joe_h419 Wrote: It is really easy to apply. I just went to Healthcare.gov and clicked on the link they provided. Then you're directed to type in your zip code and off you go. I would encourage anyone who is wondering if they are eligible or not to just fill out an application and see. What do you have to lose?

Still relevant info. Good post, as that link also helps you find out about the CHIP program as well.

Medicaid and CHIP program names in your state

That's a good resource as well, as different states can call Medicaid and CHIP different things. If you enter your state in that drop down, it will tell you what your state labels the programs as. Could be helpful if your google searching isn't turning up the results like it should.

Seems a solid attempt to make prescribing anti-depressants into more of a science. So that's a good thing, as right now I feel like doctors are just throwing pills at people and hoping it works out. As that article points out, most first time anti-depressant prescriptions fail to really help. So the patient has to go about pharma treatment on a trial and error basis, which could take several months to a few years, if it's even ever successful to any meaningful degree whatsoever.

The downside to adding this to a doctor's arsenal is just like the article points out:

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

Although harms from a cheek swab are unlikely there is a potential harm in framing the genetic testing results as guiding the choice of one antidepressant over another. Patients may focus solely on pharmaceutical options, to the exclusion of non-pharmaceutical ones.

Antidepressants have well-documented side effects and drug interactions.

That's an important point. Even if this does help a doctor narrow down which pharmaceutical to prescribe, it assumes an anti-depressant is the answer, and that it's just a matter of picking the right one based on the person's genetic markers.

Perhaps if this tech is coupled with doctors being taught, in depth, about genetic markers and how that info can be interpreted into a holistic treatment plan for a person, this could really help.

But that's a stretch, both to educate everyone involved AND to assume doctors and these companies don't just want to use this to validate the practice of what I believe most understand: to overprescribe anti-depressants in the first place.

Currently there's a heated debate going on in Congress to change the work requirements for SNAP (better known as the food stamp program). The proposal is said to make people less reliant on government welfare, but it certainly adds bloated bureaucracy layers to the process, and ultimately will make it harder to qualify.

Right now, the work requirements to qualify for food stamps for more than 3 months in a 3 year period are:

Under current SNAP rules implemented in 1996, able-bodied adults without dependents, or ABAWDs, between the ages of 18 and 49 are required to work at least 20 hours a week or participate in a qualified job-training or volunteer program in order to be eligible for more than three months of benefits over a three-year period. Benefits are cut off after three months if the work requirements are not met and the applicant has not received a waiver (more on those waivers later).

And the proposed changes that has only passed through certain parts of Congress would be amended to the following:

The proposed GOP law would raise the age of those subject to the work requirement from 49 to 59, and extend the work requirements to adults with children ages 6 and older. The minimum work required would rise to 25 hours per week in 2026.

The article continues, detailing how this would effect SNAP enrollment in the years to come:

According to CBO, 62 percent of the 1.2 million who would ultimately lose benefits would be able-bodied adults caring for children 6 or older. Another 27 percent would able-bodied adults between the ages of 50 and 59 without dependents (due to the age extension in the bill). And 11 percent of them would be able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 and 49 without dependents.

CBO estimates that, on average in 2028, those 1.2 million people would lose $1,816 in annual food assistance benefits.

In addition to the new work requirements trimming the ranks of SNAP recipients, CBO says another 400,000 households per year would lose eligibility due to a change that would cut off SNAP eligibility for those whose gross income exceeds 130 percent of poverty, instead of the 200 percent threshold for SNAP recipients in some states.

The bill would provide an additional $6.7 billion over the next 10 years for employment and training services — an amount CBO does not expect would fund enough job training for all who would be eligible for it under the new bill.

It's not clear if Congress will pass this bill wholesale, or make changes to it, or cut out the language of these changes altogether. Senator Deb Fischer from Nebraska doesn't think these changes will pass at all.

What do you think of the changes? I have a problem with trying to fix a welfare spending problem by making states spend more money on job training programs. In one way, maybe that could stimulate the economy and effect people's lives positively. And I see that. But on the flip side, it's just spending money a different way. And it might end up costing the taxpayer more. Not to mention it will take years for states to implement the changes, while in the meantime, many will go hungry in the process.

If you would like to see if you qualify for food stamps under the current law, use this official link:

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) - Am I Eligbile for SNAP?

There is also this Pre-Screening Tool from the Food & Nutrition Service:

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) - Pre-Screening Eligibility Tool

When should you file for Social Security if you have a young child?

This is a q&a discussion that I thought brings up a very good point about a way to look at taking SS benefits early, as opposed to full retirement age.

One quote from the article that I think stands out is:

Realistically, money earned today is worth more than money earned in the future.

This discussion is about a woman wondering if her husband (64) should retire at 66 or 70, and how the math works out. She is 46 and they have an 8 year old. She was also wondering about the offsetting benefits for their daughter.

The ultimate advice was to take the benefits early. But the finer details were to basically sit down and do the math, and try your best to assume all the variables, like how much will your husband earn either way, if he were to live to say, 90. And how much would your child benefit now vs waiting, etc etc.

Makes me think even more now that taking benefits early is a more viable path over full retirement IF you find yourself in a situation like this one. Definitely recommend reading the article.

Also, anyone here considering early vs full retirement age that is in a similar situation? What's your take on this?

Came across this video which outlines exactly what the site does, for those that would appreciate a 2 minute rundown. It's from the official U.S. Social Security Administration's YouTube page:

Been in that boat before. It sucks but once you bite the bullet and actually call the IRS and work out a payment plan, it's not that bad. They do charge you a fee, I believe it is like $50, to set up the installment plan. Also you don't have to pay that fee upfront; it gets tacked onto your existing debt.

From there, they do the math based off your income ability to pay back the debt vs the 6 years max to pay it back. And you can either pay the minimum over those years or pay more and get it over with quicker.

They do charge interest, though it's far lower than say a credit card. Don't quote me on this, but it's in the neighborhood of 4-7%. Think it depends on the year. Either way, I would ask that question and anything else you can think of when you call in to set up the installment.

After that, you make payments through an online portal. EFTPS is the most common option, and the one they will recommend. I would recommend registering an account on there as soon as you can (if you know you will be going for a payment plan) as it takes several business days to get your PIN for the site.

Also, if anyone needs help using that site (it's not the most user friendly) let me know here. Happy to help. Can be a little tricky the first time around.

Knocked mine out in record time, for me.. which was like 10 days before the deadline. Finally learned enough as a self employed filer to at least save some money using an online service vs an in person CPA. It was like 4x cheaper that way. At any rate, I'm glad its over and done with. One of the most stressful times of the year to live in the US of A.

Next year is going to suck even worse, as I invested in cryptocurrencies in 2018 (like a good chunk of people no doubt)... from what I've heard, it's a nightmare to file all those trades and transactions.

That is a tough one. So what information exactly is missing from the w2 details the IRS was able to give you about your federal return for 2015 that you need to complete your state filing?

Said another way, what part of the form for AR state filing can you not complete because of lack of info?

The Trump tax calculator — will you pay more or less?

It's one thing to read up on how the Trump tax plan that just got signed into law changes the tax code overall. But if you are interested in exactly how your tax bill will change next year and for the next 5 years or so, use that calculator above.

Curious on everyone's opinion of the bill as well as if your amount increases or decreases. Do you dislike the bill? If so, all of it, or just parts?

If you are like me, my tax burden is going to decrease. And I like some of the eliminations of deductions in favor of higher standard deductions. But I dislike some of the riders. And even though I won't have to pay a tax penalty for not having health insurance any longer, I worry what that will mean for the country's healthcare premiums as a whole, as well as entitlement funding in the future.