Posts Tagged ‘Obamacare’

I don’t understand GovCare Part 2

image credit: Paul Narvaez via flickr (cc)

image credit: Paul Narvaez via flickr (cc)

Over at New City, Tony Fitzpatrick tells us how he survived a heart attack.  The good news, of course, is that he did, and it seems to have been due to an aware spouse, responsive ambulance, and nearby hospital with skilled and dedicated staff.  Except for the first, those are advantages of living in a more-or-less functional and prosperous city, with pretty decent emergency services, all of which is reflected in the cost of land.

But somehow, because before “ObamaCare” Tony’s pre-existing condition prevented him from getting insurance for medical expenses, he credits O’Care with his survival.  As if, five years ago, there were no ambulances, no hospitals, or no medical staff. In 2010 an ambulance still would have come, he still would have been taken to the closest available hospital, and the staff still would have done their best for him.  The only difference is that, afterwards, he would have gotten a big bill, even bigger than the bill he probably did (or will) get.  He might have paid the bill, or worked out some payment plan, or had to sign up for some kind of public assistance.  And very possibly the hospital would have written off part of the bill.  (Either way, before or after O’Care, the hospital would have a considerable staff who spent their time negotiating payments, filling out forms, etc.)

It wasn’t Obamacare, Tony.  It was living in a city with helpful people and pretty good medical services. Either way, we’re all paying for it.

And, yeah, somebody ought to make this comment on Tony’s article, but I can’t seem to get thru New City’s spam protection.  Maybe someone else can.

I don’t understand govcare part 1

credit: Colin Dunn via flickr (cc)

credit: Colin Dunn via flickr (cc)

I am not going to call it “Obamacare” since most of it existed long before we’d heard of that guy, and I am not going to call it “health insurance” since it only applies to medical costs, which have just an approximate relationship to health, and it is not insurance since it is intended to pay routine costs rather than help pay for catastrophes. I suppose I might call it “diversion of productive people’s income to lobbyists and their clients” (which we might pronounce “DOPPILC”), but I’ll just call it “govcare” since it certainly involves the government and has something to do with care.

I really don’t understand it at all.  Do we, the People of the United States, wish to pay whatever is necessary in order that all of us may have whatever medical treatment a group of licensed professionals assert is necessary? If so, why do we think it will not absorb 100% of our production beyond subsistence?  If not, how do we decide priorities and set limits, when inevitably any limit is going to find someone  very sick and very sympathy-arousing unable to afford some treatment which really would be helpful? (The answer probably has something to do with us the People of the United States behaving like adults, but if I was the very sick person in question I might have a different attitude.)

The subject is simply too big for me to comprehend, so I will just nibble around the edges.  Today’s nibble is a message I received from the “health insurance” company who take a large part of my income.

Copayments do not apply to deductible or out of pocket.

Or, to put it a different way, if you purchase any considerable amount of medical treatment, what comes out of your pocket is likely to exceed the “out of pocket limit” that “your” “insurance” company proclaims.  (This is in addition, of course, to the amount they already took from you to provide what they call “coverage.”

Medical tax to burden homebuyers

Yes, the report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission is out.  It’s over 600 pages long.  Sources I respect say it’s the expected whitewash.  I probably won’t ever read it. I still haven’t read the Obamacare Act (yeah, thats not a good name for it, we really oughta call it something like DemoPublicare.)  Anyhow, I just found out how it’s going to increase the screwing up of the housing market.

As Lew Sichelman explains, it includes

a highly targeted 3.8% tax enacted as part of the controversial health-care reform legislation that has been signed into law and which Republicans are now trying to overturn.

The tax will apply to individuals with adjusted gross incomes above $200,000 and couples filing jointly with more than a $250,000 AGI. If you and your spouse choose to file jointly, the AGI threshold is $125,000 for each of you.

The Medicare tax, so named because the proceeds are to be dedicated to the Medicare Trust Fund, will be on interest dividends, rents less expenses, and capital gains less capital losses. But the key thing to remember is that the tax is based on whichever is less, the gain you made on the sale of the house or the amount your income exceeds the AGI threshold.

It’s complicated, so it’s hard to predict how it will effect every seller. As always with tax matters, it’s best to consult with a professional.

Of course, the income limits may change (legislatively or thru unmeasured inflation), so any of us who own our housing better save all receipts which might possibly have anything to do with adjusting the basis.  But at least it doesn’t immediately affect the rest of us, does it?

Not so.  I’d say this is another in a series of moves discouraging old people from selling houses that are larger than they need or really want, and which would otherwise be bought by families with children who could use the space.  Earlier policies with similar effect include real estate tax breaks targeted at old people, and whatever programs facilitate reverse mortgages.

So what will homeseeking families do? Most likely, they’ll find houses they can afford, and the probability is that these will be further out. (The tax presumably also applies to sales of high-priced vacant lots, another force discouraging construction of homes on well-located sites.)

So maybe instead of the Obamacare Act, we should call it the Sprawl Enhancement and Old People Stabilitzation Act.