need for healthcare.

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4047
Re: Kathleen Sebelius is an anti-mustachian Pro
« Reply #6 on: October 23, 2013, 10:14:02 PM »
“There are people who will pay money. And many of them will pay less than they pay for their cable or their cell phone bill. And God knows we all [love cable.]”

Guess that proves that God is not omniscent :-)

But this begs the question: I don't have cable TV (though I do have cable internet for my work), and have a cheap cell phone only because it's about $25/month less than my land line was.  So why am I being asked to pay for the health insurance of people who apparently prefer to spend their money on this stuff?

Left

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1159
Re: Kathleen Sebelius is an anti-mustachian Pro
« Reply #7 on: October 23, 2013, 10:32:43 PM »
Even before the ACA kicked in, people are already paying for the health insurance of uninsured people. When they go to the ER, and they can't pay, who is footing the bill? The hospital takes the hit in costs, but they get federal money for it. That federal money is money that you paid into with your taxes that aren't going to things like roads/etc, things that you could benefit from. So I don't get why people keep saying ACA will make everyone pay for poor people (moral issues aside), and that if ACA went away, that they wouldn't have to pay. Plus for uninsured people, even if a fraction of them stops using the ER, the federal money that would have gone to it is diverted to something else or at least in theory (no practical data yet with it being so new)

Now and before, uninsured people were already being subsidized by federal money. Nothings changed except now you get to see that part of the federal bill. Everyone's heard about the rising costs of healthcare for the past decades, it didn't increase because of ACA. Show me something to indicate that costs have raised at a rate greater than inflation, corporate greed would have risen it.

all things aside, mmm has a post about ACA and how it may help http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/11/01/our-new-237-per-month-health-insurance-plan/
« Last Edit: October 23, 2013, 10:41:13 PM by eyem »

cdub

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 167
    • Mortgage Payoff Club
Re: Kathleen Sebelius is an anti-mustachian Pro
« Reply #8 on: October 23, 2013, 11:38:31 PM »
Even before the ACA kicked in, people are already paying for the health insurance of uninsured people. When they go to the ER, and they can't pay, who is footing the bill? The hospital takes the hit in costs, but they get federal money for it. That federal money is money that you paid into with your taxes that aren't going to things like roads/etc, things that you could benefit from. So I don't get why people keep saying ACA will make everyone pay for poor people (moral issues aside), and that if ACA went away, that they wouldn't have to pay. Plus for uninsured people, even if a fraction of them stops using the ER, the federal money that would have gone to it is diverted to something else or at least in theory (no practical data yet with it being so new)

Now and before, uninsured people were already being subsidized by federal money. Nothings changed except now you get to see that part of the federal bill. Everyone's heard about the rising costs of healthcare for the past decades, it didn't increase because of ACA. Show me something to indicate that costs have raised at a rate greater than inflation, corporate greed would have risen it.

all things aside, mmm has a post about ACA and how it may help http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/11/01/our-new-237-per-month-health-insurance-plan/

+1000

Thanks to Obamacare/ACA my wife is now finally free to leave her job that she hates  that she was only staying in to get our family healthcare. (I'm self-employed)

Now I can get quality health care for our family of 5 for $600 less than the cobra we'd be paying otherwise.

The ACA is a wonderful thing. Is it perfect? God no. But it will improve social mobility in this country. I know a ton of people who are stuck in jobs they HATE just for the health care. This makes it so they no longer need to do that.

davisgang90

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1269
  • Location: Roanoke, VA
    • Photography by Rich Davis
Re: Kathleen Sebelius is an anti-mustachian Pro
« Reply #9 on: October 24, 2013, 03:47:59 AM »
I think the virtually flawless roll out of the new website should be enough to quiet any holdouts against the ACA.

Young healthy people will pay for older not so-healthy people with higher premiums.  Seems like a solid plan.

Mr.Macinstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 923
Re: Kathleen Sebelius is an anti-mustachian Pro
« Reply #10 on: October 24, 2013, 07:54:27 AM »
I'm interested in how the ACA affects MMM's situation.

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1374
  • Location: Denver
Re: Kathleen Sebelius is an anti-mustachian Pro
« Reply #11 on: October 24, 2013, 08:18:37 AM »
Using the Kaiser calculator, someone in MMM's situation (2 38 year olds, 1 child, 30K annual income) would pay $1,250 a year for a silver plan after the subsidy. Or $104 per month.

According to Connect Colorado, the cheapest premium available is $482 per month before any subsidy.

mpbaker22

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
Re: Kathleen Sebelius is an anti-mustachian Pro
« Reply #12 on: October 24, 2013, 09:12:07 AM »
I think from an early retirement standpoint, it helps.  But I'm not sure we want government programs to encourage people to retire early by giving them subsidies.

For example, I currently live on about $12K/year (but I don't pay premiums on my employer sponsored healthcare).  That means I could retire when I get to 300K net worth.  Add in premiums pre-Obamacare with a $10K deductible, and I would need another $50K or so (I assumed an average premium of $150/month to account for old age - current premiums would be about $40 on the open market).  Add in another $2K per year to pay deductibles, and I need $400K total.

Under Obamacare, my current premium would be $150/month for a ~$6K deductible.  That's higher than what I have now.  But the key is, when I get to $300K, I can quit my job and live on income of $12K per year.  This qualifies me for almost $0 premiums after subsidies.  Add in the same $2K/year for deductibles, and I only need $350K to retire.  So there's a huge incentive to not work so I can save that $150 premium.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Kathleen Sebelius is an anti-mustachian Pro
« Reply #13 on: October 24, 2013, 10:30:08 AM »
I think from an early retirement standpoint, it helps.  But I'm not sure we want government programs to encourage people to retire early by giving them subsidies.


I strongly agree with this. And I actually think mpbaker is understating the effect on average (perhaps mpbaker is in a low cost health market?)  A bronze plan for a 55 year old couple is estimated at more than $9k per year, which would add $225k or so to a retirement stache.  This is a giant difference!

I suspect there will eventually be asset-based means testing for health insurance subsidies.  That would be terribly difficult to plan for.

mpbaker22

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
Re: Kathleen Sebelius is an anti-mustachian Pro
« Reply #14 on: October 24, 2013, 11:41:33 AM »
I think from an early retirement standpoint, it helps.  But I'm not sure we want government programs to encourage people to retire early by giving them subsidies.


I strongly agree with this. And I actually think mpbaker is understating the effect on average (perhaps mpbaker is in a low cost health market?)  A bronze plan for a 55 year old couple is estimated at more than $9k per year, which would add $225k or so to a retirement stache.  This is a giant difference!

I suspect there will eventually be asset-based means testing for health insurance subsidies.  That would be terribly difficult to plan for.

I am a 24 year old single male so my insurance rates now are going to be quite low either way.  However, I have kept close track of the non-employer sponsored healthcare market in case I should need it.  I was able to get a plan for $35 with a $10K deductible.  Now, the cheapest one offered on healthcare.gov is somewhere between $100 and $110 (don't remember exactly), with the max catastrophic deductible (approximately $6500).  But if I weren't working, and my only income were from capital gains, my insurance would be (nearly) free to me, high cost to the taxpayer.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Kathleen Sebelius is an anti-mustachian Pro
« Reply #15 on: October 24, 2013, 11:53:01 AM »
I think from an early retirement standpoint, it helps.  But I'm not sure we want government programs to encourage people to retire early by giving them subsidies.


I strongly agree with this. And I actually think mpbaker is understating the effect on average (perhaps mpbaker is in a low cost health market?)  A bronze plan for a 55 year old couple is estimated at more than $9k per year, which would add $225k or so to a retirement stache.  This is a giant difference!

I suspect there will eventually be asset-based means testing for health insurance subsidies.  That would be terribly difficult to plan for.

I am a 24 year old single male so my insurance rates now are going to be quite low either way.  However, I have kept close track of the non-employer sponsored healthcare market in case I should need it.  I was able to get a plan for $35 with a $10K deductible.  Now, the cheapest one offered on healthcare.gov is somewhere between $100 and $110 (don't remember exactly), with the max catastrophic deductible (approximately $6500).  But if I weren't working, and my only income were from capital gains, my insurance would be (nearly) free to me, high cost to the taxpayer.

I don't doubt your current numbers.  But under the ACA, catastrophic plans of the kind you have are only available to those under 30 (or in a few other specialized cases).  What would your numbers be at age 31?

oldtoyota

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3163
Re: Kathleen Sebelius is an anti-mustachian Pro
« Reply #16 on: October 24, 2013, 11:53:29 AM »
“There are people who will pay money. And many of them will pay less than they pay for their cable or their cell phone bill. And God knows we all [love cable.]”

Guess that proves that God is not omniscent :-)

But this begs the question: I don't have cable TV (though I do have cable internet for my work), and have a cheap cell phone only because it's about $25/month less than my land line was.  So why am I being asked to pay for the health insurance of people who apparently prefer to spend their money on this stuff?

You were paying for it before. For some reason, no one talked about it much.

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4047
Re: Kathleen Sebelius is an anti-mustachian Pro
« Reply #17 on: October 24, 2013, 12:17:58 PM »
Now and before, uninsured people were already being subsidized by federal money. Nothings changed except now you get to see that part of the federal bill.

Wrong.  First, it may well be true that the government paid the health care costs for some uninsured people.  It didn't pay mine, and I suspect it didn't pay anything for many people, who could easily pay for what they needed out of pocket.

But even that's not the real issue.  Is anyone really naive enough to believe that what I will be forced to pay for Obamacare will be matched by an equal decrease in my taxes? 

Thanks to Obamacare/ACA my wife is now finally free to leave her job that she hates  that she was only staying in to get our family healthcare. (I'm self-employed)

Now I can get quality health care for our family of 5 for $600 less than the cobra we'd be paying otherwise.

So I'll have to work just that much more (or cut my savings) to subsidize your family?  Can you even begin to guess just how much I appreciate being given the opportunity to do that?

Young healthy people will pay for older not so-healthy people with higher premiums.  Seems like a solid plan.

A little less of that ageism, please!  Some of us older, healthy people are going to be stuck subsidizing insurance for younger people - see above.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2013, 12:29:56 PM by Jamesqf »

mpbaker22

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
Re: Kathleen Sebelius is an anti-mustachian Pro
« Reply #18 on: October 24, 2013, 01:03:34 PM »
I think from an early retirement standpoint, it helps.  But I'm not sure we want government programs to encourage people to retire early by giving them subsidies.


I strongly agree with this. And I actually think mpbaker is understating the effect on average (perhaps mpbaker is in a low cost health market?)  A bronze plan for a 55 year old couple is estimated at more than $9k per year, which would add $225k or so to a retirement stache.  This is a giant difference!

I suspect there will eventually be asset-based means testing for health insurance subsidies.  That would be terribly difficult to plan for.

I am a 24 year old single male so my insurance rates now are going to be quite low either way.  However, I have kept close track of the non-employer sponsored healthcare market in case I should need it.  I was able to get a plan for $35 with a $10K deductible.  Now, the cheapest one offered on healthcare.gov is somewhere between $100 and $110 (don't remember exactly), with the max catastrophic deductible (approximately $6500).  But if I weren't working, and my only income were from capital gains, my insurance would be (nearly) free to me, high cost to the taxpayer.

I don't doubt your current numbers.  But under the ACA, catastrophic plans of the kind you have are only available to those under 30 (or in a few other specialized cases).  What would your numbers be at age 31?

What's your point in that case?  When I turn 31, my premium will go up and my deductible will come down.  It will have roughly the same effect from a retirement standpoint.  The exception is because my premiums will be higher and deductible lower, I'll have even more incentive to quit my job ... because the subsidy will cover even more of my total healthcare costs.  I don't have exact numbers on the subsidies because healthcare.gov only lets you see your specific numbers ...

According to the browse plans section of the site, a Bronze plan for myself will cost $146 on the low end and near $200 on the high end.  Again, I don't know what the subsidy would be on 12K of income, but the Kaiser Foundation estimate is 90% of the premium, leaving me a bill of $180/year and the government with $1,620.

Spork

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5753
    • Spork In The Eye
Re: Kathleen Sebelius is an anti-mustachian Pro
« Reply #19 on: October 24, 2013, 01:11:00 PM »

Now I can get quality health care for our family of 5 for $600 less than the cobra we'd be paying otherwise.


I don't think cobra is ever a really good comparison for anything.  Cobra has always been priced really high and (when I've looked at it) had what I'd consider overly high coverage.  YMMV...  but if you compare Cobra with a very high deductible plan (pre-AHA, obviously) ... the high deductible plan wins hands down.   ... and for most people*, that is what is really needed: coverage of very large, unexpected health care costs.

*there are outliers that need more coverage.  I get that.  But I can do the math to sort out that the extra monthly payments far exceed the deductible FOR ME.

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1374
  • Location: Denver
Re: Kathleen Sebelius is an anti-mustachian Pro
« Reply #20 on: October 24, 2013, 02:20:18 PM »
COBRA might not be the best comparison in this situation, but I think it does provide a wakeup call for what insurance really costs. COBRA lets you keep your employer coverage as long you pay the employer share too right? This shows that insurance has been expensive for a long time. But it's been subsidized by our employers and the government (tax free compensation).

Spork

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5753
    • Spork In The Eye
Re: Kathleen Sebelius is an anti-mustachian Pro
« Reply #21 on: October 24, 2013, 02:29:47 PM »
COBRA might not be the best comparison in this situation, but I think it does provide a wakeup call for what insurance really costs. COBRA lets you keep your employer coverage as long you pay the employer share too right? This shows that insurance has been expensive for a long time. But it's been subsidized by our employers and the government (tax free compensation).

Agreed.... mostly.  It shows that the full coverage, low deductible insurance has been expensive for a long time.  Unfortunately, it's set us up to think that's what everyone needs.

MrsPete

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3519
Re: Kathleen Sebelius is an anti-mustachian Pro
« Reply #22 on: October 24, 2013, 02:35:39 PM »
Cable is such a drug to so many people. 

When my no-good cousin finally went back to work after months of unemployment, he was behind on all his bills (and had had several things turned off).  What did he pay FIRST?  No, not the water, a necessity of life.  No, not electricity, which I personally value pretty highly.  No, the first thing he paid was his cable bill.  His reasoning?  The kids have trouble sleeping at night if they don't go to sleep with the TVs in their bedrooms playing. 

BlueMR2

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2008
Re: Kathleen Sebelius is an anti-mustachian Pro
« Reply #23 on: October 24, 2013, 05:01:44 PM »
Health insurance is one hell of a lot more expensive than cable TV for a lot of people.

So I hear.  Except my last health insurance quote was $62/mo and the cable triple play package that everyone seems to have around here is $120/mo.  I enjoy being the exception sometimes.  :-)

mpbaker22

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
Re: Kathleen Sebelius is an anti-mustachian Pro
« Reply #24 on: October 25, 2013, 07:50:02 AM »
Health insurance is one hell of a lot more expensive than cable TV for a lot of people.

So I hear.  Except my last health insurance quote was $62/mo and the cable triple play package that everyone seems to have around here is $120/mo.  I enjoy being the exception sometimes.  :-)

Actually, they're probably about the same for most people.  But most people pay for warranties on their health.  I use warranties in the sense that people will pay into those programs that pay you when your parts break down on your car.  They're all scams and are meant to make more money off of people.  Sure, some people come out ahead, but overall, the mean comes out way behind.  Warranties are much more expensive than insurance.

Hunny156

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 461
Re: Kathleen Sebelius is an anti-mustachian Pro
« Reply #25 on: October 29, 2013, 12:44:25 PM »
Cable is such a drug to so many people. 

When my no-good cousin finally went back to work after months of unemployment, he was behind on all his bills (and had had several things turned off).  What did he pay FIRST?  No, not the water, a necessity of life.  No, not electricity, which I personally value pretty highly.  No, the first thing he paid was his cable bill.  His reasoning?  The kids have trouble sleeping at night if they don't go to sleep with the TVs in their bedrooms playing.

I really hope that the electricity wasn't already cut off when he paid the cable bill!  ;)