Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SK in CV
ParticipantThis discussion has been a bit tech/engineering focused. There is certainly a severe and growing shortage in medicine.
Participanttwo words:
minimum essential coverage.
April 6, 2016 at 10:22 AM in reply to: HOA emergency special assessment in the amount $4000.00 dollars!! #796484Participant[quote=Blogstar]Sorry, it would be a big disappointment to find that out.
I don’t know the audit rules but something is required as part of an HOA and maybe “special audits” can be demanded too. My MIL has been president of a HOA in a pretty high end detached home community and also on the Architectural review board. She says this stuff can get pretty heated at times. Don’t be shy about making them show you what’s going on , somebody has to do it, or maybe they will go to Brazil with your money.[/quote]
There probably isn’t even any reason for a special audit. Most HOA’s have annual audits, and though the quality of the auditing work is problematic at best, that doesn’t mean the numbers are necessarily unreliable. They also often include a reserve study. The reserve study will indicate how much should be in reserves. Some associations are fully funded to those recommended reserves. Some aren’t. Additionally, shit happens. We know that. It happens all the time. Just because a roof should last 20 years (or 40, or whatever), sometimes that doesn’t happen. It doesn’t mean the audit was bad. It doesn’t mean the reserve study was bad.
Participant[quote=AN][quote=SK in CV][quote=AN]Although economist might not advocate for it, but that’s the best solution to shrink the wealth gap. Historical data proves that it works. [/quote]
Sorry, that’s just wrong. Severe market crashes invariably lead to high unemployment. Unemployment invariably affects the lower and lower-middle economic classes disproportionately. Only in backwards world is that a path towards closing the wealth gap.[/quote]
Where have you been in this last crash? Yes, there were a lot of unemployment, but there were a lot of foreclosed upper middle class people too. Everyone was destroyed pretty evenly across board. Even the ultra rich were taken down a few notches.With that said, I agree that it would be a backward world. But that’s the only proven way to reduce the wealth gap. I don’t think your tax proposal would do it. But we’ll never know.[/quote]
No. Everyone was not destroyed across the board. And I never claimed that there was no damage done at the top end of the economy during the recent crash.
Families whose fortunes went from $500 million to $300 million were not destroyed in the same way as those families who lost their upper middle class jobs, and had their homes foreclosed were. Nor the same as the lower income group that lost their jobs and didn’t get new ones for 2 to 3 years. The former group was angry they lost a lot of money. The latter two had their entire lives turned on its head. They are not the same.
A crash is not the only proven way to reduce the wealth gap, though I’ll admit that economic models are sketchy at best for taxes doing the trick. Calling those models proof could be an exaggeration. However there are some reasonably strong economic models that tie the ever increasing wealth gap to the tax preferences shown to capital over the last 35 years. It’s not unreasonable to argue that reversing that policy will also reverse the wealth gap. It’s surely preferable to a crash that is sure to put millions out of work and cause significantly more suffering than the wealth gap does. Killing the patient with the cure isn’t the answer.
Participant[quote=AN]Although economist might not advocate for it, but that’s the best solution to shrink the wealth gap. Historical data proves that it works. [/quote]
Sorry, that’s just wrong. Severe market crashes invariably lead to high unemployment. Unemployment invariably affects the lower and lower-middle economic classes disproportionately. Only in backwards world is that a path towards closing the wealth gap.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=flyer]Personally, I think the real crazies in this election are those who actually believe any politician will make a difference in their lives–as time will inevitably tell–but it is fun to watch the show.[/quote]Well flyer, you can be assured that as a former “bureaucrat” myself, I harbor no illusions in this regard :=0
You’ve repeatedly brought up the “wealth gap” here as the biggest problem besetting our country.
Do you have any ideas on how it can be fixed … or at least lessened?[/quote]
I do. It’s taken 35 years to get into this mess. It won’t reverse quickly. It could take decades. The solution is to reverse current tax policy which taxes capital income more preferentially than labor income, and tax labor income at a lower rate than capital income. Flow of savings will then shift towards labor.
ParticipantBG, you act as though I don’t understand your problem. I do. I understand exactly. I’ve also explained how you could have avoided the problem, relatively simply. I know it works because I’ve done it for my daughter.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
Oh, and btw, I have never blamed “Obama” for the failings of the ACA machinery on the ground. I lay the blame solely in the lap of the Dems in Congress who hurriedly pushed it through without understanding the ramifications of what exactly was in the (volumimous) law. The President simply rubber-stamped on March 23, 2010, what Congress had already passed, as you previously stated.[/quote]The law was not “pushed through”. It was negotiated for more than six months. I’d appreciate if you wouldn’t lie about things I’ve said. I never said anything about the President rubberstamping what congress passed.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]I’m simply stating here that Medi-Cal expansion has adversely affected thousands of middle-income individuals in CA who signed up in good faith for a marketplace plan on the exchange and it continues to do so.
[/quote]
It’s adversely affected you, and the people you advise, or at least you claim it is, because you think you know what you’re doing, and you actually have no clue. Other than you, and those you claim you advise, I’ve seen no evidence of what you’re claiming.Participant[quote=bearishgurl]Okay, SK. Can we agree that “Medicaid” is not actually “insurance” and is instead a government-run entitlement program, initially put in place to serve the “poor?”
[/quote]
No, we can’t.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]Once again, SK, you are still attempting to deflect the actual issues I brought up re: the inner workings of the ACA in CA, which obviously you have no experience with, being that you reside in AZ. You are doing this through your thinly-veiled insult diatribe towards me. It appears that you have been using outrageous insults in an attempt to get me to stop discussing what needs to be discussed about how the ACA actually “works” (or doesn’t work) in CA. I would not have expected that of you, of all Piggs. If I’m reading your posts of this morning correctly, you’re essentially stating that you knew all along that the ACA was expressly designed to place the masses on Medicaid whether they wanted to be there … or not. But your posts yesterday and prior omitted that dirty little secret by glossing over the facts. For example, last night, you posted only the figures you perceived were already enrolled in CC marketplace healthplans (1.7M, an erroneous figure). But you (conveniently) “failed” to come up with current Medi-Cal enrollee statistics, which are a much bigger piece of the ACA pie in CA. Many of the rest of your previous posts appeared to be an attempt to “sugar coat” the ACA in the eyes of the masses and you wouldn’t be the first one to do that.
No worries. I’m way beyond used to these shenanigans at this late date. I’ll be trying to help in any way I can to get SB-33 signed by Gov Brown and then we won’t be having this discussion anymore because the incentive for CC to keep repeatedly harassing CC enrollees about their incomes and the incentive of Medi-Cal workers to change CC enrollees’ (self-reported) income figures in CALHEERS will largely be gone … especially as it applies to the over-55 crowd.[/quote]
I don’t really give a shit what you want to discuss. You talk about what you want, and I’ll talk about what I want. If you throw out another lie, I’ll call you on it.
I never claimed that “that the ACA was expressly designed to place the masses on Medicaid whether they wanted to be there … or not”. Only that the goal was to get people covered. If they are eligible for Medicaid, that’s a win. If they get private insurance, that’s a win. I never glossed over anything because there is no reason to. The very reason the law included an expansion of Medicaid was that the goal was to get people access to care. Uninsured people still suffer horribly in states that have not expanded Medicaid, as do non-profit hospitals that continue to risk closure.
The 1.7 million was the goal for private QHPs. I grabbled the wrong number. Actual enrollees is closer to 1.5 million. You had suggested it was 1 million. You were off by 50%.
I don’t need to sugar coat anything. The facts stand for themselves. The ACA has worked. It has increased the number of people covered by insurance. The percentage of people not covered is approaching all time lows. People in California like it. They like it more as each year goes by. Premiums have increased at the slowest rate in decades. Total medical spending has increased at the slowest rate in decades. Slightly more people are covered through employer plans and there is no evidence whatsoever of significant job losses as a result of the law. Not a single one of the dire predictions about the law have come true. The fact that you cant figure out how it works is a reflection on you, not on the law. The fact that your experience with rates is different than most is not a reflection on the law as a whole.
If I didn’t respond to something you wanted me to respond to, tough. I responded to those things I wanted to.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]Of course, I/we already know all this. This rest of this is hogwash. And for the record, I voted for a (so-called) “black president” …. twice in the last decade. I was actually registered as a Dem from about 1987 to 2012 and am currently registered as an independent and currently leaning towards Cruz or Sanders, should either of them get the nomination.
It looks like “you people” in AZ overwhelmingly voted for Trump and Clinton in your primary …. sorry if that fact disturbs your delicate sensibilities. Go figure :=0[/quote]
“so called”? Do I need any more evidence?
Of course you can’t actually dispute anything I said with evidence. Calling something “hogwash” isn’t evidence. Calling the president a “(so called) “black president”” is.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]As usual, non-answers, deflection of the issues that “nobody wants to talk about” and more insults from people who do not know anything about me.
carli, I asked you, according to your “expertise,” which, based on your posts, I believe you have, when are the major carriers coming back to the CA individual market to offer plans in all of the metal levels on the open market? Inquiring minds want to know.[/quote]
People do know things about you. You write non-scholarly tomes on subjects which you have no expertise.
If you’d taken any time to do some actual research, you’d find out that your experiences are not representative of the majority of Californians. Most are happy with the ACA. More are happier now than they were in previous years. And for the first time since the law was passed, registered voters of both major political parties have a favorable view of the law.
It’s highly likely, and this is just my opinion, that the reason your experience has been bad is that you think you know what you’re doing, but in fact, don’t have a clue.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]
Ditto for the rest of the states.So this makes the ACA “successful” because it managed to get so many more people “covered” into “expanded” Medicaid/Medi-Cal :=0[/quote]
Yes, exactly. Not a dirty little secret. That was the goal. Get people access to health care. You really have a problem with that?[/quote]The ACA was “touted” by its supporters as “You can keep your healthplan” and, “you can keep your doctors.” Both of which were outright lies because those in-the-know excluded the fact that many carriers wouldn’t want to have anything to do with it, nor would all the best providers.
The ACA was presented to the masses as “healthplans you purchase,” NOT Medicaid! In CA, the expanded Medicaid program is nothing but a snare for the middle income, asset rich individual over the age of 55 who does NOT want to be on the (overburdened) Medicaid/Medi-Cal system … whether or not they have significant assets to lien. These people have been paying their own bills all of their lives and do NOT want to be on “forced public aid.” Especially a program shoved down their throats as “mandatory” to join but oh, we forgot to tell you that your $630 month “dues” will be deferred until after your death so no worries :=0
Many in this segment don’t need a high income and don’t wish to withdraw large sums from their retirement accounts as early as their late fifties and early sixties if their homes are paid off and they have monthly pension(s) coming in. Yet the Covered CA snare into Medi-Cal seems to be affecting those who have an AGI under about $33K (after writeoffs are taken). Many in this (now dicey) group are finding themselves duking it out with CC up to 4x year, continually “proving their incomes” to keep their coverage … until a few months down the road when they’ll be asked to prove it again.
This is my main beef with the “system” in CA. Add to that the general incompetence of CC staff and it is a recipe for disaster for those who paid their premiums on time and thought they were covered but actually are not and end up needing to access care during the times they were “bumped” from their plan.[/quote]
Because you thought the ACA was one thing, doesn’t mean that’s what it was designed to do. It was designed to get people coverage. It succeeded. If you only remember hearing “you can keep your plan and your doctor if you want to”, I suspect it’s because that’s a really convenient criticism of a black president, and you never actually heard those words until they were proven to be a mistake. If this sounds to you like I’m accusing you of being a racist, no apologies. It is what it is.
As I’ve said at least twice before, nobody is required to get Medicaid coverage. Nobody is required to disclose financial information. That’s all voluntary. And it’s not income after deductions. It’s modified adjusted gross income. That’s before deducting things like home mortgage interest, property taxes and charitable contributions.
Apparently, you and the people you’ve been advising on how to do it, have a horrible advisor who has no idea what they’re doing. If you did, you would never get wrapped up in the Medicaid issue.
-
AuthorPosts
