0 I Traded My Home for Healthcare

I Traded My Home for Healthcare

Really?  Well, pretty much.

Four years ago McCrabby and Mrs. M were having some financial issues; when the investment counselor (using that term loosely) lost hundreds of thousands, the business hit the skids, a frivolous lawsuit from a fired employee cost thousands to fight, and the economy tanked, it seemed best to cut expenses (Politicians take note).

McCrabby and Mrs. M sold their house (didn't walk away - paid off the mortgage), and moved to the town where they grew up (high school sweethearts).  

That saved them a mortgage payment, $6,000/year in property taxes, and overall just lowered the cost of living (cheaper being in a small town).

Then, came the Affordable Care Act (the biggest misnomer around).  McCrabby's Blue Cross policy, which he was not allowed to keep (see previous posts here), increased from $364 to $841 per month, for lesser coverage.  Now, as December 15 looms, McCrabby has to change policies again.  The cost, starting this month, is now $1,278/month, about what the mortgage used to be in McCrabby's last home.

So, let's review a couple things McCrabby has heard about the Affordable Care Act:

• "That can't be right (regarding McCrabbys' insurance costs)" -- have heard that a lot from people on Medicare, but it IS correct; it might not be right, but it's correct (McCrabby is pretty good at examining all options -- this one is the best he can even come close to affording, and offers less coverage than the one he had two years ago, which cost less than one third of today's plan).

• "Well, at least more people are insured" -- really?  at what cost?  As these costs continue to skyrocket, less people can afford insurance so the government pays for it.  How long can that go on?  And, how can the 10% who can afford it, pay for the 90% who cannot?  And more people are insured, because the government is paying for them.  They could have done that without screwing up the programs for those that pay.  It's always easy to take a handout, but how long can that last?  We're bankrupting our country

• "It's leveled the playing field for all" -- well, at least for the 90% that won't be able to afford insurance (it will get to that number eventually) -- yep, we're all getting socialized medicine.

• "Pre-existing conditions don't limit your coverage" -- that's nice, but why is McCrabby paying for maternity care and pediatric dental care, without getting dental care for M and Mrs. M?  The McCrabbys' baby girl is now 35, and seems past the age of wishing for a baby sister, now that she has three kids of her own.  But her kids will still be paying for today's healthcare 50 years from now.

• "This system is more fair than what we had" -- to whom?  See above.

• "But, at least gas prices are down" --  Really???  15 or 20 cents?  Maybe, 50?  Since McCrabby is such a numbers guy, he did some ciphering, and this is what he found. McCrabby and Mrs. M drive about 1,200 miles per month, between their two cars (less driving in a small town).  Having cars that get reasonable gas mileage, that translates to about 50 gallons of gas per month (24 MPG average).  So, if gas goes down 15 cents per gallon, it saves the McCrabbys about $7.50 that month.  The McCrabby health insurance bill, is going up $400+ per month this month, after going up $400/month in January/2014, when the McCrabbys could NOT keep the plan they had.  To have the same impact as two years of health insurance increases, gas would have to go up to more than $19 per gallon.  Do you think that would make the news?

And, do you want to hear a real irony.  McCrabby let one of his term life insurances lapse, because with the expense of healthcare, he had to make a decision.  That's a scary choice.

Well, I guess McCrabby better get back to work now; after all, we have to pay the mortgage  healthcare bill.

McCrabby

How 'bout following us on Twitter, or signing up here..    We'd love to see you..

Detail: I Traded My Home for Healthcare

0 Dear Mr. President; my healthcare costs are up 330% since 2013; how's your bill working??

Really??

So, how is the new healthcare program working for you?  McCrabby and Mrs. M just got their increase for January (again) -- had to write our congressman, senators, and the president.  Our letter is below.

Curt MacRae
Coldwater, MI

September 26, 2014

President Barack Obama

White House

1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. Obama:

I wrote a year ago to detail the effects of the “Affordable Care Act” on my life.  As a reminder, here are the bullets of that: 

·       Examining our new plans that are offered, we found that we must include maternity coverage (we both turned 63 last year, so we aren’t planning on more kids) and pediatric dental care (but not adult dental care).

·       We are now paying 208% of what we paid previously for the policy we were told we could keep

·       Raising our deductible from $2,000, to $10,000

·       Raising our co-pay maximum from $2,500 to $7,000

·       Paying for emergency room procedures, even AFTER deductibles are met

·       Paying for all prescriptions, unless we can get a generic which will cost about what we pay now

I also pointed out last year, what I predicted for other outcomes of this bill.

o   More than double our costs (and move that to 3-4 times if we actually get sick)

o   Think twice, or more, before seeking medical care, because we’re covered for “well” visits, but not for when we’re actually sick

o   The economy gets hurt (we were getting ready to buy a new car to replace our 12-year old car, but now those funds will go to healthcare)

o   Incent people to pick the highest deductible possible to keep rates down

o   Then, when illness hits, bankruptcy will follow because people will give up paying

o   Poor people will get coverage with government subsidies (squeezing middle class again)

o   Young people will “risk it” and pay penalties, rather than pay high costs to cover the poor

o   The system will have to raise rates because the young, healthy people aren’t in the program

I’m writing again to not to say “I told you so,” but to see if you think it will ever end.  We just got a notice this week that our coverage, which was $365/mo prior to your bill, and $846/mo this year, is going up to $1,201/mo in January.  And our co-pays are still three times as high. 

I heard an observation once, “I find it amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication, somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication, and a government bureaucracy to administer it.”  Sounds right to me.

Can someone help?

 To repeat what I said in last year’s letter, this is the first time I’ve felt forced to pick what’s not best for my family, because the government is telling me to.  We have always believed that we’ll do what’s needed to survive.  We’ve survived economic turmoil, money mismanagement by an unscrupulous financial advisor, a frivolous lawsuit from a disgruntled employee who was fired for stealing, and we’ve pulled ourselves up and kept going.  We were recovering, considering buying our first new car in ten years, and…   But, we don’t think it’s fiscally responsible now, with the big increase in insurance costs.  I mean, we shouldn’t take on too much debt, should we??  Do you think?  Oh wait a minute.

I’m frustrated, I’m sad, I’m hurt and I’m mad.  I’d like to hear why this is good for my family and good for my country.  Please enlighten me on that.  I’d like a response.

Thank you.

Detail: Dear Mr. President; my healthcare costs are up 330% since 2013; how's your bill working??

0 We're suing the president... but the corrupt judge is off limits -- Really??

From CNN:  "The Republican-led House approved a resolution on Wednesday authorizing Speaker John Boehner to sue President Barack Obama over claims he abused his powers at the expense of Congress and the Constitution.

The vote was 225-201.

Republicans argue Obama's executive orders in a number of areas were unlawful because it's the job of Congress to make or change laws. But they believe his handling of the Affordable Care act gives them the best chance at proving their case, and are basing the suit on that issue.

House authorization now allows GOP-leaders to have the unusual challenge filed in federal court. The time frame for that is not clear and many legal experts question whether any judge would take it on.

Not a single House Democrat voted for the resolution and five Republicans opposed it."

OK, everyone knows that's going nowhere, but it's included as background for this...  This is just another waste of time, effort, money and resource.  And, we wonder why Congress has a nine per cent approval rating..  

You can't make this stuff up...

Judge Wade McCree Jr. lost his job, for now.  

This judge, in Detroit (where else??), who once texted a shirtless photo of himself to a female court bailiff, had a physical affair with a woman while overseeing her child custody case.  He had sex with her in his chambers and sexted her from the bench.  REALLY??  Read it again:  Did you see that he had the affair WHILE he was presiding over her case against her ex-husband?

But he can't be sued for money damages  because judges are immune from civil lawsuits — You can sue the President, but Judge McCree is immune??   REALLY??

Yep, it's a long-established doctrine that has many in the legal profession, and even more outside the profession, shaking their heads, and stating that the McCree case highlights a pervasive problem in the justice system (just one??): judges getting away with unethical, or simply bad, behavior on the promise of immunity.

It undermines public confidence in government," said Connecticut civil rights attorney Norm Pattis, author of "Taking Back the Courts," a 2011 book that documents flaws in the justice system.  That could be one big book.

"I don't think anybody should be above the law, least of all those who administer it," said Pattis, who labeled the immunity status as "a crazy rule" and the McCree case as "outrageous."

The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that McCree could not be sued by the father of his mistress' child, even though his actions were "often reprehensible."

The ruling baffled Attorney Joel Sklar. He represents the father, Robert King, who claims McCree denied him access to a fair and impartial judge by having an affair with Geniene La'Shay Mott when she sued King over child support. King claims McCree's decisions — such as placing him on a tether — were influenced by his "sexual desires" and that his rulings unfairly favored his mistress.        Ya think, Robert??

"This conduct is absurd," Sklar said. "It's so beyond description. A judge uses his chambers to have sex with a litigant? ... If this isn't too far, what is too far?"  Well Joel, it does seem a little too far.

It has long been recognized that for judges to be able to render impartial decisions, without fear of repercussion, they need to be immune from lawsuits. 

But just because you can't sue judges for money doesn't mean they can get away with unethical  behavior completely.  

Judges can be removed from the bench; McCree was. The Michigan Supreme Court removed him from the bench and suspended him for six years, They made it six years, fearing that the voting public is so uninformed that they'd reelect him in November.    

 News interview videos are included here for your viewing pleasure (yes, these are real interviews, not Saturday Night Live -- although SNL, take note; this could be a hilarious skit).  Note that McCree wants to keep this affair "under the covers," which seems to be the ultimate double entendre. 

While it is understood that a loosening of the immunity doctrine would trigger a mountain of lawsuits against judges, there has to be a middle ground.  Maybe there should be an exception clause:  When a judge is deciding a child custody case, while sleeping with the mother, the father wins.  

This isn't a one-time situation either; in Tennessee, a judge escaped liability recently -- he was accused of propositioning a woman for sex in exchange for him issuing a warrant for some individuals she claimed attacked her.  REALLY??

A federal judge dismissed that lawsuit, concluding that even if the judge did ask her for sex, he was protected by immunity. The judge did lose his job.  Maybe he'll be reelected.  And, maybe the federal judge who made that decision should lose his.

Is this our best?

Wanna read another Detroit mess, from a year or two ago??  Go to Internal Affairs has new meaning in Detroit. 

__________________________________
How 'bout following us on Twitter, or signing up here.. We'd love to see you.. We only have 80 folks, and we'd love to get to a couple hundred (sign up on the left, where it says "join this site") so we can see your picture on this site. And follow us on twitter (@curtmacrae), where we don't post much, but we'd love to see you there. 

Posted 4th 

Detail: We're suing the president... but the corrupt judge is off limits -- Really??

0 Kids suing parents; finally!!! REALLY??

Spare the rod, get sued by your kid...    Really?

Maybe you read about the case where a young lady decided her parents "owed" her a college education, no matter what.  McCrabby wasn't going to comment, but the legal system has been a target before, so let's give a judge his due.  He stopped this lunacy.

In case you haven't heard, let's give a quick recap:  

Rachel Canning — who has been accepted to several colleges, including a $20,000 scholarship to the University of Vermont — wanted the court to declare she’s nonemancipated because under the law a parent has an obligation to support their child if he or she is not emancipated.

“To be clear, my clients never abandoned nor abused their child, and they have asked her to come home,” their attorney, Laurie Rush-Masuret, told reporters just before entering court.

Rush-Masuret said Rachel Canning did not want to follow house rules, including making curfew and breaking up with her boyfriend whom her parents considered trouble.  “We’re good parents,” Sean Canning said. “We have nothing to hide.”

Judge Peter Bogaard noted that Rachel Canning’s behavior over the past year was a concern -- cutting high school, getting suspended, her boyfriend doing the same, moving in with her best friend’s so-called “concerned” family, and then seeking high school and college tuition costs, and $654 a week in living expenses.

Six hundred fifty-four a week?  McCrabby usually takes about a hundred a week for his expenses.  Mrs. M takes less than that, except for groceries.  I know iPhones and Starbucks are expensive, but really?

The judge said the sides will revisit the issue of college tuition at the end of April, about a month after Rachel Canning’s financial aid forms are due. Bogaard hinted that ruling in the teen’s favor could set a dangerous legal precedent. “Do we want to establish a precedent where parents living in constant fear of establishing basic rules of the house?” he said.

OK, McCrabby has some thoughts..  

• McCrabby's #1 child, with an IQ north of 140 was attending Michigan State University and attaining a 2.0-2.5 gradepoint average.  He was passing, but not working.  Making a difficult decision, McCrabby told McCrabby Jr., that the gravy train was over.  Dad was done making payments for college.   The result?  He never missed the Dean's List for the rest of his college years and graduated with the Honors College.  Seems like parents should be involved.
• 
  

• Our legal system lets these frivolous lawsuits move forward at major cost, in terms of money, and humanity.  Aren't we tired of this?
• Shouldn't parents be allowed to parent?  There are so many parents that abdicate that responsibility, maybe we should applaud those that step up.  McCrabby can speak from experience that it is tougher to deny your child something you can provide than it is to simply give them what they want.  We need to give them what they need.

• And, how do you feel about the friend's parents, who took this young lady in, financed her lawsuit and were "concerned" so they stepped in?  McCrabby realizes that not all is known about the entire situation, but who does that??
• We seem to be living in a time of entitlement; would this type of suit been brought 25 years ago, or even 15?  Would our parents have been shocked at this action?  Would your dad simply have told you to "shut up and act right?"  

• Some say that kids today mature faster. Maybe, in regards to sex and knowing how to work the system.  Beyond that, many kids seem far less mature than their predecessors. An 18-year-old today seems almost juvenile compared to the ones who went off to fight World War II, or even those of us who were in college, managing our Viet Nam draft status on our own (and paying for college on our own).  When my father told me to pull my own weight, I knew how a response of "how 'bout you give me $654/week, and I won't need to" would be received.  McCrabby's kids knew the same.  We didn't sue.  When did that change?  

Entitlement seems to be built into our political system, encouraged by our legal system, and driven by a lack of common sense.  Thankfully, this judge put a stop to the lunacy, if only temporarily - let's wait to see what happens during the "revisit" in late April.

How 'bout following us on Twitter, or signing up here..

We'd love to see you..

You can "join this site") so we can see your picture. And follow us on twitter (@curtmacrae), where we don't post much, but we'd love to see you. 

Detail: Kids suing parents; finally!!! REALLY??

0 Why not Detroit? Because we're bailing out Somalia???

Why not help out the economic crisis in Detroit?? Or, perhaps we could invest more in education; or, extend unemployment benefits to people who have tried to find work for a year.  Maybe we should cut out the new taxes on the Affordable (Really??) Care Act.  Or, maybe we should reduce the national debt?  Or, give incentives to grow our economy?  Or, maybe....  I know I could use a few more bucks.

Do you know how much money the United States, a country that is $17 TRILLION in  debt, disburses in economic aid to foreign countries on an annual basis?  Let's take a look.

Top 25 Recipient Countries of U.S. Foreign Aid FY 2012, Reported in $US millions, Obligations 

Country	U.S. Total Economic and Military Assistance FY 2012, $US millions	Economic Assistance FY 2012, US millions	Military Assistance FY 2012, US millions	Aid received per person recipient FY 2012
Afghanistan	12,886.60	3,325.50	9,561.10	423.63
Israel	6,175.10	25.10	6,150.00	813.50
Iraq	2,792.10	783.50	2,008.60	89.69
Egypt	2,705.40	102.60	2,602.80	32.33
Jordan	1,438.90	831.60	607.30	221.07
Pakistan	1,219.70	1,137.70	82.10	6.41
Ethiopia	871.50	864.60	6.90	9.56
Kenya	751.60	745.60	6.00	17.47
Colombia	686.00	543.90	142.00	15.16
Haiti	510.60	510.20	0.40	52.10
West Bank/Gaza	457.40	457.40	0.00	105.57
South Sudan	445.10	395.50	49.70	41.89
Russia	440.90	339.00	101.90	3.09
Somalia	419.60	274.90	144.70	41.61
Tanzania	402.70	399.30	3.50	8.58
Congo (Kinshasa)	388.90	370.50	18.40	5.28
Uganda	353.20	349.40	3.90	10.50
Nigeria	337.80	330.90	6.90	1.99
Lebanon	302.60	141.30	161.20	73.07
Sudan	298.10	298.10	0.00	8.72
Ukraine	282.20	207.30	74.90	6.29
Yemen	279.60	237.40	42.10	11.29
South Africa	276.20	272.60	3.70	5.66
Mozambique	274.40	273.50	0.90	11.67
Bangladesh	260.00	246.50	13.50	1.61

Notes:

• Sources: U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants, U.S. Bureau of Census (BUCEN) International Database.

So, let's talk Russia, a country who is threatening us in the Ukraine and seems to have a horrible human rights record.  Does it make sense that we are sending $400  million to Russia, admittedly a small portion of the total, but still sounding like a big amount, to a country that is housing our fugitives and blocking democracy?

Or, take a look at Somalia, whose renegade outlaw pirates hijack ships and kill people in their region, and inspired the movie, Captain Phillips.  That country received almost as much as Russia.

Yemen houses terrorists groups and Libya, where our ambassador and his staff were attacked and killed, didn't quite make the list above, but still has received $200 million+ in the last couple of years. 

Jordan, where 85% of the people dislike the United States and what it stands for, got $1.4 Billion (yes, with a B). And, even though they hate us, they took our money.  Luckily, all these other countries love us.

Maybe some of the folks in Detroit who are losing their pensions in the City's bankruptcy proceedings, would show some appreciation for some aid.  Some of those Detroiters actually support the U.S.

And, now one public service announcement.  For anyone that doesn't know the difference between the national deficit and the national debt, here you go:

Federal Deficit

• The federal deficit refers to the federal budget deficit which is simply the difference between the amount of U.S. expenditures compared to the amount of U.S. tax collected.

Federal Debt

• The federal or national debt is the amount of money the U.S. Government has borrowed from and owes to lenders.

So, when your congressman tells you we'll cut the deficit, we know it's not true; but even IF Congress were to cut the deficit, all that does is slow down the increase in the debt.  Let's cut the debt instead...   Or, send a few bucks to Detroit... or McCrabby.

Would you join our site now? We'd love to see you.. You can sign up on the left where it says "join this site") so we can see your picture. And follow us on twitter (@curtmacrae), where we don't post much, but we'd love to see you there. 

Detail: Why not Detroit? Because we're bailing out Somalia???

0 Buy a new car? Or, healthcare? That's the question

This letter was written today and mailed (snail mail) to

 

President Barack Obama

Senator Carl Levin

Senator Debbie Stabenow

Representative Tim Walberg

                                                                                                            October 26, 2013

Dear    Fill in the blank ,

"If you're one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance," Obama said. "This law will only make it more secure and more affordable."    Barack Obama on June 28th, 2012 in a speech at the White House

Really??  Let me tell you the reality.  My wife and I are both 62 years old, self-employed, and buy an individual Blue Cross insurance plan, that we have had since before President Obama came into office.  We like the policy, the coverage, the rates were fair, and we paid our premiums on time every month. 

Last month, we got a letter from our carrier, saying our coverage did not meet the Affordable Healthcare Act parameters, so we are cancelled, effective December 31.

Examining our new plans that are offered, we found that we must include maternity coverage (nice to have, but we were willing to risk it) and pediatric dental care (but not adult dental care).   Even though our daughter always wanted a baby sister, we’ve decided that we really are not planning on having more children (our daughter is 33).

The other changes we are getting include:

·       Paying 208% of what we currently pay for the policy we were told we could keep
·       Raising our deductible from $1,000, to $5,000
·       Raising our co-pay maximum from $2,500 to $7,000
·       Paying for emergency room procedures, even AFTER deductibles are met
·       Paying for all prescriptions, unless we can get a generic which will cost about what we pay now

What will this do to (not for) us, and more importantly to our country:

o   More than double our costs (and move that to 3-4 times if we actually get sick)
o   Think twice, or more, before seeking medical care
o   The economy gets hurt (we were getting ready to buy a new car to replace our 12-year old car, but now those funds will go to healthcare)
o   Incent people to pick the highest deductible possible to keep rates down
o   Then, when illness hits, bankruptcy will follow because people will give up paying
o   Poor people will get coverage with government subsidies (squeezing middle class again)
o   Young people will “risk it” and pay penalties, rather than pay high costs to cover the poor
o   The system will have to raise rates because the young, healthy people aren’t in the program

This is the first time I’ve felt forced to pick what’s not best for my family, because the government is telling me to.  We have always believed that we’ll do what’s needed to survive.  We’ve survived economic turmoil, money mismanagement by an unscrupulous financial advisor, a frivolous lawsuit from a disgruntled employee who was fired for stealing, and we’ve pulled ourselves up and kept going.  We were recovering, considering buying our first new car in ten years, and…   But, we don’t think it’s fiscally responsible now, with the big increase in insurance costs.  I mean, we shouldn’t take on too much debt, should we??  Do you think?  Oh wait a minute.

I’m frustrated, I’m sad, I’m hurt and I’m mad.  I’d like to hear why this is good for my family and good for my country.  Please enlighten me on that.  I’d like a response.

Thank you.

Detail: Buy a new car? Or, healthcare? That's the question