|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 28 2016 03:12 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 22:05 Sadist wrote:
The people not buying insurance arent very smart though. One trip to the hospital or an expensive prescription and you are basically fucked. I don't think this is a safe generalization unless you know why they aren't buying insurance. If the premiums+deductible exceed the person's annual income, there's no point in buying insurance. The insurance goes away if they declare bankruptcy before maxing the deductible. If the premiums mean they can't pay rent, they're better off skipping health care than taking the much larger health impacts from being homeless. If the premiums mean they need to compromise on proper nutrition... well, that's a tossup until the nutrition problems lead to medical complications too severe to ignore, at which point they'd better hope that their drug coverage includes nutritional supplements. I'm not quite in any of the above categories, but I have been in a position where I've needed to skip doctor visits because I couldn't afford the deductible and the premium in the same month.
1) the government has subsidies for those people
2) the government has subsidies for those people
3) the government has subsidies for those people
|
For all the good the government subsidies are supposed to do, the government's pretty good at not actually giving me any subsidies. At this point, I half-expect that I'll need to pay the no coverage penalty this year too.
On October 28 2016 03:20 farvacola wrote:
An insurance company's cancellation of coverage incident to a filing of bankruptcy by a claimant is barred by the automatic stay that activates at the moment of petition filing. Work on your hypo.
Huh, that's funny, I have papers here from my insurance company asserting the opposite.
|
On October 28 2016 03:24 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 03:20 farvacola wrote:
An insurance company's cancellation of coverage incident to a filing of bankruptcy by a claimant is barred by the automatic stay that activates at the moment of petition filing. Work on your hypo. Huh, that's funny, I have papers here from my insurance company asserting the opposite.
That's why both bankruptcy and insurance disputes are best dealt with alongside a competent lawyer 
|
The Next Ten Years Will Be Ugly For Your 401k
Research Affiliates’ 10-year model, the report looks at the typical balanced portfolio of 60 percent stocks and 40 percent bonds. An example would be the $29.6 billion Vanguard Balanced Index Fund (VBINX). For the decade ended Sept. 30, VBINX had an average annual performance of 6.6 percent, and that’s before inflation. Over the next decade, according to the report, “the ubiquitous 60/40 U.S. portfolio has a 0% probability of achieving a 5% or greater annualized real return.”
Does this put a damper on your "how everyone can retire a millionaire" basic plan Kwark? or nah?
|
On October 28 2016 03:23 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 03:12 zlefin wrote:
It's not you buying insurace; it's essentially government insuring everyone (which can be a good thing); which is different from you having insurance. I'm not sure how to explain it better if you're not getting what i'm trying to convey. Howard is it government insuring me if I'm going to a company and giving them my money and the only 2 ways the government is involved is that they supply the marketplace you can shop on and they subsidize it if you for not make a lot. The actual insurance and everything about it is private. The private company does have to abide by the rules but they always have had to the pre existing condition law was just a new regulation to add onto the pile.
the pre existing condition law is a MASSIVE and fundamental change to how things work, and is why it's no longer insurance imho.
It means that an insurer can be required to cover someone who they are guaranteed to make a loss on.
The gov't isn't just subsidizing it, they also enact a penalty if you don't have coverage, a penalty which as it grows to its full-size, is largely about making you pay enough for the coverage you'd have if you had some.
|
If they put that in writing, they are beyond stupid and there is a good chance they violated the automatic stay and fair debt. Even if you didn't file BK, they are not allowed to tell you what can or cannot happen if you file bankruptcy. Farvacola is right, get an attorney.
|
On October 28 2016 03:28 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 03:23 Adreme wrote:On October 28 2016 03:12 zlefin wrote:
It's not you buying insurace; it's essentially government insuring everyone (which can be a good thing); which is different from you having insurance. I'm not sure how to explain it better if you're not getting what i'm trying to convey. Howard is it government insuring me if I'm going to a company and giving them my money and the only 2 ways the government is involved is that they supply the marketplace you can shop on and they subsidize it if you for not make a lot. The actual insurance and everything about it is private. The private company does have to abide by the rules but they always have had to the pre existing condition law was just a new regulation to add onto the pile. the pre existing condition law is a MASSIVE and fundamental change to how things work, and is why it's no longer insurance imho. It means that an insurer can be required to cover someone who they are guaranteed to make a loss on. The gov't isn't just subsidizing it, they also enact a penalty if you don't have coverage, a penalty which as it grows to its full-size, is largely about making you pay enough for the coverage you'd have if you had some.
Because society ends up paying the cost if you do not have insurance (since no normal person can afford a serious injury and we dont like to let people die in the gutter).
|
yeah you'll probably only have to put up a $10,000 retainer to get an attorney
|
On October 28 2016 03:30 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 03:28 zlefin wrote:On October 28 2016 03:23 Adreme wrote:On October 28 2016 03:12 zlefin wrote:
It's not you buying insurace; it's essentially government insuring everyone (which can be a good thing); which is different from you having insurance. I'm not sure how to explain it better if you're not getting what i'm trying to convey. Howard is it government insuring me if I'm going to a company and giving them my money and the only 2 ways the government is involved is that they supply the marketplace you can shop on and they subsidize it if you for not make a lot. The actual insurance and everything about it is private. The private company does have to abide by the rules but they always have had to the pre existing condition law was just a new regulation to add onto the pile. the pre existing condition law is a MASSIVE and fundamental change to how things work, and is why it's no longer insurance imho. It means that an insurer can be required to cover someone who they are guaranteed to make a loss on. The gov't isn't just subsidizing it, they also enact a penalty if you don't have coverage, a penalty which as it grows to its full-size, is largely about making you pay enough for the coverage you'd have if you had some. Because society ends up paying the cost if you do not have insurance (since no normal person can afford a serious injury).
you're missing the point here gorsa. The argument is over WHY I do not consider it to be insurance anymore (in the conventional sense of the word insurance).
I'm not disputing it's rightness or wrongness.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
So if it isn't really insurance anymore as you say, what is the issue with that? The other purpose of everyone being covered is to make sure that conditions are treated early on, when it is cheaper to do so.
|
On October 28 2016 03:32 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 03:30 Gorsameth wrote:On October 28 2016 03:28 zlefin wrote:On October 28 2016 03:23 Adreme wrote:On October 28 2016 03:12 zlefin wrote:
It's not you buying insurace; it's essentially government insuring everyone (which can be a good thing); which is different from you having insurance. I'm not sure how to explain it better if you're not getting what i'm trying to convey. Howard is it government insuring me if I'm going to a company and giving them my money and the only 2 ways the government is involved is that they supply the marketplace you can shop on and they subsidize it if you for not make a lot. The actual insurance and everything about it is private. The private company does have to abide by the rules but they always have had to the pre existing condition law was just a new regulation to add onto the pile. the pre existing condition law is a MASSIVE and fundamental change to how things work, and is why it's no longer insurance imho. It means that an insurer can be required to cover someone who they are guaranteed to make a loss on. The gov't isn't just subsidizing it, they also enact a penalty if you don't have coverage, a penalty which as it grows to its full-size, is largely about making you pay enough for the coverage you'd have if you had some. Because society ends up paying the cost if you do not have insurance (since no normal person can afford a serious injury). you're missing the point here gorsa. The argument is over WHY I do not consider it to be insurance anymore (in the conventional sense of the word insurance). I'm not disputing it's rightness or wrongness.
Thats just a pointless debate of semantics then.
|
If you're filing bankruptcy without an attorney, you're gonna get burned one way or another.
(which is why, of course, consumer financial reform is so fucking important)
|
just file for bankruptcy again afterwards to avoid the attorney fees
|
More bad news:
A New York state court on Wednesday ruled that Exxon Mobil and its auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, must comply with the state attorney general's subpoena for documents as part of the state's financial fraud investigation.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has been investigating whether Exxon withheld information from investors about what the company knew about climate change and how it could impact its business.
The New York attorney general's office sued Exxon and PwC to force them to comply with the subpoena after Exxon would not allow its auditor to hand over documents, citing a Texas state law regarding accountant-client privilege.
The court ruled on Wednesday that the Texas law does not allow Exxon and PwC to withhold the documents from the New York attorney general.
“We are pleased with the Court’s order and look forward to moving full-steam ahead with our fraud investigation of Exxon,” Schneiderman said in a Wednesday statement following the ruling. “Exxon had no legal basis to interfere with PwC’s production, and I hope that today’s order serves as a wake up call to Exxon that the best thing they can do is cooperate with, rather than resist, our investigation.”
Schneiderman's investigation into Exxon has come under scrutiny from Republicans on the House Science Committee, who argue that the probe into Exxon is a political witch hunt. The committee has subpoenaed two state attorneys general for their communications with activist groups about Exxon.
Source
|
On October 28 2016 03:32 LegalLord wrote:
So if it isn't really insurance anymore as you say, what is the issue with that? The other purpose of everyone being covered is to make sure that conditions are treated early on, when it is cheaper to do so.
there is no inherent issue with that, it's simply something other than insurance. It's an alternate societal mechanism for dealing with stuff.
I was trying to explain to someone who was asking why I do not consider it to be insurance.
|
Yeah I've known people that got completely buttfucked in bankruptcy. Definitely something you're not going to want to wade into alone.
|
On October 28 2016 03:34 IgnE wrote:
just file for bankruptcy again afterwards to avoid the attorney fees
If a bankruptcy judge lets you refile and schedule your attorney's fee debt that way, they'll get overturned on appeal. But hey, it's worth a shot 
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 28 2016 01:28 zlefin wrote:
My issue with Obamacare is that it makes health insurance into something that is no longer properly called insurance. it's simply a healthcare system. I'm fine with alternate health care systems; it's just no longer properly insurance.
In the context of this post which started the discussion, one might believe that you do think there is something wrong with it not being insurance.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 28 2016 03:12 zlefin wrote:
It's not you buying insurace; it's essentially government insuring everyone (which can be a good thing); which is different from you having insurance. I'm not sure how to explain it better if you're not getting what i'm trying to convey.
i know what you are trying to say but you are wrong. the mechanism by which healthcare cost is covered is an insurance scheme. whether the market is set up by govt, whether people are compelled to go into the market, whether individuals buy insurance etc are all irrelevant to whether it is an insurance system
the basic mechanism here is risk pooling. you are describing forcing people to join the pool, which doesnt make it not risk pooling
|
On October 28 2016 03:33 farvacola wrote:
If you're filing bankruptcy without an attorney, you're gonna get burned one way or another.
I always flinch when I find someone pacer record with 5 to 10 filings, all dismissed for failure to file schedules. Non-attorneys will charge like $500 to assist with a chapter 13 bk, but then leave the person high and dry after.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
