1.01.10 - The Imposition -

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

You two are so cute together.

[t_host1]

 
 Sick joke of this O-Day –
         Obamacare rules Health Care Insurance Companies not to sell Affordable Health Care (ACA) polices.

[Holmes]

what the  is even this thread

[badgate]

Yet again t_host writes poetry:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[jaichind]

I was able to finally log into the NY State healthcare exchange and made it far enough to actually see prices (it feels like I made it to some certain level in a video game.) As I looked over the prices and the plans I might consider when I retire early several years from now I did think of what would happen if in a certain year which I structured my investments so I would quality for Obamacare subsidies but somehow had a MAGI which was a few thousands too high. Because the nature of the Obamacare subsidy cliff it this scenario is where one is better off with a lower MAGI.

Again, just to explain this. For a family of 3 400% of FPL is $78100. The Silver plan I like on the exchange would be $1274 a month or $15288 a year. If such a family managed to get their MAGI to be exactly at $78100 then they will get Obamacare subsidies of ($15288 - $78100 * (9.5%)) = $7867. This means that as long as the MAGI of said family is ($78100+$7867) = $85986 or below, they are better off having a MAGI of $78100 once they consider the factor of Obamacare subsidies.

The thought experiment is what should someone in such a situation do. Say said family is sitting around in September of 2014 and their MAGI is headed toward $78100 plus say $4000 or $82100. This means they are $4000 above the threshold to get Obamacare subsidies and will be better off lowing their MAGI by $4000. How do they do this? Well, selling losers and capture losses would for sure lower MAGI. But say such holdings are not available or said family does not want to part such a holding. One way out, my initial thought, is to lose money, namely $4000, on purpose. But I thought this was too defeatist. I did come up with a strategy quickly after that. The solution is to buy $4000 worth of way out of money options that expire at end of December 2014. I would buy such an option with the feature that if it did become in the money the payoff would be 3 to 4. In other words, if the option expires out of the money you get the goal of losing $4000 and then getting a check from the government $7867 to make up for the loss of $4000 and more for a profit of $3767. If by good fortune the options finishes in the money then this investment would yield a profit of $8000 to $12000 (using the payoff assumptions of 3 to 4). One would have to pay taxes on this profit of course but even after that the net gain would exceed $3767.

In other words, the Obamacare subsidies cliff gave someone with MAGI just over 400% of FPL a free option. I have always been very negative on buying options as an investment strategy and I never bought one in my investment career. But I found a real legitimate use case for options.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Meanwhile, over at Sperg Mountain...

[SteveRogers]

what the  is even this thread

 It's like an abstract piece of art. It's whatever you want it to be.

[t_host1]

I was able to finally log into the NY State healthcare exchange and made it far enough to actually see prices (it feels like I made it to some certain level in a video game.) As I looked over the prices and the plans I might consider when I retire early several years from now I did think of what would happen if in a certain year which I structured my investments so I would quality for Obamacare subsidies but somehow had a MAGI which was a few thousands too high. Because the nature of the Obamacare subsidy cliff it this scenario is where one is better off with a lower MAGI.

Again, just to explain this. For a family of 3 400% of FPL is $78100. The Silver plan I like on the exchange would be $1274 a month or $15288 a year. If such a family managed to get their MAGI to be exactly at $78100 then they will get Obamacare subsidies of ($15288 - $78100 * (9.5%)) = $7867. This means that as long as the MAGI of said family is ($78100+$7867) = $85986 or below, they are better off having a MAGI of $78100 once they consider the factor of Obamacare subsidies.

The thought experiment is what should someone in such a situation do. Say said family is sitting around in September of 2014 and their MAGI is headed toward $78100 plus say $4000 or $82100. This means they are $4000 above the threshold to get Obamacare subsidies and will be better off lowing their MAGI by $4000. How do they do this? Well, selling losers and capture losses would for sure lower MAGI. But say such holdings are not available or said family does not want to part such a holding. One way out, my initial thought, is to lose money, namely $4000, on purpose. But I thought this was too defeatist. I did come up with a strategy quickly after that. The solution is to buy $4000 worth of way out of money options that expire at end of December 2014. I would buy such an option with the feature that if it did become in the money the payoff would be 3 to 4. In other words, if the option expires out of the money you get the goal of losing $4000 and then getting a check from the government $7867 to make up for the loss of $4000 and more for a profit of $3767. If by good fortune the options finishes in the money then this investment would yield a profit of $8000 to $12000 (using the payoff assumptions of 3 to 4). One would have to pay taxes on this profit of course but even after that the net gain would exceed $3767.

In other words, the Obamacare subsidies cliff gave someone with MAGI just over 400% of FPL a free option. I have always been very negative on buying options as an investment strategy and I never bought one in my investment career. But I found a real legitimate use case for options.

 Can you conclude - from what you know of and pay for your current policy of health vs. what Obama is selling - which has the best outcome for your (family) health? 

 I realize you're at the beginning; I too have looked, Obamacare is the same to slightly higher including subsidies than with what we have now. Slightly as in $100.00 or so a month.

 I was able to get info without submitting to Obama, Ar. has basic info with links to fine tune your position.

 Ar. having a private option is suppose to help the required to buy something a little easier to swallow. 

 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

what the  is even this thread

 It's like an abstract piece of art. It's whatever you want it to be.

You mean like the Update?

[t_host1]

 
  Now that it has been established by the democrat Obama that lying is an admirable justification, surpassing all Clinton initiatives, court juror instructions in the future can no longer use lying as a measurement of guilt. This instruction would have been helpful in the trial as a jurist that I recently cited here in this thread. 
 Also, somewhere in the Obamacare (ACA) law states that people will be able to keep their insurance if they want to, apparently it does not say subject to any new standards that would nullify current plans.

http://www.examiner.com/article/nbc-obama-admin-lied-that-citizens-could-keep-their-current-health-care-plan

 ACA², the largest profitable litigation frontier.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

People are attached to their doctors, not their health insurance companies. What matters is whether a person can obtain equal or better coverage at the same or lower cost, while still keeping their current doctor. Without a doubt, this is possible. And if it's not, then calling your current plan "health insurance" is pretty generous.

Obamacare Bronze 'minimum-to-comply-by-law' plans aren't exactly loaded with frivolous extras.

[badgate]

what the  is even this thread

 It's like an abstract piece of art. It's whatever you want it to be.

You mean like the Update?

Like ARTPOP

[jaichind]

People are attached to their doctors, not their health insurance companies. What matters is whether a person can obtain equal or better coverage at the same or lower cost, while still keeping their current doctor. Without a doubt, this is possible. And if it's not, then calling your current plan "health insurance" is pretty generous.

Obamacare Bronze 'minimum-to-comply-by-law' plans aren't exactly loaded with frivolous extras.

Well, it depends.  It is certainly the case that if a person has to switch policies into one on Obamacare exchange, it is not clear at all the plan he or she will buy will have that doctor in the plan.  I will give you an example, I am "enrolled" in the NY State Obamacare exchange as I just wanted to see the prices.  There is a widget for one to check if a certain doctor is in the plan.  But that widget does work.  So someone in NY that has to switch now has no clue if he or she "gets to keep their doctor."   I agree that a bronze plan does not inherently exclude a particular doctor but the lack of transparency on the exchanges make it impossible to figure out which plan to buy to get the same doctor.  It is not even about cost.  It is not clear at all buying a more expensive plan will result in getting the doctor you want.   

[jaichind]

 Can you conclude - from what you know of and pay for your current policy of health vs. what Obama is selling - which has the best outcome for your (family) health?  

 I realize you're at the beginning; I too have looked, Obamacare is the same to slightly higher including subsidies than with what we have now. Slightly as in $100.00 or so a month.

 I was able to get info without submitting to Obama, Ar. has basic info with links to fine tune your position.

 Ar. having a private option is suppose to help the required to buy something a little easier to swallow.  

Well, we do not need Obamacare.  My megacorp has a very good generous health plan and I am very happy with it.  Main risk for me is that it will be taxed in 2018 as a cadillac health care plan.  I am looking just to plan out my future when I retire early 4-5 years from now so I will most likely avoid that as I am sure my megacorp will shift the cost of that tax to me the employee.  While I am very negative on Obamacare from a policy point of view, self-interest does not stop me from structuring my assets in a way that I can claim Obamacare subsidies every year or every other year until Medicare.  From my point of view, I am just clawing back the extra taxes Obama imposed on me, especially the Obamacare tax I am now paying.  I will collect these subsidies 4-5 years from now assuming Obamacare even exists and Obama and I will be even.  My wife's view is that it will not exist 4-5 years from now and told me not to count on it.  I said to her the way these government entitlement programs/give away always works is that it is impossible to roll back so I am pretty sure it will still be around 4-5 from now even if it will likely be a policy failure and cost way more than expected.  

The silver plan I am looking at will most likely cost $15K which I assume the cost will rise with inflation.  With good planning I should be able to contain my MAGI to around 300% of FPL which is also linked to inflation when I retire.  This would mean we will pay around $6K instead after subsidies.  Since I am retiring early I will have my young child as part of my household which in turn pushed up the FPL for my household which is also part of my retire early class warfare camouflage.   I might also do something where I will alternative between years to get 225% and 375% of FPL and on alternate years I would also qualify for extra subsides on out-of-pocket expenses which starts at 250% FPL.  But I will see how broken down the Obamacare system will be by then.  I suspect in 4-5 years the Obamacare subsidies system would have grown way out of control and subsidies will be there for only 300% of FPL in which case I might to alternate years to get subsidies.  

[Kitteh]

Well, we do not need Obamacare.  My megacorp has a very good generous health plan and I am very happy with it.  Main risk for me is that it will be taxed in 2018 as a cadillac health care plan.  I am looking just to plan out my future when I retire early 4-5 years from now so I will most likely avoid that as I am sure my megacorp will shift the cost of that tax to me the employee.  While I am very negative on Obamacare from a policy point of view, self-interest does not stop me from structuring my assets in a way that I can claim Obamacare subsidies every year or every other year until Medicare.  From my point of view, I am just clawing back the extra taxes Obama imposed on me, especially the Obamacare tax I am now paying.  I will collect these subsidies 4-5 years from now assuming Obamacare even exists and Obama and I will be even.  My wife's view is that it will not exist 4-5 years from now and told me not to count on it.  I said to her the way these government entitlement programs/give away always works is that it is impossible to roll back so I am pretty sure it will still be around 4-5 from now even if it will likely be a policy failure and cost way more than expected.  

The silver plan I am looking at will most likely cost $15K which I assume the cost will rise with inflation.  With good planning I should be able to contain my MAGI to around 300% of FPL which is also linked to inflation when I retire.  This would mean we will pay around $6K instead after subsidies.  Since I am retiring early I will have my young child as part of my household which in turn pushed up the FPL for my household which is also part of my retire early class warfare camouflage.   I might also do something where I will alternative between years to get 225% and 375% of FPL and on alternate years I would also qualify for extra subsides on out-of-pocket expenses which starts at 250% FPL.  But I will see how broken down the Obamacare system will be by then.  I suspect in 4-5 years the Obamacare subsidies system would have grown way out of control and subsidies will be there for only 300% of FPL in which case I might to alternate years to get subsidies.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18PbwYdjsps

[t_host1]

 Can you conclude - from what you know of and pay for your current policy of health vs. what Obama is selling - which has the best outcome for your (family) health?  

 I realize you're at the beginning; I too have looked, Obamacare is the same to slightly higher including subsidies than with what we have now. Slightly as in $100.00 or so a month.

 I was able to get info without submitting to Obama, Ar. has basic info with links to fine tune your position.

 Ar. having a private option is suppose to help the required to buy something a little easier to swallow.  

Well, we do not need Obamacare.  My megacorp has a very good generous health plan and I am very happy with it.  Main risk for me is that it will be taxed in 2018 as a cadillac health care plan.  I am looking just to plan out my future when I retire early 4-5 years from now so I will most likely avoid that as I am sure my megacorp will shift the cost of that tax to me the employee.  While I am very negative on Obamacare from a policy point of view, self-interest does not stop me from structuring my assets in a way that I can claim Obamacare subsidies every year or every other year until Medicare.  From my point of view, I am just clawing back the extra taxes Obama imposed on me, especially the Obamacare tax I am now paying.  I will collect these subsidies 4-5 years from now assuming Obamacare even exists and Obama and I will be even.  My wife's view is that it will not exist 4-5 years from now and told me not to count on it.  I said to her the way these government entitlement programs/give away always works is that it is impossible to roll back so I am pretty sure it will still be around 4-5 from now even if it will likely be a policy failure and cost way more than expected.  

The silver plan I am looking at will most likely cost $15K which I assume the cost will rise with inflation.  With good planning I should be able to contain my MAGI to around 300% of FPL which is also linked to inflation when I retire.  This would mean we will pay around $6K instead after subsidies.  Since I am retiring early I will have my young child as part of my household which in turn pushed up the FPL for my household which is also part of my retire early class warfare camouflage.   I might also do something where I will alternative between years to get 225% and 375% of FPL and on alternate years I would also qualify for extra subsides on out-of-pocket expenses which starts at 250% FPL.  But I will see how broken down the Obamacare system will be by then.  I suspect in 4-5 years the Obamacare subsidies system would have grown way out of control and subsidies will be there for only 300% of FPL in which case I might to alternate years to get subsidies.  

 I do not find it very exciting about your view that I and others may well be playing the Obamacare financial game 4 – 5 years out from now. I’m of the desire for this horse - having tripped out of the gate, requiring it to be put out to pasture - never to compete again. Appreciate and commend you for having the time to advantage it too a best possible outcome.

In the alternative, without Obamacare becomes a two front scenario where your model of self-interest would be unleashed for every possible opportunity for sustainability while a social compact would thrive by and for all.

[t_host1]

People are attached to their doctors, not their health insurance companies. What matters is whether a person can obtain equal or better coverage at the same or lower cost, while still keeping their current doctor. Without a doubt, this is possible. And if it's not, then calling your current plan "health insurance" is pretty generous.

Obamacare Bronze 'minimum-to-comply-by-law' plans aren't exactly loaded with frivolous extras.

Well, it depends.  It is certainly the case that if a person has to switch policies into one on Obamacare exchange, it is not clear at all the plan he or she will buy will have that doctor in the plan.  I will give you an example, I am "enrolled" in the NY State Obamacare exchange as I just wanted to see the prices.  There is a widget for one to check if a certain doctor is in the plan.  But that widget does work.  So someone in NY that has to switch now has no clue if he or she "gets to keep their doctor."   I agree that a bronze plan does not inherently exclude a particular doctor but the lack of transparency on the exchanges make it impossible to figure out which plan to buy to get the same doctor.  It is not even about cost.  It is not clear at all buying a more expensive plan will result in getting the doctor you want.   

 If only the objective were to help people who can’t access healthcare.

  I didn't see any variants for what the coverage could be. Obamacare is one plan for all, applied for risk to the age of a person making the only difference in price, then, the percentage of responsibility is priced. I cannot see how the big challenge can be avoided - insurable loss, states have state constitutional statue prohibiting the issuance of a loss that have no possible ability to happen.
 [Example]; the simplest one, women being insured for testicular cancer and erectile dysfunction.   

[t_host1]

 Sweet Joe, his time at the state of the union is famous, memorable and forever to be given gratitude for his recognition that many deny. Thank You Joe Wilson (R) SC for telling Obama straight to his face “you lie!”   

[t_host1]

 Will it still be optional next Halloween 2014 to think that, fast and furious gun running to maximize horror on the border, Obama abandoning his post during the Benghazi attack, Obama giving his government immunity to Obamacare rule(s), the IRS umpiring Obamacare, when the doctor and hospital say your Obamacare will not be excepted or when you receive your carbon  allowance certificate(CAC) to be, a trick or treat?

[t_host1]

From: Obamas' Boston Oct. 30 speech,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

¹they are and should.
²How do you exist if you don't? Where can you exist and not be of a political position.
According to Krauthammer it is required to have your politics right - so his new book says.
Obama is a committed progressive - the most cancerous disease to a republic. The US House had the cancerous rabid beast in its sights and just didn't have the courage to end it. 

[t_host1]

 
 John Jay, Wednesday, October 31, 1787; Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence – Barack Hussein Obama is the foreign influence of force.
 On Saturday, June 14, 1788 Alexander Hamilton explains one way to right the wrong - the presence of an elected insurgency.

[t_host1]

 
 Ill humors, a term of use then in 1788 and most appropriate today for the defining attribute that the Obama campaign of comedy caring road shows can only be billed as.

an excerpt from #78 Alexander Hamilton,
 This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community. Though I trust the friends of the proposed Constitution will never concur with its enemies,3 in questioning that fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness, yet it is not to be inferred from this principle, that the representatives of the people, whenever a momentary inclination happens to lay hold of a majority of their constituents, incompatible with the provisions in the existing Constitution, would, on that account, be justifiable in a violation of those provisions; or that the courts would be under a greater obligation to connive at infractions in this shape, than when they had proceeded wholly from the cabals of the representative body. Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act. But it is easy to see, that it would require an uncommon portion of fortitude in the judges to do their duty as faithful guardians of the Constitution, where legislative invasions of it had been instigated by the major voice of the community.

But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society. These sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of the private rights of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws. Here also the firmness of the judicial magistracy is of vast importance in mitigating the severity and confining the operation of such laws. It not only serves to moderate the immediate mischiefs of those which may have been passed, but it operates as a check upon the legislative body in passing them; who, perceiving that obstacles to the success of iniquitous intention are to be expected from the scruples of the courts, are in a manner compelled, by the very motives of the injustice they meditate, to qualify their attempts. This is a circumstance calculated to have more influence upon the character of our governments, than but few may be aware of. The benefits of the integrity and moderation of the judiciary have already been felt in more States than one; and though they may have displeased those whose sinister expectations they may have disappointed, they must have commanded the esteem and applause of all the virtuous and disinterested. Considerate men, of every description, ought to prize whatever will tend to beget or fortify that temper in the courts: as no man can be sure that he may not be to-morrow the victim of a spirit of injustice, by which he may be a gainer to-day. And every man must now feel, that the inevitable tendency of such a spirit is to sap the foundations of public and private confidence, and to introduce in its stead universal distrust and distress.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

The government stopped it shutdown weeks ago. Why is this man not banned?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The government stopped it shutdown weeks ago. Why is this man not banned?

Perhaps because this thread is putatively about Obamacare and not the shutdown?  Altho one can argue that if the O-Day clock is supposed to be counting the days before and after the implementation of the exchanges, then have we truly hit O-Dau 1 yet given all the problems there have been?

[t_host1]

 
 Been kicking up the country music abit lately, another notch can’t hurt; apparently CMA has its promo’s for obamacare too, free of charge - if only Obama were just a bad joke.  Song writing does have an expanding field for the political riotousness meme.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/06/country-music-awards-opens-with-brad-paisley-and-carrie-underwood-mocking-obamacare/

...on another front, not really new that Obama gives unions a subsidy for his health care imposition, just more direct, as in cash, $600,000,000.00 worth. An account for unions to draw on for paying their taxes on luxury healthcare policies. CPA accounting practices must be asking, "what difference does it make anyway", referencing the 666 plan.