Suzanne Somers is now an "expert" on health care policy

[Magic Man]

I'm not sure they "could have" either. We're sort or out of the recession in a weak economy so if a state was running a $50 Billion Dollar surplus I suspect much of it would be gone by now..thus not leaving very much for disaster relief. It's nice when a state can run a couple hundred million dollar surplus or even a billion or two, three or four (See: California......)....but many of them would be hard press to run a $50 Billion dollar surplus, sustain it through hard economic times without federal help.

I'm not arguing that they could, just pointing out what I think he was going for.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I'm not arguing that they could, just pointing out what I think he was going for.

Yeah...I know...I just wanted to get it out there is all.....

 

[dust1n]

I've been to many national parks, & see that they're not customer oriented.

I'm pretty sure national parks were never meant to customer oriented. I'm pretty sure they are suppose to be park oriented.

Recall that during the gov "shut down", parks closed down not only themselves, but also took steps to interfere with private businesses & prevent using non-park land to view monuments. They're run by the same folk who staff the DMV & IRS. And as the gov shut down showed, they cannot be depended upon to stay open.

Source for the bolded claim?

The people who would support the privatization of national parks are the same who shut down the government, no? It's curious to me that one would be willing shut down a park, and then claim their own inability to keep it open.

 

[dust1n]

An advantage of making disaster planning & preparation more local is that the results would be better than FEMA's efforts. And the increased local tax burden would lessen the fed tax burden.
Some exmaples:
- Atlantic & gulf states should prepare for hurricanes & sea level rise.
- The midwest should prepare for tornadoes & their aftermath.
- Northern states should prepare for blizzards. Residents should have supplies & plans. States & towns should have plows & plans.
- People who build seashore homes in some areas should accept the risk of higher insurance rates. Zoning laws might even prevent building in particularly dangerous areas.
- Earthquake prone areas (eg, SF, LA) should have building codes which enhance survivability.

We have heavy storms here at times, so I keep spare food, spare fuel, a snow thrower, a plow truck, several generators, spare water, back-up heating system, etc. Many other I know prepare similarly. This is better than waiting for FEMA to send us a trailer.

Correct me if I am mistaken, but aren't those 5 examples already implemented?

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm pretty sure national parks were never meant to customer oriented. I'm pretty sure they are suppose to be park oriented.

I'd like to see that change.

Source for the bolded claim?

See this post & thread....
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3526431-post128.html

The people who would support the privatization of national parks are the same who shut down the government, no? It's curious to me that one would willing shut down a park, and then claim their own inability to keep it open.

I'm telling you my preferences...not speaking for others, Pub, Dem, or even Lib.
If you perceive contradictions in the agendas of these people, you'd have to ask them..

 

[Revoltingest]

Correct me if I am mistaken, but aren't those 5 examples already implemented?

Not to the extent I advocate.
Example: New Orleans is rebuilding in areas currently below sea level. Climate change portends all of it suffering this state eventually, so building there makes no sense. Moreover, this problem has been known to their gov & citizens for many decades, yet they did little to prepare for the eventual Katrina.

I'd like to see state, local, & individual preparation improved to the point that FEMA isn't needed. Btw, this isn't about political affiliation. Rather, it's about a more efficient way to deal with disasters. The more local the resources are, the more readily available they are. Also, there's nothing wrong with one state assisting another. Suppose we have 2 states Dustinistan & Wireyania, both of which are on the Gulf coast. A hurricane could devastate Dustinistan, while sparing Wiretyania. Wireyania could help Dustinistan better & faster than could FEMA. They could compensate each other with reciprocal agreements for support.

But I'm not entirely out of touch with reality...I know it won't happen. People are lazy, & FEMA is a powerful political tool.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I'm pretty sure national parks were never meant to customer oriented. I'm pretty sure they are suppose to be park oriented.

Source for the bolded claim?

To get the whole context of our debate you can start here....

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/north-american-politics/154844-us-government-shutdown-13.html

It starts at page 13...
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/north-american-politics/154844-us-government-shutdown-13.html

 

[dust1n]

Not to the extent I advocate.
Example: New Orleans is rebuilding in areas currently below sea level. Climate change portends all of it suffering this state eventually, so building there makes no sense. Moreover, this problem has been known to their gov & citizens for many decades, yet they did little to prepare for the eventual Katrina.

Sure, but don't you think it's a little difficult to relocate an entire city, especially the basic economic power house of the entire state? And are they supposed to dismantle the entire city as to avoid the massive pollution that would affect the four states around it? And we can't forget the 700,000 refugees, and thousands of abandoned businesses, and massive infrastructure deconstruction and reconstruction. Maybe they could sell their public lands to the highest bidding oil company. The MississiBPi.

Honestly, I'm not sure why one would expect a state government to handle the situation better than FEMA. I don't think I can expect anything to ever handle the situation better... unless DARMA has their way. I kid.

I do appreciate the thoughtfulness about rising sea levels. My guess is that no one has any real plans for being able to recover some of the most bountiful cities in the world, especially in any simultaneous manner.

Can't really blame anyone though. They are all a century to four centuries old now. No one knew what was happening then.

I'd like to see state, local, & individual preparation improved to the point that FEMA isn't needed. Btw, this isn't about political affiliation. Rather, it's about a more efficient way to deal with disasters. The more local the resources are, the more readily available they are. Also, there's nothing wrong with one state assisting another. Suppose we have 2 states Dustinistan & Wireyania, both of which are on the Gulf coast. A hurricane could devastate Dustinistan, while sparing Wiretyania. Wireyania could help Dustinistan better & faster than could FEMA. They could compensate each other with reciprocal agreements for support.
But I'm not entirely out of touch with reality...I know it won't happen. People are lazy, & FEMA is a powerful political tool.

I'd like to see that as well, as well as a very thorough reform involving complete transparency, massive auditing, strict oversight, but mostly act in assisting funds for various aid groups, whoever participates, shipping various essentials... food and water namely. That's about it.

I do suspect that, since FEMA falls under the executive branch, which is more or less operating on its own regardless of what president it is, operates by some sort of presidential direction. I'm not saying FEMA is all that great. But I am suggesting that it would have been a little less not so great had a certain president pushed stridently for some sort of immediately relief.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure, but don't you think it's a little difficult to relocate an entire city, especially the basic economic power house of the entire state? And are they supposed to dismantle the entire city as to avoid the massive pollution that would affect the four states around it? And we can't forget the 700,000 refugees, and thousands of abandoned businesses, and massive infrastructure deconstruction and reconstruction.

Relocation is difficult, but not as much as enduring the flooding & recovery. Besides, relocation should be gradual, perhaps rebuilding & expanding in a safer area, & gradually abandoning the vulnerable areas, which might become low risk usage, eg, recreational land.

Honestly, I'm not sure why one would expect a state government to handle the situation better than FEMA. I don't think I can expect anything to ever handle the situation better... unless DARMA has their way. I kid.

FEMA is slow & wasteful. A state would tend to its own needs more quickly & efficiently....if they prepared.

I do appreciate the thoughtfulness about rising sea levels. My guess is that no one has any real plans for being able to recover some of the most bountiful cities in the world, especially in any simultaneous manner.
Can't really blame anyone though. They are all a century to four centuries old now. No one knew what was happening then.

I'm more about fixing than blaming.

I'd like to see that as well, as well as a very thorough reform involving complete transparency, massive auditing, strict oversight, but mostly act in assisting funds for various aid groups, whoever participates, shipping various essentials... food and water namely. That's about it.

I do suspect that, since FEMA falls under the executive branch, which is more or less operating on its own regardless of what president it is, operates by some sort of presidential direction. I'm not saying FEMA is all that great. But I am suggesting that it would have been a little less not so great had a certain president pushed stridently for some sort of immediately relief.

No matter who is prez, FEMA will be a ponderous & cumbersome tool.
The most important preparation is by citizens themselves. Then local gov. But as the power gets farther removed from the affected individuals, accountability, drive, & expertise degrade.

 

[DallasApple]

Suzanne Summers can tell me her tricks.. I probably trust her more than my GM as diet goes...

 

[Revoltingest]

An odd wrinkle of Obamacare....
Obamacare Restrictions Lead Brooklyn Couple To Consider Divorce « CBS New York

The issue for Aronowitz and Cassara is that together as family of only two, they make more than the $62,000 level to qualify for subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. But if they lived together unmarried, they would qualify for the subsidies and could literally save hundreds of dollars a month on their health care .
A single person can qualify for subsidies if they make less than $46,000 a year.

It reminds me of the marriage penalty tax I first experienced in the 70s & 80s. I discovered that
Mrs Revolt & I would have lower income tax if we divorced. (She wasn't receptive to this dodge though.)
Apparently, the fed gov wanted to discourage both spouses from earning a living. Is some old fashioned
traditional marriage lobby behind this? I wonder if the penalty is still there. (Haven't checked in a while.)

 

[Mr Spinkles]

A primary reason are the federal poverty levels, which are used to determine the new subsidies to pay for premiums.

This "marriage penalty," as some conservative critics are calling it, is hardly unique to federal health reform.

"Any [federal benefit] structured based on poverty will have that effect," said Gary Claxton, a vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation.
That includes Medicaid and various benefits administered through the tax code.

Decoding the Obamacare 'marriage penalty' - Nov. 7, 2013

Married people who are uninsured make up just a small fraction of the uninsured, for obvious reasons: It is easier to be insured if you have two potential pathways of getting there. Only 15.4 percent of married people were uninsured 2012, according to research from the Kaiser Family Foundation; the uninsurance rate for "single adults living together" was more than twice as high—33.4 percent.

That may be one reason the Obamacare subsides are more generous to single people and one- or two-parent families with children in the house than to couples who lack children. They were designed to help single moms and struggling middle-class families with children, not married creative-class millennials in pricey cities who have not yet settled into well-paid work, or barring that, work for a single employer.

Health insurance isn't the only place where there's a marriage penalty. The federal income tax also hits married couples with similar earnings harder than couples with one main breadwinner.

The Hidden Marriage Penalty in Obamacare - Garance Franke-Ruta - The Atlantic

For an opposing view:

Republicans first raised this concern during the health care reform debate and it’s still as meritless now as it was then. Here’s why: The affordability credits are pegged to the federal poverty guidelines, which treat married people as a unit and view individuals as separate parties filing separate tax returns. These guidelines assume, as Judith Solomon points out, that “people benefit from economies of scale when they’re living together” and recognizes that unmarried individuals have fewer resources (lower incomes, more money spent on basic necessities) than married families. In fact, since the majority of the uninsured are not married and marrying lowers uninsurance rates, providing more subsidies to individuals is a better way of targeting affordability credits to those who need them most.

That’s issue number one. Their second concern about an HHS rule offering insurance subsidies for workers if their employer doesn’t provide affordable individual coverage (as opposed to family coverage) is a worry health care advocates share. But to expand the affordability definition and allow more people to take advantage of the tax credits within the exchanges would cost the government “an extra $50 billion a year” — spending Republicans would surely oppose. The greatest irony of all, however, is that Republican health care prescriptions — look to the Boehner alternative introduced in the House for an example — don’t provide subsidies to anyone — married or unmarried Americans and it’s actually their efforts to repeal the ACA and do little to nothing for health care spending that would significantly strain families and their economic well being.

Why The GOP's 'Marriage Penalty' Is A Myth | ThinkProgress

It does seem ridiculous that a couple can save a ton of money on health insurance by getting divorced. The question would be, what do you have to change in the law to avoid that. Alternatively, the question would be, how often does this situation arise due to the ACA (is it a rare or common occurrence?) and how does that con stack up against the pros, namely increasing the number of insured Americans by 25 million, eliminating pre-existing conditions etc., reducing the federal deficit, and reducing the average monthly premium per person?

Consider, for example: "Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States. Although America leads the world in spending on health care, it is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage." --American National Academies of Science, Institute of Medicine, 2004 report

I wonder if any of those 18,000 people dying each year were married, and if so, if that might have made for an interesting CBS news story, too.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why The GOP's 'Marriage Penalty' Is A Myth | ThinkProgress

And we thought Fox News was bad.
The linked ThinkProgress piece actually supports the contention that
there is a marriage penalty, & then goes on to defend the penalty.
So their "myth" is itself a myth. A meta-myth?

The affordability credits are pegged to the federal poverty guidelines, which treat married people as a unit and view individuals as separate parties filing separate tax returns. These guidelines assume, as Judith Solomon points out, that “people benefit from economies of scale when they’re living together” and recognizes that unmarried individuals have fewer resources (lower incomes, more money spent on basic necessities) than married families.

Perhaps this tortured reasoning is due to the fact that ThinkProgress is an outlet for the
Center For American Progress, which is a leftish advocacy organization run by Neera Tanden,
who worked for the Obama & Clinton administrations, & for Hillary's campaigns.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

And we thought Fox News was bad.
The linked ThinkProgress piece actually supports the contention that
there is a marriage penalty, & then goes on to defend the penalty.
So their "myth" is itself a myth. A meta-myth?

The phrase "marriage penalty" is indeed misleading, although I wouldn't go so far as to call it a myth. It's more accurate to call it a reward for couples just above an income threshold to get divorced, rather than a penalty for staying married. Consider: before the ACA there were no subsidies at all, for anyone. After the ACA there's a subsidy for low-income people. In this particular case, because the couple has an income just above the threshold for subsidies for a married couple, they could get subsidies if they were single.

Furthermore, pre-ACA if the couple had lost insurance due to being laid off by an employer (as the CBS article claims) then they would likely be among the 2 million Americans who became uninsured each month before the ACA. Now, because of the ACA, they are less likely to go without insurance. And the article said they got married because he needed health insurance, which suggests he may have had a pre-existing condition--in that case, they would have been in a very difficult situation indeed. Now the couple is guaranteed access to affordable insurance without discrimination against pre-existing conditions (although admittedly, it would be MORE affordable in their case if they got divorced).

Therefore, it's not clear at all that the couple would have fared better pre-ACA -- in fact that seems unlikely. So to call it being "penalized" for being married is just a little misleading, it's more like a loophole that rewards being single in certain circumstances.

Perhaps this tortured reasoning is due to the fact that ThinkProgress is an outlet for the Center For American Progress, which is a leftish advocacy organization run by Neera Tanden, who worked for the Obama & Clinton administrations, & for Hillary's campaigns.

Yes I'm well aware ThinkProgress is a Left-wing outfit, that's why I posted it as "an opposing view".

 

[Revoltingest]

The phrase "marriage penalty" is indeed misleading, although I wouldn't go so far as to call it a myth. It's more accurate to call it a reward for couples just above an income threshold to get divorced, rather than a penalty for staying married.

You're entitled to your spin.

Consider: before the ACA there were no subsidies at all, for anyone. After the ACA there's a subsidy for low-income people. In this particular case, because the couple has an income just above the threshold for subsidies for a married couple, they could get subsidies if they were single.

You're entitled to justify your spin.

Furthermore, pre-ACA if the couple had lost insurance due to being laid off by an employer (as the CBS article claims) then they would likely be among the 2 million Americans who became uninsured each month before the ACA. Now, because of the ACA, they are less likely to go without insurance. And the article said they got married because he needed health insurance, which suggests he may have had a pre-existing condition--in that case, they would have been in a very difficult situation indeed. Now the couple is guaranteed access to affordable insurance without discrimination against pre-existing conditions (although admittedly, it would be MORE affordable in their case if they got divorced).

You're entitled to say their circumstances could become different, but that doesn't address the existence of the marriage penalty for them right now.

Therefore, it's not clear at all that the couple would have fared better pre-ACA -- in fact that seems unlikely. So to call it being "penalized" for being married is just a little misleading, it's more like a loophole that rewards being single in certain circumstances.

"Misleading" is how I'd describe your post & the ThinkProgress article.

Yes I'm well aware ThinkProgress is a Left-wing outfit, that's why I posted it as "an opposing view".

I prefer opposing views which are honest & accurate.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You're entitled to say their circumstances could become different, but that doesn't address the existence of the marriage penalty for them right now.

It's not a penalty for them right now, it's the absence of a subsidy for them right now. That is according to the article you posted.

"Misleading" is how I'd describe your post & the ThinkProgress article.

I prefer opposing views which are honest & accurate.

I'm sorry, which part of what I said, exactly, was misleading or inaccurate?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Notice if you search the Kaiser Family Foundation for "individual mandate" lots of articles come up. That is because the "individual mandate" is a real thing and this is the appropriate term, and Kaiser is a non-partisan and non-sensationalist think tank on health care.

OTOH, I cannot find any results for the phrase "marriage penalty" on Kaiser. This is suggestive.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not a penalty for them right now, it's the absence of a subsidy for them right now. That is according to the article you posted.

The absence of a subsidy because of their being married, relative to their divorcing is effectively a penalty. No matter how you slice it or rephrase it, if it's cheaper to divorce, this can be called a "penalty".

I'm sorry, which part of what I said, exactly, was misleading or inaccurate?

To call the marriage penalty a "myth" is misleading.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The absence of a subsidy because of their being married, relative to their divorcing is effectively a penalty. No matter how you slice it or rephrase it, if it's cheaper to divorce, this can be called a "penalty".

A federal tax penalty where you pay zero! Now THAT'S a nice penalty.

To call the marriage penalty a "myth" is misleading.

Agreed, it shouldn't be called a myth.

 

[Revoltingest]

A federal tax penalty where you pay zero! Now THAT'S a nice penalty.

Your rationale reminds me of something landlords tried in MI. Late fees charged to residential tenants must by law be reasonable. One attempt to assess higher fees than the law would allow was to charge a higher rent, but give a big discount for timely payment. Tenants would naturally expect to pay the discounted rent, so the landlord was at no competitive disadvantage to others who charged less rent, but had a late fee. The courts saw the discount scheme for what it was, ie, imposing a penalty.