Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness > Health Insurance
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-11-2016, 10:19 AM
 
9,881 posts, read 7,766,278 times
Reputation: 24609

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
...
I will make the statement that if someone is earning even $12,000 to $15,000 a month they can afford health insurance premiums of $1500 or even $2,000 a month. If they can't, they should start by giving up charitable contributions on the theory that "charity begins at home".

If this is the group I am supposed to feel sorry for, I am having trouble doing it. I wonder how many who fit in this group own swimming pools, fancy cars, and McMansions?

It costs a lot to live in America and in other modern countries. Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.
Why in the world would you want families to give so much money to insurance companies? And then to say they should give up charitable contributions in order to pay a corporation more??? So bizarre!

Yep, quit feeding the poor in your community or helping domestic violence victims or fostering abused children of drug addicted parents so you can give more of your money instead to a corporation.

None of us have said we don't want some sort of health insurance or won't pay for our health care, we are just saying the cost of the individual policies for self-employed has gone too high, we have less choice and the policies we used to use (which DID have benefits) are not allowed anymore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-11-2016, 11:42 AM
 
26,660 posts, read 13,776,282 times
Reputation: 19118
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaraG View Post
Why in the world would you want families to give so much money to insurance companies? And then to say they should give up charitable contributions in order to pay a corporation more??? So bizarre!

Yep, quit feeding the poor in your community or helping domestic violence victims or fostering abused children of drug addicted parents so you can give more of your money instead to a corporation.

None of us have said we don't want some sort of health insurance or won't pay for our health care, we are just saying the cost of the individual policies for self-employed has gone too high, we have less choice and the policies we used to use (which DID have benefits) are not allowed anymore.

Right. And if these were actually decent policies with wide networks and more reasonable deductibles then maybe it wouldn't be so bad. But as of now it's just not a good value when you're paying sky high premiums AND sky high deductibles and you're not even able to find many doctors or hospitals that will even take your plan if you do in fact ever have to use it.


Our family qualifies for subsidies yet the amount we would pay for our premiums is a lot more then we are comfortable for plans with such high deductibles and few doctors who will even take the plan. This is for insurance that we likely will not use (Mark, your not the only one who rarely, if ever uses their insurance). Like Kara, we joined a health sharing ministry and we also have a doctor that we pay for out of pocket 100%. I'd love to be able to find an affordable and useful catastrophic plan (low premiums, high deductibles). I do not need a plan that covers annual physicals, blood draws, prescriptions, doctor visits for things like strep, ear infections etc. I don't think that's me being unreasonable or only wanting the best of the best for the cheapest price. That is what insurance was initially for, the big things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2016, 12:11 PM
 
7,966 posts, read 9,182,103 times
Reputation: 9443
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
Right. And if these were actually decent policies with wide networks and more reasonable deductibles then maybe it wouldn't be so bad. But as of now it's just not a good value when you're paying sky high premiums AND sky high deductibles and you're not even able to find many doctors or hospitals that will even take your plan if you do in fact ever have to use it.


Our family qualifies for subsidies yet the amount we would pay for our premiums is a lot more then we are comfortable for plans with such high deductibles and few doctors who will even take the plan. This is for insurance that we likely will not use (Mark, your not the only one who rarely, if ever uses their insurance). Like Kara, we joined a health sharing ministry and we also have a doctor that we pay for out of pocket 100%. I'd love to be able to find an affordable and useful catastrophic plan (low premiums, high deductibles). I do not need a plan that covers annual physicals, blood draws, prescriptions, doctor visits for things like strep, ear infections etc. I don't think that's me being unreasonable or only wanting the best of the best for the cheapest price. That is what insurance was initially for, the big things.
True. Would love to have a catastrophic plan with a HSA plan, but is not allowed at my age. The money saved in premiums could be moved to savings to help pay for out of pocket expenses from any provider I want to help bypass the extremely narrow networks of the exchange type plans.

Insurance is supposed to protect me from financial ruin and prevent me from having to declare bankruptcy. I can take care of the sniffles, and pay deductibles for larger hospital bills. Why can't this scenario be considered fulfilling the individual mandate?

Purchasing these exchange type plans is wasteful. I lost HSA compatibility this year (2 out of 3 years now) because of lousy insurance choices in my area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2016, 03:37 PM
 
350 posts, read 416,939 times
Reputation: 396
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSHL10 View Post
True. Would love to have a catastrophic plan with a HSA plan, but is not allowed at my age. The money saved in premiums could be moved to savings to help pay for out of pocket expenses from any provider I want to help bypass the extremely narrow networks of the exchange type plans.

Insurance is supposed to protect me from financial ruin and prevent me from having to declare bankruptcy. I can take care of the sniffles, and pay deductibles for larger hospital bills. Why can't this scenario be considered fulfilling the individual mandate?

Purchasing these exchange type plans is wasteful. I lost HSA compatibility this year (2 out of 3 years now) because of lousy insurance choices in my area.

Purchasing health insurance should not put people into financial ruin!!!

Why isn't anyone talking about reducing the cost of healthcare?

Why aren't we looking at the AMA and telling them to reduce their prices that they recommend for services? They are the ones determining how much a physician charges for services?

We have the AMA determining that a colonoscopy takes an hour to perform. Using this as an example based on the hour to perform the AMA determines that the cost should be $2000. That becomes the recommended fee for service. Most physicians only take 15 minutes or less to do a colonoscopy. At that rate if the AMA recalculated the fee - it would only be $500. This is where the focus has to be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2016, 05:52 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
25,574 posts, read 56,529,756 times
Reputation: 23394
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon View Post
We pay 33 percent of our income in federal taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon View Post
LOL we don't make a quarter of a million dollars a year. Or anything close to $400,000 a year.
Divide your gross income into actual tax dollars paid. Your overall federal income tax rate is not 33%. More likely, 33% is your marginal tax bracket.

Per 2014 rates - married filing jointly:

16.85% - First $100,000 - $16,851
25% - $100k-$146.4k - $11,600 ($46.4x25%)
33% - $146.4k-$398,350 - $83,144 ($251,950x33%)

So, overall effective tax rate for $$398,350 ($398,350/$111,595 [$16,865+$11,600+$83,144]) is 28% - and that is ONLY if your income is, indeed, $400k, which, as you have stated, it is not.

As I recall, your income is closer to $175k, which means your overall federal tax rate is more in the area of 22% - not 33%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon View Post
One thing I realized recently is that we paid $22k in SELF EMPLOYMENT TAXES ALONE last year.
50% of SE taxes are deductible off gross income. Effectively, your SE taxes were $18,370 ($22,000 less $3,360 (33%x$11,000)) - not $22,000.

Again divide AGI into total taxes paid - your overall tax rate, including SE tax, is more like in the area of 22% I would guess.

Also, you may not value it now, but there is a return on the SE tax paid when retired. I resented the 7.65% deductions for Medicare and SS all the years I worked (and the SE tax I paid when self-employed) - but sure am glad for that benefit today. You will be, too - especially as high earners. If you are paying the max - good likelihood SS will be paying you and hubby $60,000/yr or more when you retire. Even if SS is cut in 2033/4, that benefit will be at least $50,000 year. At least. You would need capital of $700,000 to generate that income - assuming a return of 4%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabrrita View Post
So lets start again and this time be HONEST; what is your federal tax bracket?
Yep - there's a difference between actual tax rate and marginal tax rate.

$22,000 in SE tax translates to an SE income of $150,000 - which means final $3,600 is taxed at 33%.

Last edited by Ariadne22; 01-11-2016 at 06:31 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2016, 08:08 AM
 
41,110 posts, read 25,776,820 times
Reputation: 13868
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
This link shows that a family of four can qualify for minimal subsidies up to an income of $85,000 per year.

If your health insurance went up in price its a combination of these factors:

1. Increased coverage.

2. General increases in the cost of health care (which were running at about 7% a year before the ACA).

I'm not saying what the ACA did was perfect. I am saying that most of the self-employed people who whine about the ACA are making 100K or better and can probably afford $10,000 a year for health insurance.

I made the comments that I did about plenty of self-employed people choosing to buy "bare bones" policies before the ACA because I observed it happening in any number of situations. Heck, I even heard some of the people I know joke about defaulting on their debts and filing bankruptcy if they got so sick they couldn't pay their bills. This might be understandable coming from the ranks of the working poor. However, this was group of independent self-employed people who did their best to not think about health insurance much at all. Whether they will realize it or not, they were part of the problem that lead to the ACA.
First I do not believe you. Self employed people risked too much, work too hard to just throw healthcare insurance decisions to the wind. They are people who must plan for all scenario's because they know no one will pick up their tab, in other words we, including myself bought excellent insurance. I am not willing to lose it all because I wanted to be penny foolish and not buy good insurance. That's not the thinking of other people who have nothing to risk and now we are paying ridiculously high insurance premiums and deductibles for really bad insurance. Obviously everyone in the lower income rungs of society plan on staying within the poverty limits all their lives so they support the theft.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2016, 08:19 AM
 
41,110 posts, read 25,776,820 times
Reputation: 13868
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambo101 View Post
And if you are homeless or living off welfare?
I worked in healthcare for years and we never turned away a homeless person. People on welfare as usual get their tab paid by someone else too, it's called Medicaid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2016, 08:24 AM
 
41,110 posts, read 25,776,820 times
Reputation: 13868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qwerty View Post
I've been self-insured and self-employed, which is why I understand the tax breaks one gets, not just with health insurance, but with all the breaks....and again, you and she both have choices, go on a group plan if you don't like paying for your full premiums...but again, you give up the benefits of being self-employed by doing that....which are many.
Stop being self employed, and work for someone else like a big company?

But.. but... Pelosi said "follow your dreams". Or did she mean quit your job and we'll pick up the tab.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2016, 08:28 AM
 
41,110 posts, read 25,776,820 times
Reputation: 13868
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
The concept of insurance is that of spreading risk and cost out among millions of people.
Spreading the risk without spreading the tab.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Delahanty View Post
The fines are simply a way to have everyone subsidize those who use (or abuse) the health care system.
See above.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2016, 08:33 AM
 
4,899 posts, read 6,234,980 times
Reputation: 7473
Quote:
Originally Posted by echo99 View Post
Purchasing health insurance should not put people into financial ruin!!!
Why isn't anyone talking about reducing the cost of healthcare?
Why aren't we looking at the AMA and telling them to reduce their prices that they recommend for services? They are the ones determining how much a physician charges for services?

We have the AMA determining that a colonoscopy takes an hour to perform. Using this as an example based on the hour to perform the AMA determines that the cost should be $2000. That becomes the recommended fee for service. Most physicians only take 15 minutes or less to do a colonoscopy. At that rate if the AMA recalculated the fee - it would only be $500. This is where the focus has to be.
^^^I mentioned this almost 2 years ago after reading the article "The Bitter Pill" by Steven Brill
in Time Magazine. Follow the money and it begins with those in the health care industry: fees and
charges are determined by the Charge Masters, doctors, medical device makers and drug companies.
These exorbitant prices/fees/charges, high profits and confusing medical bills not only affect patients
but our insurance premiums as well.

http://www.uta.edu/faculty/story/231...ndAndGreed.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness > Health Insurance

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top