Suggested Answers to the Third Short Quiz

[johnkarls]

.
Suggested Answers to the Third Short Quiz - The New Refundable Child Tax Credit and The New Medicaid Work Requirement


A. The New Refundable Child Tax Credit

Question 1

What is the difference between a “tax credit” and a “tax deduction”?

Answer 1

A deduction is an amount that is subtracted from INCOME before calculating the tax on the net amount.

A credit is an amount that is subtracted from the TAX ITSELF after it has been calculated on net income.

Question 2

Do members of the Mainstream Media often confuse the two?

Answer 2

Distressingly often.

Question 3

What is the difference between a “plain-vanilla garden-variety” tax credit and a REFUNDABLE tax credit?

Answer 3

Most credits reduce the tax BUT NOT BELOW ZERO.

A REFUNDABLE tax credit, AFTER reducing the tax to zero, becomes a REFUND (or NEGATIVE income tax!!!).

Question 4

Do our pols think that REFUNDABLE tax credits are wonderful because the pols don’t have to call them “subsidies” in the case of those that benefit business or affluent individuals, or “welfare” in the case of those that benefit the poor?

Answer 4

Absolutely!!! (The greatest thing since sliced bread!!!)

Question 5

Prior to last month’s $1.5 TRillion “Tax Reform” bill, were there any REFUNDABLE tax credits that benefitted the nation’s poor?

Answer 5

There was (and still is) an “Earned Income Credit” for the WORKING POOR [which, effectively, excludes the “extreme poor” ($2.00 per person per day) on which we are focusing].

There was also a child tax credit of a maximum of $1,000 per child. It was REFUNDABLE.

As described in the next Q&A-6 --

(A) the maximum per child was increased from $1,000 to $2,000; and

(B) $1,400 is now REFUNDABLE (which, of course, is $400 more than the total of the old child tax credit).

Question 6

Does the new Tax Reform Act provide a child tax credit of $2,000/year, of which $1,400/year is REFUNDABLE?

Answer 6

Yes.

Question 7

Did Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) loudly proclaim that he was opposed to the Tax Reform legislation because only $1,100/year of the new child tax credit would be REFUNDABLE -- forcing the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to increase the REFUNDABLE portion to $1,400/year in order to secure Senator Rubio’s vote?

Answer 7

Yes!!! Bravissimo Sen. Rubio!!!

Question 8

Will the new $1,400/year REFUNDABLE child tax credit lift quite a few Americans households out of $2.00 per person per day “extreme poverty”?

Answer 8

$1,400 per year per child = $3.84/day!!!

Accordingly, just one child will almost lift out of “extreme poverty” ($2.00 per person per day) both the child and a single mother!!!

Bravissimo Sen. Rubio!!! [Even though this would still leave the child and mother well below the Poverty Line.]


B. The New Medicaid Work Requirement

Question 1

Since its original enactment in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society Program, has Medicaid ever had a work requirement?

Answer 1

No.

Question 2

Did the Trump Administration announce on this past Thursday (1/11/2018) that it will permit states to impose a work requirement?

Answer 2

Yes.

Question 3

Did the Trump Administration explain that there were 10 states that wanted to run demonstration projects for testing requirements for work or other types of community engagement like training, education, job search, volunteer activities and care giving?

Answer 3

Yes.

Question 4

Did the Trump Administration also explain that the new Medicaid work requirement would be similar to the work requirement of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program (TANF)?

Answer 4

Yes.

Question 5

Is TANF the short-term (60 months lifetime cap) DISCRETIONARY program (like Medicaid, TANF is administered by the states, and states have always been authorized under TANF to pay NO BENEFITS whatsoever) with which President Bill Clinton replaced in 1996 the Aid to Families With Dependent Children Program (AFDC) which had been THE CORNERSTONE OF FDR’S “NEW DEAL” FOR 61 YEARS?

Answer 5

Yes.

Question 6

Was Medicaid enacted in 1965 to provide completely-free medical care to Americans living below the poverty line?

Answer 6

Yes.

Question 7

Did Obamacare extend Medicaid (in participating states) to the next-lowest economic tier?

Answer 7

Yes.

Question 8

Did quite a few states decline to participate in the Obamacare expansion of Medicaid because the U.S. government would only bear a portion of the cost of the expansion, and because Obamacare only offered a “promise” (each Congress has only a two-year life and cannot bind future Congresses to anything -- and, indeed, each two-year Congress cannot even bind itself against changing its own mind) to pay a portion of the cost of the expansion for only a limited time?

Answer 8

Yes.

Question 9

Since Republicans talked incessantly last summer about “Repealing and Replacing” Obamacare with “block grants” to the states, is the Trump Administration’s approval of state work requirements for Medicaid probably meant to pave the way for those states that “stuck their necks out” and elected to implement the Obamacare expansion of Medicaid, to “pull their necks back in”?

Answer 9

So it would appear.

Question 10

Until such time as Obamacare is “repealed and replaced” by block grants to the states, is the new work requirement likely to enable states to salvage some of their Medicaid benefits for the Obamacare tier above the poverty line at the expense of Medicaid benefits for the traditionally-served tier of Americans below the poverty line?

Answer 10

So it would appear.

Question 11

Is this ploy by our pols to “Rob Peter to Pay Paul” reminiscent of Obamacare’s plundering in 2009 the so-called “Social Security Trust Fund” of $500 Billion (that’s a HALF TRillion) to help “pay for” Obamacare? Did AARP, incredibly, approve stealing this $500 Billion from the so-called “Social Security Trust Fund”? Was that theft different from the normal investment by the so-called “Social Security Trust Fund” in U.S. Government Securities because the theft would never be repaid and the U.S. Government Securities presumably will be?

Answer 11

Yes, it is reminiscent of Obamacare’s plundering $500 Billion (HALF a TRillion) from the so-called “Social Security Trust Fund.”

And yes, AARP to its eternal disgrace (!!!) attempted to curry favor by approving the plundering!!!

And yes, the difference between plundering and a loan is that a theft will never be repaid whereas a loan presumably will be.

Question 12

BTW, when President Obama had his “High Noon” showdown with Republicans over “shutting down the government” for 16 days in 2013, did Obama have the audacity to prevent Social Security from being paid during the “shut down” even though the so-called “Social Security Trust Fund” was solvent and its Trustees violated their fiduciary duties by obeying Obama’s illegal order for them to violate their fiduciary duties?

Answer 12

Yes, and this was NOT the only time that President Obama acted illegally!!!

Though it is one of his illegal acts that was NEVER questioned by the Mainstream Media!!!

[And no, I don’t really have “a dog in this hunt” since my social security is only 20% of my total pension income so when it is received matters little -- but I know many retirees who depend on receiving their Social Security on a timely basis to pay their bills.]

Question 13

Since President Reagan’s 1986 legislation (requiring Hospital Emergency Rooms to provide medical treatment for everyone REGARDLESS OF ABILITY TO PAY) will provide a significant amount of medical care for America’s poor who will now be excluded from Medicaid by the new work requirement, isn’t the new work requirement ALSO a thinly-disguised ploy to shift significant Medicaid costs onto the hospitals and onto insurance companies (which can be expected to raise premiums for the Americans served by those hospitals)?

Answer 13

So it would appear.

Question 14

BTW, do public-opinion surveys show that many of the nation’s poor actually prefer medical treatment dispensed by Hospital Emergency Rooms to Medicaid?

Answer 14

In March 2015, the American College of Emergency Physicians released a poll on the impact of Obamacare on Hospital Emergency Rooms to which more than 2,000 ER Physicians responded.

[The poll, together with the ACEP’s 5/4/2015 press release, are posted below in a so-called “Reply” to this posting.]

Of the more-than-2,000 ER Physicians who responded -- (A) 28% reported significant increases in all emergency patients since Obamacare took effect, and (B) 56% said the number of Medicaid patients is increasing.

The ACEP Report says these data correlate with another new report issued by Health Policy Alternatives, which found that efforts by policymakers and health insurance plans to drive Medicaid patients out of emergency departments and into primary care are not working. More than half of providers listed by Medicaid managed care plans could not offer appointments to enrollees, despite a provision in the ACA boosting pay to primary care physicians treating Medicaid patients. The median wait times was 2 weeks but over one-quarter of providers had wait times of more than a month for an appointment.

There is strong evidence that Medicaid access to primary care and specialty care is not timely, leaving Medicaid patients with few options other than the emergency department.

Question 15

And also BTW, did we launch one of our Six-Degrees-Of-Separation E-mail Campaigns following our 7/12/2017 meeting to provide “Medicare For All” as a means of SAVING THE U.S. GOVERNMENT $300 BILLION/YEAR?

Answer 15

Absolutely!!! [Please see the first section of http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org in which the currently-third posting is entitled “7/12/2017: Saving the Gov $300 Billion/yr - Medicare-For-All”.]

Question 16

And shouldn’t TRUE CONSERVATIVES favor saving the U.S. Government $300 BILLION/year (not just $300 BILLION over a 10-year period which is the time span our pols love to talk about), even if we (quoting Rhett Butler from “Gone With The Wind”) “frankly…don’t give a damn” about our poor???

Answer 16

So one would think!!!

At least ours did!!!

[We pride ourselves in being a non-partisan public-policy study group that takes effective action in the best interests of the nation -- as explained in our bulletin board posting cited in Q&A-15, of our 12 members who have considered this issue, 4 would be considered “conservative” in conventional political terms and all 4 agreed that “Medicare For All” should save the U.S. Government $300 BILLION per year (!!!) and, therefore, adopting “Medicare For All” would be the truly “conservative” thing to do!!!]

[johnkarls]

.
Re Q&A B14 --

newsroom.acep.org/2015-05-04-ER-Visits-Continue-to-Rise-Since-Implementation-of-Affordable-Care-Act


ER Visits Continue to Rise Since Implementation of Affordable Care Act
American College of Emergency Physicians – 5/4/2015


WASHINGTON, May 4, 2015 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Three-quarters of emergency physicians report that emergency visits are going up, according to a new poll. This represents a significant increase from just one year ago when less than half reported increases. Rather than trying to keep people out of emergency departments, policymakers need to recognize the value of this model of medicine that people want and clearly need, according to the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP).

Most of the respondents to the poll report little or no reductions in the volume of emergency visits due to the availability of urgent care centers, retail clinics and telephone triage lines. About 90 percent of more than 2,000 respondents also say the severity of illness or injury among emergency patients has either increased (44 percent) or remained the same (42 percent).

"The reliance on emergency care remains stronger than ever," said Michael Gerardi, MD, FAAP, FACEP, president of the ACEP. "It's the only place that's open 24/7, and we never turn anyone away. Rather than trying to put a moat around us to keep people out, it's time to recognize the incredible value of this model of medicine that people need."

More than one-quarter (28 percent) report significant increases in all emergency patients since the requirement to have health insurance took effect. In addition, more than half (56 percent) say the number of Medicaid patients is increasing.

These data correlate with another new report issued by Health Policy Alternatives, which found that efforts by policymakers and health insurance plans to drive Medicaid patients out of emergency departments and into primary care are not working. More than half of providers listed by Medicaid managed care plans could not offer appointments to enrollees, despite a provision in the ACA boosting pay to primary care physicians treating Medicaid patients. The median wait times was 2 weeks but over one-quarter of providers had wait times of more than a month for an appointment.

"There is strong evidence that Medicaid access to primary care and specialty care is not timely, leaving Medicaid patients with few options other than the emergency department," said Orlee Panitch, MD, FACEP, chair of EMAF and emergency physician for MEPHealth in Germantown, Maryland. "In addition, states with punitive policies toward Medicaid patients in the ER may be discouraging low-income patients with serious medical conditions from seeking necessary care, which is dangerous and wrong."

The report — commissioned by the Emergency Medicine Action Fund (EMAF) — is titled "Review of the Evidence on the Use of the Emergency Department by Medicaid Patients and the Evolving Role of Emergency Medicine Physicians."

"America has severe primary care physician shortages, and many physicians will not accept Medicaid patients because Medicaid pays so inadequately," said Dr. Gerardi. "Just because people have health insurance does not mean they have access to timely medical care."

In addition, Dr. Gerardi raised concerns about the closure of hospitals and emergency departments in states that have not expanded Medicaid.

"Hospitals received less Medicaid funding for charity care when the ACA took effect, because more people were supposed to have health insurance coverage," said Dr. Gerardi. "But in states that didn't expand Medicaid, hospitals are hurting. For example, the closure of a hospital in Baton Rouge resulted in a crisis for another hospital that inherited all the patients, many of whom are uninsured, and now this hospital may close as well. The average reimbursement for a Medicaid patient in the ER is about $43.00, but it's much lower in many states."

When asked what would happen if federal subsidies for health insurance coverage were to be eliminated in their states — which might occur if the U.S. Supreme Court decides in favor of the plaintiff in King v. Burwell — 42 percent of emergency physicians said they expect emergency visits to increase. Additionally, 65 percent expect reimbursement for emergency care will decrease if those federal subsidies are eliminated.

Poll Methodology:

This survey was conducted online in the United States by Marketing General Incorporated on behalf of the American College of Emergency Physicians between March 16-23, 2015, among 2,099 emergency physicians age 18 or older, providing a response rate of 9 percent and a margin of error of 2.1 percent. To see the complete poll results, please click here or contact Mike Baldyga at mbaldyga@acep.org or 202-370-9288.

Actually, click here --

RL-e115-March 2015 Report of The American College of Emergency Physicians on Obamacare.pdf

(1.26 MiB) Downloaded 101 times

About ACEP:

ACEP is the national medical specialty society representing emergency medicine. ACEP is committed to advancing emergency care through continuing education, research and public education. Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, ACEP has 53 chapters representing each state, as well as Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. A Government Services Chapter represents emergency physicians employed by military branches and other government agencies.

*****

For further information: Mike Baldyga, 202-370-9288, mbaldyga@acep.org, for complete poll results: http://newsroom.acep.org/download/2015+ ... +FINAL.pdf