I am so thankful to be Canadian.
You guys have it made! Maple Syrup, Anne Murray AND Universal Healthcare coverage! 
Well, I don’t consider 80K a year rich since after taxes it’s probably not even 60K net. And I’m not claiming poverty, but I still think that almost $1300.00 a month for health insurance is too much.
I really really want universal health care.
I’m in the UK, where we’ve had universal health care since 1948.
Socialised medicine (anathema to Republicans.)
For all my working life, I paid 6% of my salary into the National Health Insurance scheme (my employer paid 9%.)
For that, I got heavily subsidised medical, dentistry and optician services.
Now I’m retired, most of those services are completely free.
May you Americans soon discover the delights of this!
You know that is not how insurance works, don’t you? It is shared risk, not rich subsidizing the poor.
(Not that insurance is well suited to health care realities)
No I don’t think that’s fair. I think health care should be deductible (not just whatever is beyond the 15% of AGI as it currently stands).
This. We know how to do it better, we just refuse to do so. We might as well be a nation of flagellants going around flogging ourselves.
The problem with universal healthcare is trying to provide it via dozens of for-profit insurance companies! Companies that make BILLIONS of dollars in net income (profit) every year…
Omar, pssst… your ideology is showing.
Since you’re looking for opinions, moved to IMHO (from MPSIMS).
I pay 20% of gross for myself, my husband, and our son, and that gets us about a “silver” plan, I think: $2400/person deductible. We are in our 30s, but it’s group coverage. We make a lot less than $80K, but don’t qualify for subsidies because my coverage alone would be less than the 8% ceiling.
Ironically, if I actually made what I make after I pay for their insurance premiums, my son would qualify for CHIP.
So just on a lark, I changed my income to 200K a year and I get the same price options as with an 80K income.
That’s crazy.
I’m almost better off quitting my job.
Which really means that the problem with universal healthcare is that it would take a huge American industry and make it much smaller - pushing hundreds of thousands of people out of work, crashing stock prices - but long term freeing billions in profit and removing the cost of that profit from the health care system (assuming that the red tape of the U.S. government doesn’t eat billions in profit). UHG and Kaiser would still exist, but their role would be in selling supplemental plans - private rooms, services not covered - which would be a much smaller niche.
That’s exactly what Blue Cross does here in Canada. I buy supplemental insurance from them to pay for things like ambulances and extras that aren’t covered by Medicare. I also have drug coverage through a second Blue Cross plan paid for by my employer.
Actually, this is hard to believe but true- Medicare is MUCH more efficient in terms of administrative costs and claims processing than any of the health insurance companies! Medicare is pretty good about paying what they’re supposed to pay and doing it faster than private insurers. Insurance companies spent a lot of time and labor looking for ways to pay as little as they possibly can…
I know that. Also, you’d have to reach levels of incompetence unknown to human kind not to get to additional savings just from the standardization of coding and the removal of having your doctors office need staff just to manage which insurance company needs what and in which format.
My son sees an opthamologist - this guy probably makes over $300,000 a year - and spend an hour of his day every day CODING for insurance. Someone who is highly trained in medical school to treat eyes (my son has very large optic nerves and is monitored for glaucoma) is being used as a clerk. But apparently, if they have a clerk code, it doesn’t work well.
If we can’t have universal healthcare, we should at least have the federal government tell the health insurance industry “you guys come up with administrative standards - or we will put an SEC like agency over you to do it for you.”
If you are self-employed, do you then also pay the employers’ 9%? Because then we’re back into that 15% territory.
And that make more money if you die before they pay for your treatment. A for-profit service that makes more money if they fail to provide the service is inherently prone to gross inefficiency and failure.
The price of healthcare does not vary with income any more than that housing, clothes, food etc. The government subsidies are only for low income scenarios, which fall below your income.
Looking at the tax rates glee mentions, in the UK about 15% of income is required to provide health care. This is not far from the percentage you pay if you include the profits our system requires.
It is an aberration of history (WW II wage controls) that the US has raised several generations who think that health care is free. We have been isolated from he true costs while the medical industry rakes in profits unheard of in the rest of the developed world.
If there was a button that would eliminate for profit health care and employer health insurance, I would push it. Medicare for all is a much more rational choice.
Can’t you file your taxes separately from your husband, and “split” your family for the purposes of getting ACA insurance?
Your husband, filing separate taxes, would log on to that website and get a plan for himself. You’d do the same. The tax returns are how they decide what the subsidy will be, and since they are filed separately, it should work.
It is legal to be married but to file separately. Sure, there’s married tax deductions you won’t get filing separately…but I bet it’s not that huge chunk of your income that you mentioned in the OP. Is the Married-Filing-Separately Tax Status Right for You?
If you have any kids, you’d cover them under one spouse or the other.
If, for some reason, this strategy isn’t legal, you could divorce on paper and live next door to each other and continue to treat each other the same way you do now. Pretty messed up to resort to that, but that’s something like $9000 more per year per person?!