Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”Imxploring”]Let me get this straight… you intend to “comply fully” with the law by declaring only the minimum required retirement income but not declare your full retirement income when obtaining residency in order to obtain the benefit of healthcare at a lower cost yet allow people of higher declared income that can’t pick and chose how much they declare subsidise your coverage.[/quote]
No, I will declare the full amount of the fixed income that I am then receiving when I make my application – whatever is required by the applicable law. I am no tax cheat and resent your implication that I am.
Not willing to address the other points I raised?[/quote]
I’ve been following this thread closely since I, too, believe the cost of CAJA should not be based on an individual’s income.
I would appreciate some clarification regarding your statement “I will declare the full amount of the fixed income that I am then receiving when I make my application – whatever is required by the applicable law” with the key phrase being “whatever is required by the applicable law”. If the “applicable CAJA law” required proof of income, with the minimum requirement being $1,000/month, and you had fixed income of $1,500/month from social security and another $600/month from other sources: would you submit to CAJA only proof of your Security Security payment or submit proof of both your Social Security payment AND proof of those other sources of income?
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”pixframe”]Statistics … averages … are meaningless when discussing this issue.[/quote]
Hmm. So statistics are helpful and pertinent when you think they support your opinion but meaningless when – as it turns out – they support mine. OK.[/quote]
I don’t recall reciting any statistics in this thread.
[quote=”sweikert925″]OK [url=http://bonds.about.com/od/governmentandagencybonds/a/Historical-U-S-Treasury-Yield-Charts.htm]here[/url] is one that has an average for 10 year bonds from 1962-2013:
10-Year Note:
Chart Range: 1/2/62-10/16/13
High: 9/30/81 15.84% / Low: 7/25/12 1.43%
Average: 6.57%
[/quote]Statistics … averages … are meaningless when discussing this issue. The fact is we couldn’t sustain another 1980-86 cycle when debt service ranged from 10-16%.
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”pixframe”]Historic rate in the 5-7% rate? How far back did you look? [/quote]
The prime rate is not what the US treasury pays to holders of US bonds. The answer your question is “1990” and the data can be found [url=http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yieldAll]here[/url].
The average yield on 30 year bonds from 1990 to 2013 is 5.7%. If I had found a reference that went back to the 70s or 80s that average would be higher which is why I said “5-7%” but I couldn’t find a reference that went back that far.[/quote]
[quote=”pixframe”][quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”pixframe”]Historic rate in the 5-7% rate? How far back did you look? [/quote]
The prime rate is not what the US treasury pays to holders of US bonds. The answer your question is “1990” and the data can be found [url=http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yieldAll]here[/url].
The average yield on 30 year bonds from 1990 to 2013 is 5.7%. If I had found a reference that went back to the 70s or 80s that average would be higher which is why I said “5-7%” but I couldn’t find a reference that went back that far.[/quote]
I suggested using it as a guide (ie at time of 22% PRIME the bond rates far exceeded your 5-7% rate). You’re not looking far enough back. You MUST factor in the pre-90 rates. Here’s a nice historic chart of the 10 year treasury rate. http://0.tqn.com/d/bonds/1/0/K/-/-/-/10-Year.jpg
And, remember, history does have a way of repeating itself.
[/quote][quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”pixframe”]Historic rate in the 5-7% rate? How far back did you look? [/quote]
The prime rate is not what the US treasury pays to holders of US bonds. The answer your question is “1990” and the data can be found [url=http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yieldAll]here[/url].
The average yield on 30 year bonds from 1990 to 2013 is 5.7%. If I had found a reference that went back to the 70s or 80s that average would be higher which is why I said “5-7%” but I couldn’t find a reference that went back that far.[/quote]
I suggested using it as a guide (ie at time of 22% PRIME the bond rates far exceeded your 5-7% rate). You’re not looking far enough back. You MUST factor in the pre-90 rates. Here’s a nice historic chart of the 10 year treasury rate. http://0.tqn.com/d/bonds/1/0/K/-/-/-/10-Year.jpg
And, remember, history does have a way of repeating itself.[quote=”sweikert925″]#2 Interest rates are already up from their recent lows and yes, as they climb the annual debt servicing will climb. But see my answer above. Having them reach their historical rate in the 5-7% range will cost us more to service the debt but that isn’t an insurmountable problem. [/quote]
Historic rate in the 5-7% rate? How far back did you look? The actual Prime Rate History would be a good guide to use as your basis http://www.moneycafe.com/personal-finance/prime-rate-history/
David, when I started working, most companies insured their employees with, what was at the time, the “tradition” 80-20 plan which had an annual “out of pocket” limit. It was a simple process. I went to the doctor. I paid the doctor. The doctor gave me a bill marked “paid in full”. I submitted the bill to my insurance company and IF the procedure was covered by the plan I was reimbursed 80% of my cost. Every year thereafter my annual out of pocket limit increased and that was because every year with the insurance contract’s renewal the premium increased and a higher annual out of pocket helped slow down the growth of the premium. With the next year’s contract renewal … where the employer paid 100% of the premium … with yet another premium increase … in addition to yet another increase in my annual out of pocket cost I was told I had to participate in the cost of the premium and 25% of the cost was deducted from my paycheck. In the early 1980’s HMO’s became the trend. Much lower premiums than the 80-20 plans but with the HMO’s also came “in network doctors” and co-pays. The first HMO my employer signed on with was Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield (New York State). The doctors I had been seeing for years were not “in network” and I had to find new doctors and adjust to not only paying a portion of my insurance’s monthly premium I had to adjust to paying co-pays with each visit. Two years later my employer changed to Oxford Health Plans, an HMO (for the obvious reason …. premiums went up again). And, once again I had to find new set of doctors, pay a larger percentage of a larger premium, larger co-pays and larger annual out of pocket expenses.
Much of the issues people are being confronted with by Obamacare are simply a continuation of the “same old”. Only difference now is is that more people are being introduce to the “process”.
[quote=”davidd”][quote=”pistol”]Things may change now that it is being implemented.IE.Families that have been covered are finding that their premiums are being doubled as well as their deductable. This monster must be paid for by the haves to cover the have-knots.Pure wealth redistribution on a scale unprecedented in the history of The Republic.[/quote]
I have spoken to 1 dozen contacts and they all fall under the middle class.. all of them has had increased in either rates.. and deductable.. one went from $300 dedectable to $1500..[/quote]
David, I just read this a few days ago. “New Poll: Only One-Third Of Americans Support Repealing, Defunding Or Delaying Obamacare.
Polls consistently show that Americans aren’t happy with Obamacare. They think the law will make health care more expensive, and decrease its quality.
But a new survey of 1,976 registered voters finds that only 33 percent believe that the health law should be repealed, delayed, or defunded. 29 percent believe that “Congress should make changes to improve the law,” 26 percent believe that “Congress should let the law take effect” and see what happens, and 12 percent believe that the law should be expanded.
The bottom line?
Voters are skeptical that Obamacare will live up to Democrats’ hype. But they also believe that it should be given a chance to succeed.”
David, in the last Presidential election the linchpin of Romney’s campaigned was his promise to repeal Obamacare and he lost the election. The electorate wanted Obamacare.
[quote=”davidd”]interesting points of view.. can someone tell me opposite??
… Americans didn’t ask for Obamacare, they don’t want it,
That’s how good it is![/quote][quote=”sweikert925″][Why do people say “No offense, but…” and then say something deliberately meant to be offensive and assume that it somehow negates the insult?]
Anyway, you seem to think you know exactly what imxploring was getting at when he linked “getting an exemption from the ACA penalty” with “returning to the US for medical treatment”. I don’t. I see no connection between those 2 things UNLESS he (and you?) think that getting medical care in the US is somehow affected by the Obamacare penalty exemption. Why would that be? Please explain.[/quote]
If I would have said you HAVE a reading comprehension disorder … that would have been offensive. Asking if you have a reading comprehension disorder … and even explaining up front no offense is meant by my question … the decision to be offended and insulted is YOUR choice and I’ll leave it at that and NOT continue a conversation with someone who reads into words where there is nothing to read into and/or read words in between words where no words exist in between.
[quote=”sweikert925″]Well we’ll both have to wait for imxploring to explain what he meant by that but what did YOU think he meant by the section of his comment that you quoted? I don’t see what being exempt from paying the ACA penalty has to do with subsequently getting healthcare from a US healthcare provider. There is no connection between the 2.[/quote]
No offense meant, but do you have a reading comprehension disorder? My point was that he did NOT even hint at some “odd notion that people will be somehow prevented from getting health care in the US unless they have proof of insurance as a consequence of the ACA”. His words were forthright and clear. He posed a QUESTION regarding people who are given an exemption from the requirements of Obamacare. How will they be dealt with when they return to the U.S. for medical treatment? It happens to be an important question and just another one none of us have an answer to.
[quote=”imxploring”]
How will they be dealt with under Obamacare when given an exemption from it’s requirements only to use the US healthcare system for what can often be medical treatment that runs into hundreds of thousands of dollars as is often the case with cancer?[/quote][quote=”sweikert925″]
Wherever did you get the odd notion that people will be somehow prevented from getting health care in the US unless they have proof of insurance as a consequence of the ACA?[/quote]What I find “odd” is I don’t see where imx even hinted at the notion that people will somehow be prevented …
Scott, to assist me in determining a reasonable discount, for how long have these completed units been unsold, what is the average price of these units, and when did the development first open up for sales?
Lied about something? It’s a chronic condition. I’m wondering how inconvenient the government “facts” told to the men of the Tuskegee Experiment were to them … or how inconvenient it was to the Ground Zero clean up crew by the governement telling them the “fact” the area was safe and hazard free for them to work in!
The government (and not just that of the USA) manipulate facts to present us with the picture they want portrayed to us. They don’t trust we can handle the truth … and my guess is most can’t.
[quote=”sweikert925″]OK, let me see if I have it right. Because a government official lied about something, you feel free to assume any facts issued by any other official or branch of government that is inconvenient to your opinions is a lie. Got it.
I assume at some point in your life you told a lie. (I can assume that with no evidence because you assume things with no evidence so that is apparently OK). Therefore I can claim anything you say now or at any point in the future is a lie. I wouldn’t dream of actually doing that, but according to your rules of logic I could.[/quote]
