|
KY's Medicaid is limited to those earning $217 a month, AND less than $2000 in "resources". My father-in-law got approved for SSI disability for a bleeding disorder, and got about $15k in back-dated benefits (about 2 years worth) from the time of the application. BUT, in order to qualify for Medicaid, he couldn't have more than 2K in the bank. So he was basically forced to spend that money in order to get Medicaid coverage. Never mind he couldn't actual work, or that he already had ~$50k in unpaid medical bills - he was too rich for assistance.
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 19:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:10 |
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:I'm trying to conceive living off $218/month and I can't imagine its possible without being homeless. Some states actually use your assets instead of or in addition to your income, so things like having money in the bank or owning a car can prevent you from getting Medicaid. EDIT: ^ Yeah, what he said!
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 19:25
|
|
Parachute posted:I think it's funny that states like mine (Texas) are pretty much refusing to go along with this, hoping that ACA will be overturned. Not to mention that not only are we losing tons of federal assistance, it also means that the state is forgoing its right to set up its own "insurance exchanges" or whatever they are calling that and the federal government will step in and do it on their own when the time comes. Several counties within Texas are trying to get the Federal money in spite of the what the state legislature says. http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...06_story_1.html I'm sure the "state's rights" folks won't like that one bit though.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 19:26
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:KY's Medicaid is limited to those earning $217 a month, AND less than $2000 in "resources". Same with Idaho! quote:Adult health coverage also has a limit on the value of assets, such as bank accounts, vehicles, and real estate. The Medicaid for Workers with Disabilities coverage group has higher income and resource limits so that many disabled workers under the age of 65 can qualify for health coverage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 19:27
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:KY's Medicaid is limited to those earning $217 a month, AND less than $2000 in "resources". How the hell are you supposed to spend the money and not buy anything, if possesions can count as your resources. You have to blow the money on non property things? gently caress the poor haters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 19:28
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Oddly enough, I can buy that sushi, but I can't buy a rotisserie chicken for almost the same price that would be dinner for 3 people because it's "hot food", despite the fact both are prepared and ready to eat. Publix actually has a loophole regarding that. They take a certain amount of chicken, package it in plastic containers and put it in the cooler section of the deli. Now you can buy all the premade chicken you want with EBT.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 19:32
|
|
|
Bombadilillo posted:How the hell are you supposed to spend the money and not buy anything, if possesions can count as your resources. You have to blow the money on non property things? gently caress the poor haters. Even now I don't have a concrete answer on what "resources" count as (didn't handle most of the details for him). But money in the bank definitely counts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 19:35
|
|
|
Hey, I finally got the last word in on something. (I'm in green.) Ignoring the fact that the Constitution does, in fact, assign powers of taxation to the government.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
The requirements are so ridiculous that the only way you can meet them and still survive is to cheat. Give your money to a friend for a while, so they can't count it as yours. This is what my mom has to do. List someone as living with you, when they don't, otherwise they'll say that $400 a month is too much for a family of 4. List someone else who is living with you as not, otherwise they'll say you have too many income earners. This stuff, by the way, is largely the effect of Clinton's "Workfare" reforms of the 90's.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:Hey, I finally got the last word in on something. (I'm in green.) Ignoring the fact that the Constitution does, in fact, assign powers of taxation to the government. To be fair, the 16th came after Madison died.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 19:38
|
|
|
True, but that means that the missing next panel of the comic is Obama saying, "Good thing we were able to amend the thing later on, huh? Otherwise the Federal government would've fallen apart once it quit selling land to generate revenue."
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 19:47
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 19:48
|
|
|
Another thing I saw shared from "Being a liberal means being a hypocrite." I take personal offense, because I have a big crush on Sandra Fluke. I respond: Sulphuric Sundae posted:Mia Love is an accomplished individual, but that doesn't mean Sandra Fluke isn't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 19:54
|
|
|
zeroprime posted:Just remind him that the Republicans gladly stole all the racist votes from the Democrats during the civil rights movement, and that the racist vote is the only thing keeping them in power anymore. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy Yeah there's no reasoning with someone that believes the slaves where freed in the 60's.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 19:56
|
|
|
Being elected to a city council in a city of 17,000 people isn't exactly hard either. In my old town(of 14,000), most people running would in fact be elected, heck you'd inadvertently have to also vote for the party you didn't even want, since you had to choose 9 people for the town council and there weren't that many Democrats or Republicans running. e: Not to poo poo on Mia's success, I'm just saying, it's not exactly a hard thing to do, in fact I would say it's easier than obtaining two degrees and then working on a third from one of the nation's most respect law universities. Amused to Death fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Aug 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 20:06
|
|
|
madlobster posted:As the law is written, the subsidies are only for people making between 100% and 400% of the poverty line, with people under 133% eligible for medicaid. If the states don't expand medicaid, only people making between 100% and 133% will be caught by PPACA. If they make less than 100% FPL, their subsidies are calculated as if their income was 100% FPL. So they should still be able to get insurance that I described. Though if you only earn 50% FPL, it might still be too expensive. Parachute posted:I think it's funny that states like mine (Texas) are pretty much refusing to go along with this, hoping that ACA will be overturned. Not to mention that not only are we losing tons of federal assistance, it also means that the state is forgoing its right to set up its own "insurance exchanges" or whatever they are calling that and the federal government will step in and do it on their own when the time comes. You're correct. The Federal government will setup and run them as the Federal Government sees fit. The thing here is that this actually takes away a means for the State to control abortions further. PPACA has a clause that requires every State's Exchange must contain at least one insurance plan which does not cover abortions. However, there's no requirement to have at least one plan which does. So Texas or SC or GA could set up their Exchange such that NO plans cover abortion. But they're leaving it to the Feds instead. They're being offered STATES RITES and making GBS threads all over it just to spite Obama. The only real reason for it is to rally the conservative base, because there's no actual benefit for them to refuse. Nikki Haley, of SC, is trying to block the Federal Government from setting up their Exchange in SC. Instead she wants to allow the Insurance companies in SC to run their own Exchange, without any of those pesky "minimum requirements". Unfortunately for her, I don't think she's aware of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 20:12
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:The requirements are so ridiculous that the only way you can meet them and still survive is to cheat. Give your money to a friend for a while, so they can't count it as yours. This is what my mom has to do. List someone as living with you, when they don't, otherwise they'll say that $400 a month is too much for a family of 4. List someone else who is living with you as not, otherwise they'll say you have too many income earners. Yeah, it's set up this way so that they can deny the benefits to as many people as possible and have plausible legal backing for claims that people are "cheating the system", all while still sucking up as much federal funds as possible. I would think it's actually pretty close to impossible for the government to track your assets, though. Unless I'm grossly uninformed and the panopticon is upon us, the government relies on self-reporting to determine your assets. I don't think they can look into your bank account without a warrant, if they even had a way of finding out which bank you keep your money in without you telling them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 20:15
|
|
|
Replies on the original thread are like "Sandra keep your legs shut!" and "Birth control only costs $9/mo!" My wife urges me to stop debating online because I get nowhere. Maybe I'll run for city council instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 20:15
|
|
|
Sulphuric Sundae posted:Another thing I saw shared from "Being a liberal means being a hypocrite." I take personal offense, because I have a big crush on Sandra Fluke.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 20:19
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:e: Not to poo poo on Mia's success, I'm just saying, it's not exactly a hard thing to do, in fact I would say it's easier than obtaining two degrees and then working on a third from one of the nation's most respect law universities.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 20:20
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:edit* Please don't give them ideas. Some (many) States will already take a woman's child support checks if she's on TANF. And other sources of assistance, like TANF or SSDI reduce your SNAP benefits. Armyman25 posted:Several counties within Texas are trying to get the Federal money in spite of the what the state legislature says. Thanks for posting this. I hope they succeed. When I first saw that picture of Mia and Sandra, I read it as she was "married to kids". edit: beaten
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 20:26
|
|
|
Sulphuric Sundae posted:Replies on the original thread are like "Sandra keep your legs shut!" and "Birth control only costs $9/mo!" My wife urges me to stop debating online because I get nowhere. Maybe I'll run for city council instead. As someone who is Facebook friends with you in real life (and by extention most of your friends), i've gotta tell you: I went through and did a huge purge of my Facebook friends a couple of weeks ago, deleting the worst offenders and setting all the right-wing idiots i'm friends with as invisible on my wall. It's done wonders for my overall well-being. I kind of want to find whoever posted that picture and laugh at them, though. Popular Human fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Aug 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 21:53
|
|
|
So someone "Liked" Mitt Romney in my Facebook wall, and the "also liked" was a whopping six people. Lucky me, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 23:03
|
|
|
I need to start purging people from my list. Every "JESUS SAVES THANK GOD FOR THIS BEAUTIFUL DAY" post linked with a fetus en utero and "PRO LIFE AND PROUD" from my mom's coworkers makes me cringe and want to cry. I did get a talking to from my dad about this whole wealth thing. I didn't mention the tax or his SCUBA or anything, just that the other day I was at the dollar store and saw a homeless guy with a cardboard sign asking for food. I had to pick up produce and stuff anyway, and grabbed an extra loaf of bread and a bag of apples. You'd think I gave the dude a hundred bucks from how much he thanked me. A half dozen red apples and a loaf of bread was enough for that. And my dad, who has never been hungry a day in his life, snapped that the guy was probably faking it, because everyone KNOWS that people pretend to be homeless to get money and blow on drugs. (oh, Dad, like your son, right?) I tried to point out that it was two goddamn dollars I gave away; when I bought lottery tickets I spent three or four times that. And technically I'm 'wasting' money anyway buying apples and lettuce for the tortoises; they can eat grass! (and yes they can, but they need more than that) Then again, daddy is still bitter that his wife lost her well-paying real estate job after the boom and bust and now works in a hospital. The reason she lost her job, he told me, is that her coworkers and boss got pissed at her always going away for two-week long vacations to Australia or Mexico, and she'd bring back tons of photos of all the expensive places they'd stay or eat at. Jealous people fired her. Which may be true. But dad, love, you have to admit, she sure as poo poo didn't need that job as much as everyone else when you two paid CASH for new cars and paid them off that day, and took vacations literally every few months. Besides, I like to imagine the Oliver Twist Karma might kick in one day: the poor guy I helped once, and who the gently caress cares if he eats the apples or gives them to birds or trades them for a blowjob, might be the one helping me some day. But gently caress the poor, right? I seriously wish everyone had to volunteer at a soup kitchen or homeless shelter for a year. edit: Has anyone else got the email about how Romney's tax break horse actually pays for far more than the tax refund? All the people that build the stables, feed the horse, shoe the horse, brush the horse, and all of their families benefit from this single animal! I swear the email says it's the second coming of Christ from how much this single Elmer's Glue escapee has fed people. Cowslips Warren fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Aug 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 23:11
|
|
|
Sarion posted:If they make less than 100% FPL, their subsidies are calculated as if their income was 100% FPL. So they should still be able to get insurance that I described. Though if you only earn 50% FPL, it might still be too expensive. Do you have a source for that? Everything I've read so far seems to say otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 23:17
|
|
|
Dr Christmas posted:So someone "Liked" Mitt Romney in my Facebook wall, and the "also liked" was a whopping six people. Lucky me, I guess. Only two people out of 200 on mine liked Mitt Romney, one may or may not be doing it ironically Connecticut 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 23:40
|
|
|
Six on mine. Three of them I expected, as they're die-hard "I LOVE BEING REPUBLICAN" family. One I was kind of surprised, but she's generally a-political, so no idea what's up there. The other two are young, gay, socially liberal, and otherwise uninterested in politics, so I have to assume they have no idea what Romney's about. I'll need to talk to them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 23:47
|
|
|
Cowslips Warren posted:And my dad, who has never been hungry a day in his life, snapped that the guy was probably faking it, because everyone KNOWS that people pretend to be homeless to get money and blow on drugs. Sorry your dad is such a jerk. My mom and stepdad are the same and it takes every ounce of will to keep from vomiting out a screaming tirade whenever they start telling me about what the poors are really up to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 00:10
|
|
|
I'm glad that I generally agree with my parents politically. My mom still harps on the "FIX THE WELFARE FRAUD" thing way too much. My aunt recently got approved for disability, and she says that EACH KID GETS A CHECK UNTIL THEY ARE 18  (they have 3 kids)
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 01:07
|
|
|
zeroprime posted:Just remind him that the Republicans gladly stole all the racist votes from the Democrats during the civil rights movement, and that the racist vote is the only thing keeping them in power anymore. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy The idea that unions were created as a racist measure to protect white workers from non-white laborers is so loving wrong and offensive that I literally want to punch that person in the face. This person honestly doesn't think that unionization was due to rampant child labor, dangerous working conditions (black lung, the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, etc.), exploitative practices like company towns and stores, low pay, lack of job security, or any other abuse of labor by management and owners? The Macaroni posted:Hey, I finally got the last word in on something. (I'm in green.) Ignoring the fact that the Constitution does, in fact, assign powers of taxation to the government. Actually, the federal government had the power to tax prior to the 16th Amendment, even income taxes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution Wikipedia on the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution posted:Article I, Section 2, Clause 3: What the 16th Amendment did was change the Constitution so that the government would no longer have to directly distribute income or other direct taxes back to the states on the basis of population. The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution posted:The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. So, the Constitution actually authorizes the government to collect various kinds of taxes, both indirect and direct, it's just that prior to the 16th Amendment, it was stricter about what the government could do with direct taxes and forced it to apportion the revenues back to the states based on population rather than spending the money itself. Thus, the canard that the Founders and the Constitution didn't allow for taxes or "redistribution of wealth" or some other bullshit is completely wrong and requires either willful ignorance of history and the Constitution or intentional lying in order to believe in them. The funny thing is, without the 16th Amendment, most income tax revenues would go to the states with the highest populations, not to those who necessarily need it the most. This is ironic because it's only conservatives who are against the 16th Amendment and income taxes, but red states are far more likely to currently be net takers of federal funds and have lower populations (e.g. both Dakotas, Montana, Alaska, etc.), so these conservatives would likely be the ones losing out in terms of funds if the 16th Amendment were repealed or never existed. Conversely, California, Illinois, and New York are net givers of federal funds and are relatively large in population, but the loss of the 16th Amendment would be a boon for them in terms of federal funding.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population Sulphuric Sundae posted:Another thing I saw shared from "Being a liberal means being a hypocrite." I take personal offense, because I have a big crush on Sandra Fluke. But it's not "forcing the school to pay for her birth control," it's the government requiring the school's insurer to cover oral hormonal contraceptives without copays, deductibles, or coinsurance costs for the patient. It doesn't cover all birth control (e.g. condoms are not covered), but, more importantly, it's actually a cost-saving measure because it's far easier and cheaper to treat conditions like ovarian cysts with birth control pills than to perform surgery to remove ovaries once they've been damaged beyond repair by the cysts, as well as being cheaper than pregnancy and delivery in a hospital. Cowslips Warren posted:Then again, daddy is still bitter that his wife lost her well-paying real estate job after the boom and bust and now works in a hospital. The reason she lost her job, he told me, is that her coworkers and boss got pissed at her always going away for two-week long vacations to Australia or Mexico, and she'd bring back tons of photos of all the expensive places they'd stay or eat at. Jealous people fired her. Which may be true. But dad, love, you have to admit, she sure as poo poo didn't need that job as much as everyone else when you two paid CASH for new cars and paid them off that day, and took vacations literally every few months. Um, does he ever consider that she was fired due to a combination of a housing bubble bust and her constantly taking long vacations? I know that if I had a business in a terrible industry like housing, one of the first people I'd fire is the one who's always on long vacations rather than working, especially if they're paid vacations. Who the gently caress would want to keep an employee who seems to care more about vacationing than working? I'm totally in favor of employers providing paid time off, but I also realize that it's not necessarily something employers like or want to do, so I also understand that it's stupid to infer jealousy over vacations as a motive for firing rather than the employer simply being annoyed by the frequency of those vacations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 01:26
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:Yeah, I was just about to post that. It's loving 2012 - if you want something better than entry-level food service positions, chances are having Internet access/smartphone is going immensely help if not be outright required. Half the job postings I see are online-only anymore. If you want entry-level food service positions you need Internet access. The following jobs do not or may not require Internet access: Placements/interviews arranged by government agencies, nonprofits, or temp agencies. Jobs at small businesses run by crazy old Luddites. Jobs with small local governments which require application in person or by mail...but only if you manage to find out about them without the Internet, because that's still how they advertise. I volunteered at a public library where a LOT of people went for their only Internet access. Some of them came 40 miles, bumming rides. IIRC, it was an hour a day if the place was busy. That's enough to apply for MAYBE one job, and it isn't enough if you don't know what you're doing. There were people who I taught to look for work online, where I had to show them every step starting with "this is how you use a mouse." VideoTapir fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Aug 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 02:12
|
|
|
I've been watching past Daily Shows on Hulu to catch up. Every show I see Romney's ad that says Obama cut the work requirements from welfare, which is like 99% false and 1% totally misleading. It's awful and it makes me cringe, but my question is why are they running it on the Daily Show? Surely advertisers get to pick what kind of shows their ads get run on if not the show specifically (I have no idea how advertising works)
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 02:13
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:If you want entry-level food service positions you need Internet access. It certainly doesn't help that many retail companies have ridiculously long application processes online with hundreds of strongly/weakly agree/disagree questions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 02:34
|
|
|
Your information was great, but I wanted to point out some potential problems with that infographic - mostly, it's from data from 2005 when there were more red states since the graphic is based on how they voted during the presidential election. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/26/blog-posting/red-state-socialism-graphic-says-gop-leaning-state/ Not that it makes it any less true, just that it would be wise to use caution with how that information is presented. I would love to see a new one made up with more recent data.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 03:12
|
|
|
myron cope posted:I've been watching past Daily Shows on Hulu to catch up. Every show I see Romney's ad that says Obama cut the work requirements from welfare, which is like 99% false and 1% totally misleading. I'm guessing The Daily Show viewers are in a demographic (young/college aged?) where they're considered swing votes. There's no point advertising to people who are already sure things and on your side. I'm guessing money is money to Comedy Central, no matter who's doing the advertising. Hell, I'm pretty sure I've seen vibrator ads during The Daily Show.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 04:19
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:Your information was great, but I wanted to point out some potential problems with that infographic - mostly, it's from data from 2005 when there were more red states since the graphic is based on how they voted during the presidential election. I'm already aware of that and other criticisms, e.g. presidential voting in a single year isn't necessarily the best indicator of political ideology, especially since there are other measures as easily obtainable, such as voting for Senators and Congresspeople, but I'm not really willing to put in more work than what I've already done.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 05:07
|
|
|
Got another one from my idiot brother in law yesterday:My Retarded Brother In Law posted:shared No Lib Service's photo. Natas Dog posted:I too can read the minds of men who lived more than two centuries ago, and they said "Holy crap, what are these fast moving metal carriages and why are people talking into small bricks as if someone is listening to them; also, who let all the slaves run free off their plantations?????" E; Actually had a second person enter the debate, and amazingly he's not one of the 6 who liked my brother in law's initial post! New Guy posted:Care to elaborate, or are we just throwing things out there with no substance or facts to back it up? Natas Dog posted:That was more or less my point. The founding fathers had no idea half of the things we take for granted in our society would or could exist when they wrote the constitution, that's why it's not a static document and amendments are allowed. It's up to the people and those they elect to decide what kind of government our 'founding fathers' wanted, and as long as those decisions follow the democratic process that's exactly the government they wanted. New Guy posted:Here's something. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/#ixzz251rvLkSe Natas Dog posted:I don't think you 'get' Brother in Law's gimmick, New Guy. He has no original opinions on any of these subjects, which is why he posts these pithy image macros expressing terrible opinions without having to think to hard about why those opinions are terrible. I've stopped trying to debate with reasoned and well sourced arguments at this point, hence my flippant first reply; it's more entertaining that way. As the saying goes, you can't reason someone out of a position that they haven't reasoned themselves into. Brother In Law posted:I could just google until I find a page that says what I want it to say also. But I don't Natas Dog posted:No one's asking you to, but if you're going to make a post claiming that "The current government is what our founding fathers tried to prevent", you should be more specific. What exactly does 'the current government' do that the founding fathers would object to, and how does it differ from what 'the previous government' or 'the next potential government' would do that the 'founding fathers' would approve of? NatasDog fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Aug 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 14:17
|
|
|
I got this one from my dad. I haven't even checked into it, though I know it belongs here and is probably misquoting something innocuous: Sorry in advance for the formatting. oddhair's dad posted:
Edit: I might add it's got a 'smug-looking' Obama pic stuffed partway down, centered.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 15:24
|
|
|
I'm sure no one's surprised that when I did a quick Google search just now about it one of the first results was from PolitiFact, and they gave it a Pants on Fire rating. Of course, if PolitiFact's evaluations are any indication, it's pretty much safe to assume that chain e-mails are false.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 15:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:10 |
|
|
Oddhair posted:I got this one from my dad. I haven't even checked into it, though I know it belongs here and is probably misquoting something innocuous: That isn't even a misquote or a parsed quote out of context... it's just outright lies. That's always the most baffling thing to me, not when people aren't willfully disingenuous but when they are just make stuff up whole cloth to smear people. Here is the snoopes: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/veteranshealth.asp
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 15:33
|
|
