Attention early retirees in Kentucky

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

Post Reply
WiseOne
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:08 am

Attention early retirees in Kentucky

Post by WiseOne » Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:47 am

Kentucky’s waiver, submitted for federal approval in 2016, requires able-bodied adult recipients to participate in at least 80 hours a month of “employment activities,” including jobs training, education and community service.

The rules apply to those between 19 and 64 years old. Certain groups are exempt, including former foster-care youth, pregnant women, primary caregivers of a dependent, full-time students, the disabled and the medically frail.

At least nine additional states, mostly Republican-led, have proposed similar changes to Medicaid: Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Utah and Wisconsin.
Full article: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1F128R

I don't know how much that would actually accomplish, but it's not unreasonable and for sure it will foil some early retirees' plans. I think PointedStick was talking about getting qualified for Medicaid at one point.

I expect that the key to sidestepping the rule will be the definitions of "medically frail" and "dependent". Just complain of back pain and tell them you have a nearby elderly mom who relies on you, or something like that.
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Attention early retirees in Kentucky

Post by Mountaineer » Sat Jan 13, 2018 11:55 am

WiseOne wrote:
Kentucky’s waiver, submitted for federal approval in 2016, requires able-bodied adult recipients to participate in at least 80 hours a month of “employment activities,” including jobs training, education and community service.

The rules apply to those between 19 and 64 years old. Certain groups are exempt, including former foster-care youth, pregnant women, primary caregivers of a dependent, full-time students, the disabled and the medically frail.

At least nine additional states, mostly Republican-led, have proposed similar changes to Medicaid: Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Utah and Wisconsin.
Full article: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1F128R

I don't know how much that would actually accomplish, but it's not unreasonable and for sure it will foil some early retirees' plans. I think PointedStick was talking about getting qualified for Medicaid at one point.

I expect that the key to sidestepping the rule will be the definitions of "medically frail" and "dependent". Just complain of back pain and tell them you have a nearby elderly mom who relies on you, or something like that.
Good grief! How unreasonable to expect people to pull the wagon instead of ride in it (I think someone on here mentioned that phrase prevously). ;)
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
Don
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 286
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:21 pm

Re: Attention early retirees in Kentucky

Post by Don » Sat Jan 13, 2018 3:49 pm

WiseOne is from NYC where more than half the people ride in the wagon instead of pulling.
User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4052
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Attention early retirees in Kentucky

Post by Kriegsspiel » Sat Jan 13, 2018 4:13 pm

Kentucky’s waiver, submitted for federal approval in 2016, requires able-bodied adult recipients to participate in at least 80 hours a month of “employment activities,” including jobs training, education and community service.

The Kentucky program also imposes a premium on most Medicaid recipients based on income. Some who miss a payment or fail to re-enroll will be locked out for six months. The new rules will take effect in July, Kentucky state officials said.

“Kentucky will now lead on this issue,” Governor Matt Bevin said at a news conference on Friday. “They want the dignity associated with being able to earn and have engagement in the very things they’re receiving,” he said of Medicaid recipients.
You know when you were a little kid, and your parents would tell other people at dinner that you "loved eating your broccoli, because he knows it will make him grow up big and strong" and you would grin at those other people and say "Hmm... yup, I sure do!" and cram it down, then you thought wait, WTF broccoli is gross what is happening oh shit did mom just Jedi mind trick me?

I think Matt really internalized that.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Attention early retirees in Kentucky

Post by moda0306 » Sat Jan 13, 2018 5:08 pm

Don wrote:WiseOne is from NYC where more than half the people ride in the wagon instead of pulling.
What criteria are you using here? The median household income in NYC is over $50k if memory serves.

Here's an interesting snapshot...

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/16/news/ec ... /index.htm

Somehow this problem looks a little different than some conservatives would want us to believe.
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8864
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Attention early retirees in Kentucky

Post by Pointedstick » Sat Jan 13, 2018 6:27 pm

I was on Medicaid for 7 months in New Mexico while I was retired, before I decided to find another job.

It was incredible. Best health care I ever had. If I could buy back into it for $100/mo for each member of my family, I would. The blindingly obvious and politically feasible solution for health care in the USA is to merge Medicare and Medicaid and let anyone buy into it for somewhere between $50 and 200 per month. It would be fantastically popular and introduce competition into the private market by giving non-old-non-poor people a way out of the insurance and hospital cartels.

If they'd implemented the mandatory work proposal in New Mexico, I doubt it would have changed much for me. Maybe I'd have gone out and gotten a part-time job.
clacy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1128
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 8:16 pm

Re: Attention early retirees in Kentucky

Post by clacy » Sun Jan 14, 2018 8:46 am

Wow I didn’t realize welfare was readily used by early retirees like that.

That is very sad.
WiseOne
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:08 am

Re: Attention early retirees in Kentucky

Post by WiseOne » Sun Jan 14, 2018 10:18 am

Pointedstick wrote:I was on Medicaid for 7 months in New Mexico while I was retired, before I decided to find another job.

It was incredible. Best health care I ever had. If I could buy back into it for $100/mo for each member of my family, I would. The blindingly obvious and politically feasible solution for health care in the USA is to merge Medicare and Medicaid and let anyone buy into it for somewhere between $50 and 200 per month. It would be fantastically popular and introduce competition into the private market by giving non-old-non-poor people a way out of the insurance and hospital cartels.

If they'd implemented the mandatory work proposal in New Mexico, I doubt it would have changed much for me. Maybe I'd have gone out and gotten a part-time job.
That's the difference between university/academic medical centers and private practice. Less luxurious setting, a lot more time spent in waiting rooms, and frequent changes of physician, but the care is infinitely better. I've thought that "Medicaid for all" with an income-based sliding scale premium would be very well received. It'll never happen of course.

Mountaineer - indeed I did say that, just not sure that the work requirement as described is the way to shift someone from being in the wagon to helping pull it. Simply increasing the premium after a limited amount of time and providing a way to waive it for people who are unable to work or doing job training would be more effective and simpler, I would think. Most of the people I see in Medicaid clinics own smartphones. I'm sure they could find $50 or $100/month for health care.

In New York State overall, somewhere between 1/4 - 1/3 of the population is on Medicaid. I would guess the percentage is higher in NYC but couldn't find any published numbers. As always, the median income is a bit misleading as it's important to know what the distribution is. In NYC it's more weighted toward the extremes (low and high) than is the case in the rest of the US.
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: Attention early retirees in Kentucky

Post by Maddy » Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:32 am

Pointedstick wrote:The blindingly obvious and politically feasible solution for health care in the USA is to merge Medicare and Medicaid and let anyone buy into it for somewhere between $50 and 200 per month.
The problem with cost-shifting schemes is that you eventually run out of people to whom the cost can be shifted.
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Attention early retirees in Kentucky

Post by Libertarian666 » Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:07 pm

Pointedstick wrote:I was on Medicaid for 7 months in New Mexico while I was retired, before I decided to find another job.

It was incredible. Best health care I ever had. If I could buy back into it for $100/mo for each member of my family, I would. The blindingly obvious and politically feasible solution for health care in the USA is to merge Medicare and Medicaid and let anyone buy into it for somewhere between $50 and 200 per month. It would be fantastically popular and introduce competition into the private market by giving non-old-non-poor people a way out of the insurance and hospital cartels.

If they'd implemented the mandatory work proposal in New Mexico, I doubt it would have changed much for me. Maybe I'd have gone out and gotten a part-time job.
Nah, that's way too restricted. Just give everyone everything for free and print money to pay for it!
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: Attention early retirees in Kentucky

Post by Maddy » Tue Jan 16, 2018 11:46 am

I guess it all depends on your definition of "early retirement," but I tend to think of "retirement" as a situation in which a person intends to support him or herself for the duration of his or her life out of savings and/or investment income. There are plenty of people (my community provides a great example) who lack a source of income sufficient to meet their basic needs and who nonetheless choose not to work, or to work only minimally, relying upon public assistance to get by. I wouldn't dignify that state affairs by calling it "retirement."
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Attention early retirees in Kentucky

Post by moda0306 » Tue Jan 16, 2018 2:08 pm

Maddy wrote:I guess it all depends on your definition of "early retirement," but I tend to think of "retirement" as a situation in which a person intends to support him or herself for the duration of his or her life out of savings and/or investment income. There are plenty of people (my community provides a great example) who lack a source of income sufficient to meet their basic needs and who nonetheless choose not to work, or to work only minimally, relying upon public assistance to get by. I wouldn't dignify that state affairs by calling it "retirement."
Would you consider someone who is (or will-be with their spend-down plan) dependent on Social Security and Medicare to be in "retirement?"

I'd guess that 90% of the "retired" population would have to radically adjust their spend-down plan if it weren't for those programs.
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: Attention early retirees in Kentucky

Post by Maddy » Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:38 pm

moda0306 wrote:Would you consider someone who is (or will-be with their spend-down plan) dependent on Social Security and Medicare to be in "retirement?"

I'd guess that 90% of the "retired" population would have to radically adjust their spend-down plan if it weren't for those programs.
The idea of early retirement suggests a choice made during the prime of life, when options are still plenty. For someone who decides to retire early but lacks the ability to do so without resorting to governmental assistance, it necessarily entails a decision to put leisure, or at least personal fulfillment, ahead of personal responsibility. Your typical 65-year-old, in contrast, has only limited options and is fast running out of steam, so the decision to stop working often reflects practical necessity more than anything else.

I have nothing against early retirement--even for those who haven't achieved the usual financial benchmarks--but that choice involves trade-offs. If you're not prepared to make those trade-offs, chances are you're counting on somebody else to pull the wagon.
whatchamacallit
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:32 pm

Re: Attention early retirees in Kentucky

Post by whatchamacallit » Tue Jan 16, 2018 6:52 pm

The frustrating thing is the welfare cliffs. You are encouraged to keep income low. In Colorado specifically, you have to pay for the school bus or preschool unless you stay under cliff.

Just give to everyone for free at that point.

Edit :Another welfare cliff Colorado has, subsidized home loans under certain income.

Probably many others as well.
Last edited by whatchamacallit on Wed Jan 17, 2018 7:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
WiseOne
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:08 am

Re: Attention early retirees in Kentucky

Post by WiseOne » Wed Jan 17, 2018 7:03 am

moda0306 wrote:Would you consider someone who is (or will-be with their spend-down plan) dependent on Social Security and Medicare to be in "retirement?"
Yes, because that's the over-67 population and that's not "early" retirement. Social Security income depends on how much you paid into it previously, so you might consider that a prepaid pension.

Medicare is different, but it's a reasonable tradeoff. There is cost shifting at work here since not everyone's pre-paid premiums (during their working years) dd up to enough to cover the premiums that they'd otherwise have to pay a private insurer at Medicare age. There is an efficiency with cost shifting this way though: Medicare's administrative overhead is a tiny fraction of that in the private insurance world. If Medicare were replaced by private insurance, health care costs for the elderly would go through the roof.

Conversely, if Medicare were to be opened to everyone, health care costs in this country would instantly drop around 20-30%. That's the extra we are paying for the luxury of feeding private health insurers (to say nothing of big pharma). It's so much fun to watch Congress try very, very hard to forget this little fact.

EDIT: This isn't incompatible with my view that routine labs & office visits should not be covered by insurance at all. That would yield even more savings - well over half the cost of office visits is sucked up by billing & required documentation.
clacy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1128
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 8:16 pm

Re: Attention early retirees in Kentucky

Post by clacy » Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:24 am

Early retirees who use welfare to fund their early retirement during prime working years, are just that..... welfare recipients. You have to have a pretty low amount of pride to do that IMHO.
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: Attention early retirees in Kentucky

Post by Maddy » Thu Jan 18, 2018 12:25 pm

whatchamacallit wrote:The frustrating thing is the welfare cliffs.
I've never thought much of the "welfare cliff" argument. And I've thought about it a lot because I have a close relative who's used that excuse for the last 30 years.

The argument is that the system makes it impossible for the beneficiaries of public assistance to get off welfare because a recipient who loses a dollar of assistance for every dollar he earns gains nothing by working. Those recipients who really milk the system through the receipt of tangential benefits (e.g., energy assistance, day care, supplemental nutrition, etc.) can argue that it actually costs them to work. The unstated assumption is that the recipient of public assistance is as entitled to money he gets from others as he is to the money he earns himself.

It takes a wierd, distorted kind of logic to appreciate this argument, which frames the question solely in terms of which situation provides the "better deal." When a recipient of public assistance engages in this kind of calculus, he or she ignores the fact that somebody else is on the giving end of the equation, and that "somebody else" may actually be considerably less well-off than the welfare recipient--in no small part because he or she is carrying the load of the wagon-riders by doing exactly what the recipient has determined is not worth doing.

I guess you have to be a low-income, pull-the-wagon type, to get it.
whatchamacallit
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:32 pm

Re: Attention early retirees in Kentucky

Post by whatchamacallit » Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:29 pm

I have been fortunate enough to have never been in a situation to need welfare.

I don't like how the system punishes savers though. I have come across people that fall into the trap of not wanting to save at all.

I like the citizen dividend idea the most as a solution but there will never be anything perfect.
clacy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1128
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 8:16 pm

Re: Attention early retirees in Kentucky

Post by clacy » Thu Jan 18, 2018 6:10 pm

Citizens dividends may actually work some day if the AI/robotic revolution fully takes form.
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Attention early retirees in Kentucky

Post by Libertarian666 » Tue Jan 23, 2018 5:12 am

moda0306 wrote:
Maddy wrote:I guess it all depends on your definition of "early retirement," but I tend to think of "retirement" as a situation in which a person intends to support him or herself for the duration of his or her life out of savings and/or investment income. There are plenty of people (my community provides a great example) who lack a source of income sufficient to meet their basic needs and who nonetheless choose not to work, or to work only minimally, relying upon public assistance to get by. I wouldn't dignify that state affairs by calling it "retirement."
Would you consider someone who is (or will-be with their spend-down plan) dependent on Social Security and Medicare to be in "retirement?"

I'd guess that 90% of the "retired" population would have to radically adjust their spend-down plan if it weren't for those programs.
If it weren't for those programs, people would save a lot more for retirement, and medical costs would be far lower.
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Attention early retirees in Kentucky

Post by Libertarian666 » Tue Jan 23, 2018 5:22 am

WiseOne wrote:
moda0306 wrote:Would you consider someone who is (or will-be with their spend-down plan) dependent on Social Security and Medicare to be in "retirement?"
Yes, because that's the over-67 population and that's not "early" retirement. Social Security income depends on how much you paid into it previously, so you might consider that a prepaid pension.

Medicare is different, but it's a reasonable tradeoff. There is cost shifting at work here since not everyone's pre-paid premiums (during their working years) dd up to enough to cover the premiums that they'd otherwise have to pay a private insurer at Medicare age. There is an efficiency with cost shifting this way though: Medicare's administrative overhead is a tiny fraction of that in the private insurance world. If Medicare were replaced by private insurance, health care costs for the elderly would go through the roof.

Conversely, if Medicare were to be opened to everyone, health care costs in this country would instantly drop around 20-30%. That's the extra we are paying for the luxury of feeding private health insurers (to say nothing of big pharma). It's so much fun to watch Congress try very, very hard to forget this little fact.

EDIT: This isn't incompatible with my view that routine labs & office visits should not be covered by insurance at all. That would yield even more savings - well over half the cost of office visits is sucked up by billing & required documentation.
Sorry, but this makes no sense. Much of the reason that health care costs are so high in this country is that Medicare and other "cover nearly every medical expense" plans push them up, by detaching payment from usage.

So it should be obvious that "Medicare for all" would push costs to the moon, and result in Draconian restrictions on service and/or national bankruptcy.

The correct solution is to "make insurance great again" :-) by the following plan:

1. Getting rid of all restrictions on what can be covered, which would mean that catastrophic plans would cost 1/4 as much as "cover-everything" plans, mostly by getting rid of the paperwork burden.
2. Level the playing field by exempting personal purchases of health insurance from income tax, to match the tax exemption for corporate-paid coverage.

For those too poor to pay even for a catastrophic plan, charity or a last-resort government catastrophic plan would fill in.
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Attention early retirees in Kentucky

Post by Libertarian666 » Tue Jan 23, 2018 5:24 am

Maddy wrote:
whatchamacallit wrote:The frustrating thing is the welfare cliffs.
I've never thought much of the "welfare cliff" argument. And I've thought about it a lot because I have a close relative who's used that excuse for the last 30 years.

The argument is that the system makes it impossible for the beneficiaries of public assistance to get off welfare because a recipient who loses a dollar of assistance for every dollar he earns gains nothing by working. Those recipients who really milk the system through the receipt of tangential benefits (e.g., energy assistance, day care, supplemental nutrition, etc.) can argue that it actually costs them to work. The unstated assumption is that the recipient of public assistance is as entitled to money he gets from others as he is to the money he earns himself.

It takes a wierd, distorted kind of logic to appreciate this argument, which frames the question solely in terms of which situation provides the "better deal." When a recipient of public assistance engages in this kind of calculus, he or she ignores the fact that somebody else is on the giving end of the equation, and that "somebody else" may actually be considerably less well-off than the welfare recipient--in no small part because he or she is carrying the load of the wagon-riders by doing exactly what the recipient has determined is not worth doing.

I guess you have to be a low-income, pull-the-wagon type, to get it.
To fix this problem, there are two possible approaches:

1. Try to convince people with a high rate of time preference that they should delay gratification by working rather than goofing off; or
2. Get rid of the programs that subsidize idleness.

The evaluation of which of these is more likely to succeed is left as an exercise for the reader. :-)
WiseOne
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:08 am

Re: Attention early retirees in Kentucky

Post by WiseOne » Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:40 am

Libertarian666 wrote:The correct solution is to "make insurance great again" :-) by the following plan:

1. Getting rid of all restrictions on what can be covered, which would mean that catastrophic plans would cost 1/4 as much as "cover-everything" plans, mostly by getting rid of the paperwork burden.
2. Level the playing field by exempting personal purchases of health insurance from income tax, to match the tax exemption for corporate-paid coverage.

For those too poor to pay even for a catastrophic plan, charity or a last-resort government catastrophic plan would fill in.
This wouldn't help with the paperwork burden. All you need is one insurer demanding the current level of documentation & billing nightmares, and you're back to square one. That 20-30% savings I was talking about has to do with this ridiculous overhead.

The idea is to get rid of ALL non-medically-motivated documentation requirements for low-margin services like office visits and simple lab tests and make them cash basis for payments, and put everything else under a single insurance mechanism with a consistent set of requirements. There are plenty of doctors offices out there who already implement sliding scale fees based on income, and there are volunteer-staffed clinics who will see patients for free - so no need even for Medicaid to deal with this. An office visit SOAP note should take just a couple minutes to write or type - as opposed to the current system where physician documentation and office staff work takes at least 15-20 minutes each and requires electronic systems costing millions to purchase and maintain, and then the whole setup goes to a billing agency which takes ~30% off the top, and which will manage to collect about half the charged fee after various rounds of insurance denials, requests for added documentation etc. Get the picture? After all this, the profit on office visits is probably something like $30-$50 for a followup (or less). So why not just charge that at the get-go? For heaven's sakes MOVIES cost almost that much!!

For hospitalization/major procedures, you have this same overhead but it's unrealistic not to use an insurance system for this. Medicare incurs maybe a tenth of the overhead that private insurers do. Thus the instant savings if everyone is invited to join Medicare (paying premiums just like they do for private insurers), assuming Medicare is scaleable.
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Attention early retirees in Kentucky

Post by Libertarian666 » Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:27 am

WiseOne wrote:
Libertarian666 wrote:The correct solution is to "make insurance great again" :-) by the following plan:

1. Getting rid of all restrictions on what can be covered, which would mean that catastrophic plans would cost 1/4 as much as "cover-everything" plans, mostly by getting rid of the paperwork burden.
2. Level the playing field by exempting personal purchases of health insurance from income tax, to match the tax exemption for corporate-paid coverage.

For those too poor to pay even for a catastrophic plan, charity or a last-resort government catastrophic plan would fill in.
This wouldn't help with the paperwork burden. All you need is one insurer demanding the current level of documentation & billing nightmares, and you're back to square one. That 20-30% savings I was talking about has to do with this ridiculous overhead.
With a catastrophic-only plan there is no such burden of paperwork, as nothing is covered other than catastrophic costs, which obviously don't include office visits.

If I were a physician in private practice I wouldn't accept any insurance plans for office visits. Surgery or hospitalization, yes.
Post Reply