One Of My Concerns

[alaska55]

Yes, complicated indeed. For one thing, an injury/condition/disability that is related to a person's military service will generally qualify for treatment by the VA regardless of the individual's financial status (or whether they retired from military service). Lots of folks have hearing issues (though it has gotten better since all the services are now quite strict on use of hearing protection). I know very few servicemembers with extended infantry or airborne time who don't also have knee, hip, or back problems. Etc.

+! on the above my oldest son hurt his back jumping while in the 82nd AB bad enough no more jumping after that. He got transfered to a Striker Brigade at FT. Wainwright Alaaska went to Iraq twice. He received 2 Purple Hearts, medically retired as a Sgt first class E7 from the army with 80% disabilty after 14 years. I would stand up for anybody to receive VA benefits after that ordeal.

 

[copyright1997reloaded]

Hmm, what happened recently that increased debt?

And now it's a worry?

We have been on this road to ruin for a long, long time. Eventually, it becomes unsustainable. When, I don't know. People can live beyond their means for a long time, and so can the collective people aka government spending.

 

[GKieffer]

Means testing is inevitable. While all we hear about is L vs R, D vs R, rich vs poor, black vs white (that’s as close to political as I plan to get) what we don’t hear about is the government class vs the rest of us. They are going to protect their turf and lifestyle in retirement and means testing the rest of us for SS benefits is absolutely going to happen. We are running trillion dollar deficits.

 

[target2019]

https://www.twincities.com/2018/04/...lawmakers-he-got-food-stamps-to-make-a-point/

On the one hand, I applaud this man for having the guts to go through with this to prove his point. On the other hand, I fear that if they ever seriously addressed this & counted assets, they could also apply it to subsidized healthcare at some point.

An interesting story which reminds me of voluntary compliance with the US tax code. I had the pleasure of working with a tax firm, and entered data for approximately 100 tax returns (but whose counting?). I saw things that were quite amazing.

One can take advantage of our generous social programs, and often without penalty. Guess this gives additional meaning to the phrase, "It's a free country." Also, there is safety in numbers, until you take a step that causes your return to be looked at a bit closer.

 

[dtbach]

That surprises me. I have a number of friends that are veterans that use the VA and they seem pretty affluent to me.

Yeah, I keep hearing stories about guys getting hearing aides (and I could use some after 3000 hours of jet and turbo-prop flying) for free and other services.

So I applied and got the letter back saying, thank you for your service but you are NOT eligible for VA services and specifically said it was because I didn't meet the financial need requirement.

 

[dtbach]

I did forget to mention that I was cleared 100% medically when I retired from the service. Those who have military related injuries (i.e. disabilities) are waived from financial requirement.

So for those vets who did their service, got out in fine health, are not automatically qualified to VA care and that is where the financial mean testing comes into play.

I did not intend to imply that guys with Purple Hearts and substantial injuries were also means tested.

 

[Spock]

I think one misconception is that the ACA is for helping the "needy".
One needs to have an income, and not just an income but 133% of the poverty level to get an ACA subsidy, no income or income below 1.33x the poverty level and you are routed to Medicaid, which IS meant for the needy.

AND ACA will subsidize up through incomes 4x the poverty level... thats an income of $64,080. thats 1.1x more than the starting salary for most high paid engineering degrees. A family of 4 can earn up to almost $100,000 before subsidies are cut off!!! So ACA was never about "need".

Off the hip it seems to make sense to means test for ACA. But dig a little. The cheapest high deductible health plan would cost me over 18,000 in annual premiums and another 13,000 in out of pocket deductibles before insurance would pay a dime in coverage. Thats 3.25x what my mortgage was and roughly equal to the rest of my entire budget (food, insurance, taxes, utilities, etc).

The system is broken, no doubt. And there is no such thing as a perfect system. Means testing for ACA or SS will just have the effect of soaking the ants and rewarding grasshoppers in one of Aesop's Fables https://www.umass.edu/aesop/content.php?n=0&i=1

 

[Winemaker]

You don't think there will be means testing for SS at some point?

While I do expect means testing for SS to pop it's ugly head again in the future again; it is already means tested tax wise. Up to 85% of your benefits, can be taxed, and it was taxed at different rates while you paid your "premiums" into it.

From what I understand, in order for SS to be constitutional, it had to be an "insurance" program. Otherwise, taking assets from one class of citizens to give to another class of people on an uneven level, would violate the equal protection clause.

 

[aja8888]

I think one misconception is that the ACA is for helping the "needy".
One needs to have an income, and not just an income but 133% of the poverty level to get an ACA subsidy, no income or income below 1.33x the poverty level and you are routed to Medicaid, which IS meant for the needy.

Unless you are in a state that has not agreed to expand Medicaid. Then you have no insurance coverage and have to visit medical facilities and pay the freight, or not, and possibly ruin your credit rating. Nice system!

 

[Montecfo]

Unless you are in a state that has not agreed to expand Medicaid. Then you have no insurance coverage and have to visit medical facilities and pay the freight, or not, and possibly ruin your credit rating. Nice system!

Well, if state has not expanded Medicare there is a gap, but Medicare is still the ultimate safety net.

 

[Dtail]

Well, if state has not expanded Medicare there is a gap, but Medicare is still the ultimate safety net.

If one is single and under 65 y.o. and earning under ~16k in FLA, it could be a bad situation for med coverage of which Medicare won't help currently.

 

[aja8888]

Well, if state has not expanded Medicare there is a gap, but Medicare is still the ultimate safety net.

You really mean Medicaid, not Medicare. Totally different programs.

The fall back position if you find yourself stuck between the ACA and Medicaid with neither benefit is to pay cash or just show up at the local county hospital ER and pay nothing.

 

[Montecfo]

You really mean Medicaid, not Medicare. Totally different programs.

The fall back position if you find yourself stuck between the ACA and Medicaid with neither benefit is to pay cash or just show up at the local county hospital ER and pay nothing.

Yes on both counts.

 

[pb4uski]

While I do expect means testing for SS to pop it's ugly head again in the future again; it is already means tested tax wise. Up to 85% of your benefits, can be taxed, and it was taxed at different rates while you paid your "premiums" into it.

From what I understand, in order for SS to be constitutional, it had to be an "insurance" program. Otherwise, taking assets from one class of citizens to give to another class of people on an uneven level, would violate the equal protection clause.

On the first part, taxing SS benefits is not means testing at all... it is no different from taxing a portion of annuity benefits that represent untaxed interest. IOW, if you made weekly payments into an an annuity contract for 30 years and they started receiving benefit payments, a portion of those annuity benefits would be taxable... essentially the portion of each benefit payment that is interest and has never been taxed. 85% is a rough approximation of the portion that would be taxed.

If you take your (FRA benefit * 12months)/4% you get roughly the value of your SS using the 4% rule. The subtract from that your SS contributions (SS taxes you paid from your SSA statement) to get the part that you have never been taxed on. Divide the part that you have never been taxed on by the total... for me I get about 83%.

On the second part.... see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvering_v._Davis

 

[Winemaker]

On the first part, taxing SS benefits is not means testing at all... it is no different from taxing a portion of annuity benefits that represent untaxed interest. IOW, if you made weekly payments into an an annuity contract for 30 years and they started receiving benefit payments, a portion of those annuity benefits would be taxable... essentially the portion of each benefit payment that is interest and has never been taxed. 85% is a rough approximation of the portion that would be taxed.

If you take your (FRA benefit * 12months)/4% you get roughly the value of your SS using the 4% rule. The subtract from that your SS contributions (SS taxes you paid from your SSA statement) to get the part that you have never been taxed on. Divide the part that you have never been taxed on by the total... for me I get about 83%.

On the second part.... see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvering_v._Davis

On the first part, some only pay tax on 50% of their benefit, others may pay up to 85% of their benefit. But also, SS taxes are not deductible in the year paid, and depending on your tax bracket, various rates are paid on depending on your income level.

On the second part, yes, it was ruled constitutional, not as part of an "insurance" policy as it was initially intended( OASDI, Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance). The SC ruled that the payment was an excise tax, and that benefits would be paid out as part of the "general welfare" clause. In order to get a favorable constitutional ruling, Roosevelt threatened to pack the Court. Since he had recently won his reelection by a wide margin, and had both chambers of Congress by large majorities, his threat was real.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/hist...hed-with-the-supreme-court-and-lost-78497994/

But my concern was not this history, but a worst case reduced means tested benefit that would not give me and others, equal protection.

 

[athena53]

From what I understand, in order for SS to be constitutional, it had to be an "insurance" program. Otherwise, taking assets from one class of citizens to give to another class of people on an uneven level, would violate the equal protection clause.

Ah- thus the old "FICA" appellation, which stood for "Federal Insurance Contributions Act". They don't use that anymore, do they?

 

[pb4uski]

Ah- thus the old "FICA" appellation, which stood for "Federal Insurance Contributions Act". They don't use that anymore, do they?

Actually, they do... FICA is alive and well.... but since FICA consists of SS (aka OASDI... pension, life and disability insurance combined) and Medicare (health insurance) today they more commonly refer to each individual piece.

The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) (/ˈfaɪkə/) is a United States federal payroll (or employment) contribution directed towards both employees and employers to fund Social Security and Medicare—federal programs that provide benefits for retirees, disabled people, and children of deceased workers.

The Insurance also provides funds to the health care system for institutions that provide healthcare for workers that do not have health insurance and cannot afford healthcare treatment. Social Security benefits include old-age, survivors, and disability insurance (OASDI); Medicare provides hospital insurance benefits for the elderly. The amount that one pays in payroll taxes throughout one's working career is associated indirectly with the social security benefits annuity that one receives as a retiree. Consequently, Kevin Hassett wrote that FICA is not a tax because its collection is directly tied to benefits that one is entitled to collect later in life. (Insurance).The United States Supreme Court decided in Flemming v. Nestor (1960) that no one has an accrued property right to benefits from Social Security. The Federal Insurance Contributions Act is currently codified at Title 26, Subtitle C, Chapter 21 of the United States Code.

 

[pb4uski]

On the first part, some only pay tax on 50% of their benefit, others may pay up to 85% of their benefit. But also, SS taxes are not deductible in the year paid, and depending on your tax bracket, various rates are paid on depending on your income level. ....

Akin to progressive tax rates where everyone pays but those with lower incomes pay less and those with higher incomes pay more... I don't see a huge problem with that.