What percentage of income should it cost for health insurance?

[Habeed]

Ok, this is messed up. Seriously broken. There is a solution to your problem, and yeah, it involves divorce. Apparently, if you were to divorce…but continue to cohabitate and pretty much live exactly the same way…you’d receive thousands of dollars in tax credits. In the example listed on this website, it was $8000/year. You’d make back the cost of the divorce filing (especially since it wouldn’t be contested or require more than 1 attorney for both of you) within a month or two.

ObamaCare’s Marriage Penalty - The New American

The website has a strong conservative slant…but the numbers are accurate, and the failing to account for this scenario is pretty incompetent.

[glee]

@glee

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!

@Sateryn76

If you are self-employed, do you then also pay the employers’ 9%? Because then we’re back into that 15% territory.

Things have changed a bit since I retired 5 years ago. National Insurance covers a range of benefits (listed below.)
It does contribute towards our National Health Service, but there is also a contribution from general taxation.

From the current Government site:

The rates shown below are for the 2013-14 tax year.

If you’re employed you pay Class 1 National Insurance contributions. The rates are:

if you earn more than £149 a week and up to £797 a week, you pay 12 per cent of the amount you earn between £149 and £797
if you earn more than £797 a week, you also pay 2 per cent of all your earnings over £797

If you’re self-employed you pay Class 2 and Class 4 National Insurance contributions. The rates are:

Class 2 National Insurance contributions are paid at a flat rate of £2.70 a week
Class 4 National Insurance contributions are paid as a percentage of your annual taxable profits - 9 per cent on profits between £7,755 and £41,450, and a further 2 per cent on profits over that amount.

National Insurance contributions count towards the following state benefits:

the basic State Pension
the additional State Pension, sometimes called the State Second Pension
Jobseeker's Allowance - the 'contribution-based' element
Employment and Support Allowance - the 'contribution-based' element
Maternity Allowance
bereavement benefits - Bereavement Allowance, Bereavement Payment and Widowed Parent's Allowance
Incapacity Benefit

[Habeed]

All those benefits are comparable to medicare/social security in the U.S., which is 15% of income up to ~$108,000 USD/year and $0 after that. (the 15% is split into two 7.5% halves paid by employer and employee respectively). This is part of the reason it is fiscally insolvent, a 2% tax over the cap would help.

Well, in the U.S., we also have to pay for our health insurance premiums on top of that. Apparently, that equates to as much as 19% of income…

What % of your income does NHS actually work out to? Do you have any way of equating your total tax burden to total U.S. taxes + total U.S. medical costs?

Republicans commonly state that the European way of doing things leads to crippling taxes to pay for all those benefits you mentioned, which are much better than anything offered in the U.S. It would be interesting to compare the numbers.

[Bookkeeper]

@Habeed

All those benefits are comparable to medicare/social security in the U.S., which is 15% of income up to ~$108,000 USD/year and $0 after that. (the 15% is split into two 7.5% halves paid by employer and employee respectively). This is part of the reason it is fiscally insolvent, a 2% tax over the cap would help.

Well, in the U.S., we also have to pay for our health insurance premiums on top of that. Apparently, that equates to as much as 19% of income…

What % of your income does NHS actually work out to? Do you have any way of equating your total tax burden to total U.S. taxes + total U.S. medical costs?

Republicans commonly state that the European way of doing things leads to crippling taxes to pay for all those benefits you mentioned, which are much better than anything offered in the U.S. It would be interesting to compare the numbers.

Just for comparison, here in Canada I pay about $1900 a month in total income/payroll taxes and medical insurance on an annual income approximately the same as the OP’s - about 50% more than she will pay in medical insurance alone. The medical insurance covers 80% of most of the stuff that the government health care doesn’t and costs $10.34. While the tax portion is probably higher than the US, my **total **cost is almost certainly much lower.

I have had a couple of medical issues over the past two years that resulted in ER visits and hospital treatment. The total amount I have paid for all of this is $62.30 - a $45 ambulance co-pay for one case, and $17.30 in parking one day when my wife couldn’t drop me off.

[Beelzebubba]

@Habeed

All those benefits are comparable to medicare/social security in the U.S., which is 15% of income up to ~$108,000 USD/year and $0 after that. (the 15% is split into two 7.5% halves paid by employer and employee respectively). This is part of the reason it is fiscally insolvent, a 2% tax over the cap would help.

I’m not trying to nitpick, but Social Security Tax is 6.2% x 2 (12.4%) up to $113,700 in earning for 2013 and up to $117,000 in 2014. Medicare Tax is 1.45% x 2 (2.9%) but there is no limit on the amount of income- if your income is $2,000,000, your employer will pay $29,000 (1.45% of $2mil) and you (the employee) will also pay $29,000. Meanwhile, even on a $2,000,000 income, the SS tax would be capped at $7254 for the Employer (6.2% of $117,000 max) and $7254 for the Employee.

[Beelzebubba]

@Habeed

Republicans commonly state that the European way of doing things leads to crippling taxes to pay for all those benefits you mentioned, which are much better than anything offered in the U.S. It would be interesting to compare the numbers.

It’s very easy for them to say that Universal Health Care would cause crippling taxes but the issue is so much more complicated than that and they know it! Without universal healthcare, poor Americans without health insurance will delay medical treatment until they are literally, physically so sick or injured that they have no other choice but to go to an E/R. Their treatment will cost more, possibly exponentially more, than it might have if they had health coverage that would have allowed them to see a doctor and receive treatment much sooner when their injury or illness would have been easier and less expensive to treat.

After they finally recover and leave the hospital, they will never pay the astronomical hospital bill they receive because they use their very limited income and/or financial resources to buy frivolous things like food, clothing and shelter! The hospital is then left with a large uncollectable bad debt that will eventually be written off and likely sold for pennies on the dollar to an outside collection agency. Those hospital will increase the prices they charge the rest of us for their services and our insurance companies will pay those charges resulting in higher insurance premiums for all of us who have coverage!

Actually, the scenario I described above is exactly what happens every day in this country! The “crippling tax” we pay- they’re called health insurance premiums and/or reduced benefits to keep premiums level!

[Beelzebubba]

I’m on a real rant tonight, but what I’m saying NEEDS to be heard-

One of the key parts necessary for the success of The ACA (Affordable Care Act, aka- Obamacare) was for States to expand Medicaid to cover all residents with an income below 138% of the Federal Poverty Level. More than half of all currently uninsured Americans would be covered if all states extended their Medicaid programs per the ACA! More than 20 MILLION Americans would be covered via Medicaid expansion and have no-cost health insurance coverage!

The Federal Government will reimburse states 100% for all Medicaid expansion costs for the first three years, then 90% thereafter. The ACA originally required states to expand their Medicaid programs and states that refused to comply would have ALL Federal Medicaid funding cut!

But the Supreme Court made State Medicaid Expansion OPTIONAL and ruled that States that didn’t expand Medicaid will NOT have their Federal Medicaid funding withheld! This ruling eliminated any kind of penalty or negative consequences that a State would face if they refused to expand Medicaid.

The following states have chosen to NOT expand Medicaid coverage-

Alabama
Alaska
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Kansas
Louisiana
Maine
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

---

WOW, I just realized something so freaky, can you believe that all of the states I listed just happen, by sheer chance, to have a Republican Governor!?!? ***:eek:

For the first time in my life, I am actually embarrassed to be from Georgia! Because our wonderful Governor refused to expand Medicaid, more than 600,000 of my state’s poorest residents will NOT have any health coverage despite the ACA!

A single person with an annual income of $11,490 to $12,110 in Georgia qualifies for the highest Federal Subsidy of $227/month paid toward their premium. Any plan with monthly premium of $227 or less would be FREE to this person. The most expensive Platinum-level Plan available costs $320 per month, with the $227 subsidy applied, this top-tier plan would only cost $93 per month for a person in this income bracket!

BUT, because the state refused Medicaid Expansion, a single person who earns $11,489 per year or less will receive $0 in subsidies or premium credits! If a single person making $11,400 annually wanted to buy the Platinum plan mentioned in above, it would cost that person $320 per month! The ACA was designed so that Medicaid Expansion would provide Medicaid coverage to people who fall below the minimum income level ($11,490 in this case) and aren’t eligible for the Federal Subsidy!

That makes no FUCKING sense!!! But the Republican Governor in Georgia has opposed the ACA from the very start and has publicly stated that he would do everything legally possible to obstruct implementation in Georgia! If there is any justice in this world, He will drop dead tomorrow!!! He’s punishing the poorest residents of Georgia who need coverage the most because he’s in a Bi-partisan pissing match!!!

AND it gets even worse! Four rural hospitals in Georgia have been forced to CLOSE because of the Governor’s refusal to Expand Medicaid! They are located in some of the poorest counties in Georgia and their Federal funding was reduced this year because Medicaid Expansion would have turned many/most of their non-paying customers into paying customers! Without Medicaid Expansion, they simply couldn’t afford to remain in operation. Several thousand residents who live in the service area for these hospitals now must drive as far as 75 miles to the next closest hospital facility! I wonder how many people will die while trying to make that 75 mile trip while having a massive heart attack or perhaps a stroke. And if these dying souls are trying to drive themselves to the hospital 75-miles away, how many other drivers or pedestrians might he or she hit and kill if he slips into a coma or dies behind the wheel??? I wonder if Governor Deal would even pretend to give a shit if that happened! I also wonder how Deal sleeps at night???

They refuse Medicaid Expansion to strike a blow at Obamacare and continue to say, “It won’t work, It won’t work…over and over, ad nauseum!” Now that they have effectively cut off the ACA at the knees for the poor residents of their states because “it would never have worked”, WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR BRILLIANT PLAN that will work because I know that I and millions of others can’t wait to hear it!

I wonder if I might be able to get Nancy Grace all worked up about this??? She’s not a precision weapon, more like a shotgun- just point her in a general direction and let her go- everything in her general trajectory will be obliterated! It’s an idea…Thanks, Friend!

[Shodan]

@Beelzebubba

Without universal healthcare, poor Americans without health insurance will delay medical treatment until they are literally, physically so sick or injured that they have no other choice but to go to an E/R. Their treatment will cost more, possibly exponentially more, than it might have if they had health coverage that would have allowed them to see a doctor and receive treatment much sooner when their injury or illness would have been easier and less expensive to treat.

Poor Americans have Medicaid, and there is almost no good evidence that preventative care saves money on health care.

And of course with the ACA Americans can delay buying health insurance until they are critically ill, and then sign up and get the coverage without having to pay the premiums.

Regards,
Shodan

[Habeed]

@Shodan

Poor Americans have Medicaid, and there is almost no good evidence that preventative care saves money on health care.
Regards,
Shodan

They don’t have medicaid. In Texas, for instance, if you make below a certain income you get 0 Federal subsidy and you will not get medicaid unless you are a pregnant mother.

Preventative care doesn’t save money directly, but for younger people, wouldn’t it extend their working lives and save money indirectly? I think the State gets economic benefits from health care, at least the cheaper stuff given to younger people, and so the State has an incentive to subsidize it. For instance, if a college student got appendicitis and were about to die, it would make sense for the State to pay for the surgery to fix them, instead of letting them die. (that is to say, the State would more collect money in taxes over time than the procedure cost)

The current scheme is “don’t have insane amounts of money? Even if it’s a temporary thing? Then you deserve to die”

I use “State” with a capitalized S to mean government as an entity, not a particular U.S. state.

[jacobsta811]

@Shodan

Poor Americans have Medicaid, and there is almost no good evidence that preventative care saves money on health care.

And of course with the ACA Americans can delay buying health insurance until they are critically ill, and then sign up and get the coverage without having to pay the premiums.

Regards,
Shodan

I agree with #1 that added preventative care is unlikely to cause the ACA to save money overall given the increased access, but you are dead wrong with part 2 of your statement.
First, you have to pay your first month’s premium before you are covered under the ACA. Second, after March 31 you have to wait until open enrollment, at the end of the year to enroll, so you better hope your cancer has good timing. (Open Enrollment Period - Glossary)

[Fear_Itself]

@Shodan

And of course with the ACA Americans can delay buying health insurance until they are critically ill, and then sign up and get the coverage without having to pay the premiums.

Only for the first year of the ACA. After that, enrollment is only open for 3 months a year, so if you have a serious illness or injury, you may have to wait as much as 9 months to sign up.

[kanicbird]

I think it shows a bigger issue then fairness but that the current system has failed the public at obtaining affordable medical care, so perhaps that system should be rethought.

[Beelzebubba]

@Shodan

Poor Americans have Medicaid, and there is almost no good evidence that preventative care saves money on health care.

And of course with the ACA Americans can delay buying health insurance until they are critically ill, and then sign up and get the coverage without having to pay the premiums.

Regards,
Shodan

Medicaid qualifications vary by state. In Georgia, males under 65 who aren’t disabled aren’t eligible for Medicaid- period. That has always been the case and, without Medicaid Expansion, it remains so.

[SciFiSam]

I’d say, according to my own principles, that it isn’t fair because it’s such a large percentage of your income that it will make meeting other costs much more difficult.

I’d also hope that otto (do I have the name right?) was taking the piss when he said that 80k for two people is rich, because that is not a normal definition of “rich.”

[Beelzebubba]

@SciFiSam

I’d say, according to my own principles, that it isn’t fair because it’s such a large percentage of your income that it will make meeting other costs much more difficult.

I’d also hope that otto (do I have the name right?) was taking the piss when he said that 80k for two people is rich, because that is not a normal definition of “rich.”

$80k for a couple in California, depending on WHERE in California, could range from a decent living to barely making it…

It amazes me how much more expensive health insurance costs in California than it does here in Georgia. My mom recently decided to retire early (at 60). My step-dad (65) is still planning to work for at least three more years, so he is covered by his employer’s health plan. They decided to add mom to his plan for only $255/month. That’s for a 60-year-old diabetic who had a knee replacement and cervical spine surgery in the last year. It’s a PPO with better coverage than she had before and her Rx copays are less than half what they were before. My step-dad is one of the lucky souls whose employer has always paid for his coverage 100%.

I actually talked them into buying Long Term Care Coverage for my mom since they’re getting such a good deal on her health coverage! I’ve watched one grandmother run out of money a few months before she died in 2012. I never told her, I just started paying most of her bills out of my savings and got most of it back from her life insurance payout. My other grandmother is 94 and would be on Medicaid (at best) or my mom and step-dad would be supporting her if she hadn’t married my step-grandfather back in 1985. He was a Chrysler Retiree, so she gets a small UAW Pension (about $340/month) AND her Medicare Part D and Supplemental Policy only costs $16/month thru the UAW Retiree Fund. I could easily see mom out-living her money, so I’m very relieved that she has LTC coverage now!

[not_what_you_d_expect]

I’m having the hardest time trying to fit this into my budget. I own my home and don’t carry much debt, but my house is in serious need of a new deck and a new roof, so I’d hoped this might be the year to get that done, but not with a $1250.00 a month health care expense.

Don’t get me wrong, I know I’m better off than most people, but I really think this is too expensive.

[Eonwe]

@SciFiSam

I’d also hope that otto (do I have the name right?) was taking the piss when he said that 80k for two people is rich, because that is not a normal definition of “rich.”

$80k is still well above the median household income in California, which is well above the average for the nation. I might not classify $80k as “rich,” but it is most definitely “above average,” in that over half the households in the country earn less than that.

[Habeed]

@not_what_you_d_expect

I’m having the hardest time trying to fit this into my budget. I own my home and don’t carry much debt, but my house is in serious need of a new deck and a new roof, so I’d hoped this might be the year to get that done, but not with a $1250.00 a month health care expense.

Don’t get me wrong, I know I’m better off than most people, but I really think this is too expensive.

Did you read the articles I linked? The problem is the ACA, as structured, is penalizing you for being married for somewhere between 5 and 8 thousand dollars/year. That’s the root problem. As for solutions, well…obviously divorce was only meant in jest…though if it’s a choice between going broke and divorcing on paper, I’d take the latter choice. While I’m not religious, I think if God existed he’d understand. You can either stand by your convictions and live with a leaky roof or…

[Beelzebubba]

@Habeed

Did you read the articles I linked? The problem is the ACA, as structured, is penalizing you for being married for somewhere between 5 and 8 thousand dollars/year. That’s the root problem. As for solutions, well…obviously divorce was only meant in jest…though if it’s a choice between going broke and divorcing on paper, I’d take the latter choice. While I’m not religious, I think if God existed he’d understand. You can either stand by your convictions and live with a leaky roof or…

When I was a 19-year-old college freshman, I worked two jobs and took a full class load every quarter. I paid for my education and had a $314/month car payment on a new ‘93 Honda Civic LX 4-door. In my rush to and from classes and work, I got two speeding tickets. I already had one on my driving record from a few years earlier. But once they all hit my MVR, the cheapest car insurance I could find was over $350/month!!! It was more than the freakin’ car payment!

My high school girlfriend and I shared an apartment at the time. We were just friends at this point because I “came out” earlier that year to her. We decided to get married when we were 19 because I could get insurance for just under $200/month if I was married! We actually stayed married until we were 27 and she met her true love and wanted to get married. But I couldn’t have survived financially any other way…

As for getting divorced to reduce health insurance costs under the ACA, I know that it wasn’t meant to be taken seriously. But I wonder how many desperate couples might resort to something as drastic as divorce in order to afford health insurance? While it might provide some immediate financial relief in the form of lower insurance premiums, there are some HUGE future problems that could be far more devastating…

In particular, if one spouse earned substantially more over his/her working life, that person would get a much greater monthly Social Security benefit. If the couple was married and the one drawing the larger SS check died, the surviving spouse would be eligible to start drawing that much larger SS check. If the couple is divorced and weren’t married for at least 10 years, there would be no chance of that. The same applies for survivor benefits on most pension plans and Veterans benefits!

A real example- my mom will draw approximately $842/month if she waits until full retirement age (66 for her) to start getting SS benefits (she is 60 now). My step-dad just turned 65 and he would get $2,394/month if he started SS benefits when he turns 66. If he died, my mom would be able to draw $2,394/month instead of $842 (almost triple) as his surviving spouse! If she becomes disabled or needs skilled nursing care in the future, even if he is dead, she could qualify for close to $1,500/month in VA benefits based on his service record as his surviving spouse.

Long story short, getting divorced to save money on health insurance could be very short-sighted and cause far-reaching future issues! I’m sure the Republicans will find a way to fix the ‘marriage penalty’ that the ACA imposes on couples. They’ll probably even find a way to make the ‘fix’ NOT apply to same-sex married couples in states where gay marriage is legal. They’re evil, but they’re very crafty…

[not_what_you_d_expect]

@Habeed

Did you read the articles I linked? The problem is the ACA, as structured, is penalizing you for being married for somewhere between 5 and 8 thousand dollars/year. That’s the root problem. As for solutions, well…obviously divorce was only meant in jest…though if it’s a choice between going broke and divorcing on paper, I’d take the latter choice. While I’m not religious, I think if God existed he’d understand. You can either stand by your convictions and live with a leaky roof or…

I’m not religious either, but I’m not ready to divorce just yet.

I’m just frustrated. I always budget and try to live within my means. At the one site I looked at, it was suggested that one put aside between 4-6% for medical premiums and this is just so far above that.

I get paid weekly and it will take almost three of my checks each month just for medical.

For a job I pretty much hate anyway. Ugh