Are people really going to get help paying for their Health Insurance?

[Dirty Penguin]

So, even if those of us who have insurance may have to pay a bit more (maybe), thus helping roughly 30 million other Americans, this is somehow unethical? And most of the people who are whining probably were behind us getting involved in two crazy wars that we're paying nearly a trillion dollars for, and yet these same individuals are whining about paying a small fraction of that to help their fellow Americans? And probably most of these same individuals stood mute when the previous administration also didn't pay for the Bush tax cuts and also Medicare Plan D on top of the two wars.

Oh yes, I can see all those crocodile tears now.

And don't forget the recent Republican led shutdown costing us $24 Billion Dollars and .06% GDP in two weeks.....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Oh, playing the "average" card again are we. There are still those whose premiums are going up. Therefor I have to believe that the Federal government could care less about these citizens. I though we were all supposed to be equal in this country. If the premiums are supposed to go down, shouldn't the premiums for everyone go down? Guess not.

Going up because.....(and this has already been explained to you).....many of these people have absolute JUNK insurance. Depending on the plan they choose under the exchange they can see a reduction in premiums.

 

[Copernicus]

No I'm playing the "facts" card again.

Right. As the CBO analysis explains, this will tend to happen in the healthier, younger population especially the 5% of the population in the "nongroup" or individual insurance market. These are often the people who do NOT have the "catastrophic" coverage that Reverend Rick, The Heritage Foundation, and other conservatives/libertarians say should be required for everyone. Unsurprisingly, having non-junk health insurance is more expensive than rolling the dice.

I would also point out that a discussion of premiums is not a discussion of the cost of health care to the individual. For that, you need to take into account what someone will end up paying for future care. So, a young woman with a cheap policy that doesn't cover maternity care may well end up paying a higher premium under Obamacare, but the cost drops dramatically if she ends up getting pregnant, since Obamacare policies mandate maternity and pediatric care. Much of the outrage out there tends to be limited to the perception that some people in the individual market (just 5% of the population) will end up paying higher premiums, but those people will have better health care coverage when they eventually, and inevitably, need it.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I don't believe my wife and I need maternity insurance any more than a gay couple does. I don't need insurance to get an annual check up, I have enough means to pay for these things on my own.

If I have a 6 figure medical bill, it would be nice to have insurance for that. I want actual insurance not a medical plan.

My car insurance does not pay for tires, brakes and oil changes.

 

[Copernicus]

I don't believe my wife and I need maternity insurance any more than a gay couple does. I don't need insurance to get an annual check up, I have enough means to pay for these things on my own.

That may be true, but you must know that insurance is not just about what a given individual policyholder needs or may even potentially need. It is about spreading the cost across a broad risk pool that includes many different categories of people. Those men and women in need of maternity care may also be paying for treatments that directly pertain to you, but not them.

If I have a 6 figure medical bill, it would be nice to have insurance for that. I want actual insurance not a medical plan.

I beg to differ on that. Insurance is just a vehicle by which you get access to the medical care that you need but cannot necessarily afford personally. What you need is a large number of people who are willing to contribute a little individually so that you can afford what you need.

My car insurance does not pay for tires, brakes and oil changes.

It pays for your needs and those of others, not all of whom drive safely or keep their cars in as good a condition as you keep yours.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I don't believe my wife and I need maternity insurance any more than a gay couple does. I don't need insurance to get an annual check up, I have enough means to pay for these things on my own.

If I have a 6 figure medical bill, it would be nice to have insurance for that. I want actual insurance not a medical plan.

My car insurance does not pay for tires, brakes and oil changes.

People don't care for sound reasoning like that.

 

[McBell]

I don't believe my wife and I need maternity insurance any more than a gay couple does. I don't need insurance to get an annual check up, I have enough means to pay for these things on my own.

If I have a 6 figure medical bill, it would be nice to have insurance for that. I want actual insurance not a medical plan.

My car insurance does not pay for tires, brakes and oil changes.

Bad example using auto insurance in a No Fault state....

 

[McBell]

People don't care for sound reasoning like that.

Except it is not sound reasoning.
He lives in Kentucky.
Kentucky requires "No Fault" on auto insurance.
Guess what "No Fault" is for?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I don't believe my wife and I need maternity

So what....surely you don't represent everyone in the US. There's always something factored into a policy or a warranty regardless of need or want. Insurance plans are designed to be "comprehensive".

I don't need insurance to get an annual check up, I have enough means to pay for these things on my own.

Again, not everyone is in your shoes. Even the ones that are see a need for a policy that includes this. The cost to you may be higher without insurance. Not everyone can walk in and slap the cost onto their platinum card or simply right a check for hundreds of dollars for a standard check up.

If I have a 6 figure medical bill, it would be nice to have insurance for that. I want actual insurance not a medical plan.

Un huh....

My car insurance does not pay for tires, brakes and oil changes.

So what......

Even as good and as comprehensive as my insurance in through my job I'm fortunate enough to understand and I'm in the position to make sure I have supplemental insurance such as an Aflac policy that can help me or my wife if either one of us is hospitalized long term.

 

[Revoltingest]

Wa Po holds forth....
For consumers whose health premiums will go up under new law, sticker shock leads to anger - The Washington Post

If the poor, sick and uninsured are the winners under the Affordable Care Act, the losers appear to include some relatively healthy middle-income small-business owners, consultants, lawyers and other self-employed workers who buy their own insurance. Many make too much to qualify for new federal subsidies provided by the law but not enough to absorb the rising costs without hardship. Some are too old to go without insurance because they have children or have minor health issues, but they are too young for Medicare.
Others are upset because they don’t want coverage for services they’ll never need or their doctors don’t participate in any of their new insurance options.

I'd expect that those who receive subsidies would have to get them at someone else's expense.
Now we're seeing who foots the bill.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Wa Po holds forth....
For consumers whose health premiums will go up under new law, sticker shock leads to anger - The Washington Post

I'd expect that those who receive subsidies would have to get them at someone else's expense.
Now we're seeing who foots the bill.

What we don't know is what other packages she qualified for on the exchange. In fact..I don't think it even mentioned if she went on the exchange to find comparable packages. Just because she's a lawyer doesn't mean she has stellar insurance or even read her insurance contract. She may be another one of these people with a basic catastrophic plan offering little to nothing when it's really needed.....So I'd be interested in seeing how her current plan is structured vs. what's on the exchange.....

 

[Revoltingest]

What we don't know is what other packages she qualified for on the exchange. In fact..I don't think it even mentioned if she went on the exchange to find comparable packages. Just because she's a lawyer doesn't mean she has stellar insurance or even read her insurance contract. She may be another one of these people with a basic catastrophic plan offering little to nothing when it's really needed.....So I'd be interested in seeing how her current plan is structured vs. what's on the exchange.....

It sounds as though anyone who complains about how Obamacare affects them just doesn't understand their situation as well as you do. Who are you to say that her insurance choice wasn't "stellar" enuf?

 

[McBell]

It sounds as though anyone who complains about how Obamacare affects them just doesn't understand their situation as well as you do. Who are you to say that her insurance choice wasn't "stellar" enuf?

He flat out said he did not know and would like to know....

 

[Revoltingest]

He flat out said he did not know and would like to know....

He cerainly did. But I detect a question to only challenge the experience of others when it points to Obamacare's difficulties.
Consider:
If some people are to receive subsidies, then someone else must pay for them. Even the administration admits (belatedly) that some will be forced to buy 'better' coverage than they had. (Single men & post-menopausal women will get great prenatal care now.) We should expect that people will be coming forward to carp about their increased cost.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

He cerainly did. But I detect a question to only challenge the experience of others when it points to Obamacare's difficulties.
Consider:
If some people are to receive subsidies, then someone else must pay for them. Even the administration admits (belatedly) that some will be forced to buy 'better' coverage than they had. (Single men & post-menopausal women will get great prenatal care now.) We should expect that people will be coming forward to carp about their increased cost.

Considering many complaints are from those who do misunderstand it, it would be worth seeing the lawyers situation. Maybe she is just cheap and doesn't want to spend more than what a junk plan costs? Maybe she is seeing a legitimate increase?
And why shouldn't maternal care be something every insurance company has to cover? At any given moment of course not every woman will need it, but it's better just to require it upfront than having to fight insurance companies looking for loopholes and ways to get out of coverage.

 

[Revoltingest]

Considering many complaints are from those who do misunderstand it, it would be worth seeing the lawyers situation. Maybe she is just cheap and doesn't want to spend more than what a junk plan costs? Maybe she is seeing a legitimate increase?
And why shouldn't maternal care be something every insurance company has to cover? At any given moment of course not every woman will need it, but it's better just to require it upfront than having to fight insurance companies looking for loopholes and ways to get out of coverage.

A single male needn't pay for maternity coverage. Hypothetically, to force him to do
so would be solely to have him subsidize the rates of those who do want such insurance.
This would give a false impression to the subsidized insured that costs are being lowered,
when it would actually just be income redistribution.

 

[4consideration]

Which fees, specifically?

The fees being discussed here, as they may affect sole-proprietor and very small LLC's.

So far, the talk about requirements I have seen (and all that I have seen on the IRS site) refer to gross income as the basis for determining a requirement to purchase insurance -- and fees for not purchasing insurance. That's fine for people employed by companies. They don't have the same issue to worry about that I'm concerned about here.

If the requirements really mean gross income, and that seems to be all this is said on the matter -- when that concept is applied to a very small business person who reports income on business operations via personal income tax returns -- that gross income line on the tax form reflects a vastly higher figure than what the business owner actually has use of, personally.

This is an entirely different situation from what is reflected by gross income for an employee.

So far, when I see examples of how these rules are expected to apply, the examples use people that are employed by others.

I have not seen things presented in a way that has relieved my mind on this issue, as far as how it may affect very small/family type business owners. That is what is concerning me here.

edit: I thought it might be worth repeating, since there is some distance from my original post -- my main concern is not what happens in 2014, but what happens by 2016 -- regarding these fees.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I agree I'd like to see more info. in the WaPo article about the benefits in the lawyer's plan before and after the changes. Not because I don't accept that some people are seeing legitimate premium increases, but only because the media has repeatedly failed to provide proper context in many of these stories thus far.

Still it's not surprising that a lawyer making $80,000 per year, who is healthy and on the individual market, might see a rate increase even if you include the effects of subsidies and even if her insurance wasn't junk. The fact is, non-group insurance is more expensive than group insurance. Some of the healthy folks in the non-group market (5% of the market) were able to get artificially low premiums by collaborating with insurance companies (without their realizing it, of course) to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions. It would be like buying fire insurance where the company doesn't have to cover houses that are on fire -- of course you can get a cheaper rate.

 

[Revoltingest]

The fees being discussed here, as they may affect sole-proprietor and very small LLC's.

So far, the talk about requirements I have seen (and all that I have seen on the IRS site) refer to gross income as the basis for determining a requirement to purchase insurance -- and fees for not purchasing insurance. That's fine for people employed by companies. They don't have the same issue to worry about that I'm concerned about here.

If the requirements really mean gross income, and that seems to be all this is said on the matter -- when that concept is applied to a very small business person who reports income on business operations via personal income tax returns -- that gross income line on the tax form reflects a vastly higher figure than what the business owner actually has use of, personally.

This is an entirely different situation from what is reflected by gross income for an employee.

So far, when I see examples of how these rules are expected to apply, the examples use people that are employed by others.

I have not seen things presented in a way that has relieved my mind on this issue, as far as how it may affect very small/family type business owners. That is what is concerning me here.

In IRS parlance, "gross income" would refer to personal (rather than business) income. (See your form 1040.) But your question shows the tip of the iceberg in the website's confusion generator. In answering my son's questions about the tax aspects (form 1099, etc), the only clear matter was that the website is poorly designed.

 

[4consideration]

In IRS parlance, "gross income" would refer to personal (rather than business) income. (See your form 1040.) But your question shows the tip of the iceberg in the website's confusion generator. In answering my son's questions about the tax aspects (form 1099, etc), the only clear matter was that the website is poorly designed.

OK, Rev. I may be being dense here. I recognize that. I believe you.

But...in looking a our tax forms, I only see the designation of "Gross Income" on the Schedule C. Line 7.

On the 1040 form, line 22, what one expects to mean gross income is called "total income". Then, there is the "adjusted gross income" -- line 37.

I guess I'm just wrong for expecting the term "Gross Income" that is being used to actually apply to the line that is labeled "Gross Income" on my tax forms.

Do we know for sure what line on the 1040 is the line the insurance exchange is referring to for determining gross income? Total income?