@marvin100 Why not move your parents to your current location? Sounds like they would receive excellent health care and most likely long term care support.
The stress of living in our current ‘banana republic’ would certainly be bad for one’s health.
@dietz199 - they’re too old for that, and they have their entire support network (friends, relatives) not to mention other children and even grandchildren nearby.
Yes, it’s tough and expensive hiring help and especially getting aged loved ones to ACCEPT the help. HI has very high costs and lots of the care is family members because it’s just so expensive.
Grim indeed, especially in light of efforts to raise the retirement age. How are we supposed to care for our elderly parents if we can’t even retire ourselves?
Yes, it’s very tough caring for increasingly frail and forgetful seniors while juggling other responsibilities. Working full time makes it even more challenging–talk about squeezed! If one cuts back hours to handle the responsibilities, there are fewer resources to help pay for the SR care and even build toward personal retirement.
Some charts on how AHCA/TrumpCare/RyanCare could result in differences compared to ACA/ObamaCare:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-the-gop-bill-could-change-health-care-in-8-charts/
Those are bleak, @ucbalumnus . Thanks for linking.
Well, Paul Ryan has said that the new bill will be tweaked before it’s voted on. Maybe they didn’t realize they were ripping off seniors? Can’t go against a main voting bloc.
He wants to add a work requirement for Medicaid. 75% of Medicaid recipients are young but they only account for 1/3 of the costs. 2/3 of the costs go to seniors and the disabled in nursing homes. Will they need to prove they’re working? I would laugh if I could…
I don’t like ACA, but I don’t like the “replacement,” either. I hope my son continues to receive services. He can’t handle the stress of working. 
He would end up in the hospital if he tried.
How do they get that work?
Here are Monday night’s revisions to Trumpcare:
New areas are in the parenthesis and they are making redundant the areas outside of the parenthesis that contradict them. The thing about New York state is about shifting some Medicaid costs from the counties to the state to bring a few upstate republican New Yorkers into the fold. It will benefit those counties but hurt the state. Doesn’t affect any other states (except by helping Trumpcare get passed).
I don’t understand why they are speeding up the tax phase out. Did many 1%ers complain?
The GOP donors almost certainly did, particularly about the Net Investment Income Tax (an additional 3.8% on investment income over $200,000 or $250,000; see https://www.irs.gov/uac/newsroom/net-investment-income-tax-faqs ). Note that to have investment income that high on a regular basis, one’s investment assets have to be much greater than that.
Greenwitch’s quote is a little confusing, because the parts inside the parentheses are the new changes. Here’s a revised version. The first parts are the changes, and the parts in parentheses are what the bill used to say.
1 States can make Medicaid recipients prove they are looking for work (instead of making states apply for a waiver first)
2 States have the option to take a lump sum for Medicaid to allocate as they wish ( instead of receiving a flat per-beneficiary payment for Medicaid recipients). Either way, the money the state will get is much less than what the staet would have gotten without this bill.
3 Every A.H.C.A. recipient gets a flat tax credit based on age, but people between 50 and 64 might get something more, depending on what the Senate decides to do with the $75 billion slush fund Ryan stuck in the bill without saying exactly what it’s for
4 Obamacare taxes phase out starting in January of this year (instead of next year)
5 Medicaid allotments for older and disabled beneficiaries would grow at slightly faster than CPI-M, which is still considerably less than the rate of growth in costs for medical care.
6 States whose names rhyme with Two Pork get a large cut in Medicaid
7 If your tax credit was larger than your premium, you cannot put the the difference in an HSA because you might use the money to pay for an abortion (in the previous version you could put the extra in an HSA)
How can anyone wonder why the GOP would accelerate the tax cuts? The whole point of the bill is huge tax cuts to rich people paid for by huge Medicaid cuts. Naturally the GOP wants the tax cuts to happen right away.
^^ “Two Pork” made me chortle – thanks @“Cardinal Fang”, you made me laugh! And there’s not much about this topic that’s humorous…
I am sure that whatever version (if any) passes through the house and senate it will be different than this one. I don’t know how easily they will get anything through the house, given that certain quarters think this bill is too generous (basically, they want to totally get rid of ACA), and the Senate is going to be tough because by its nature the Senate is going to be more cautious (a rep only has to answer to a district, senators are responsible to the whole state.A rep from a district where few people are old, for example, would face less wrath then a senator across an entire state).The real question here is whatever comes out of congress, whether generous or parsimonious, does the President really care about health care reform enough to veto what he doesn’t like (and this would be true of anyone sitting at the white house, not making this about the current resident)? It is why passing legislation is difficult, and this one seems to have a lot of factions around it. Historically what the attitudes remind me of is moving back to the Victorian era as someone else said, that people who are not as fortunate are viewed as ‘weak’ or ‘immoral’ or ‘lacking’ and therefore don’t deserve help, it is very much in the mindset of Jeremy Benthalm.
If you are part of the working poor or even lower income how do they think you are supposed to pay your premiums while you are waiting for a tax credit that won’t cover premiums??
The tax credits for premiums are advanceable. They changed that in the new version.
They didn’t change the part about the tax credits being grossly inadequate for people who are 55+ years old and low income, though.
Tax credits Advanceable? Why not just stick to a subsidy…so folks could SEE how much less their subsidy would be.
Unless you are an individual who earns $65,000 who was not subsidy eligible under ACA…but will,get a tax credit under the new plan.
Why…why the increased income level for help?
Prior to the ACA I knew several families who were purchasing their insurance on the individual market. And they were paying their full premiums. After the ACA they qualified for rather large (IMO) subsidies because of the number of family members. These families make an income which allowed them to pay the pre ACA premiums AND life a nice middle class lifestyle.
On the other hand, our premiums went sky high, we lost options and increased our deductible.
THAT’s why the increased income level for help.
A single person earning up,to $75,000 a year will be eligible for a tax credit. That is almost twice the average income for single person in this country.
At the same time, someone earning $40,000 a year, who used to have a subsidy that made insurance pruchase somewhat affordable, will be getting FAR less as a tax credit. FAR less.
Sorry…I get it for families…but not for singles.