They think 9k a year for a family of 4 making 54K is "affordable" . THAT'S the problem

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

Anyone out there making 54K? Is paying 9K for premiums, out of pockets and deductibles "affordable"? That is close to 17% percent of your income and it is what the "reformers" have worked out for you if you should need to purchase your own insurance - i.e. you are self-employed, unemployed, under-employed, work for a company without benefits, pre-retirement, etc.

Hey! What if the wealthy (like our Senators) in this country paid 17% of their income towards healthcare?! Would they still label it "affordable"?

[pitohui]

1. i think it's close or lower than what we pay for a family of 2

so it would surely be an improvement for us...you don't pay out of pockets/deductible every year...you pay premiums every month so it's prob. about half that in years where you don't have health challenges...but it's certainly more than that in years when you do have health challenges, well, right now it is...what are you p aying now? you're prob. paying several hundred a month just in premiums and not counting what your employer pays...have a serious illness/injury and have the doc sneak in some stuff or treatment by an out of network doc you didn't even know was in the room, and it's way over 9k for the year in no time...

9K may not be fair or affordable but it's less than what we're paying now, you see...some improvement is better than nothing

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

6. And is that what you expected from "reform" - maintenance of the staus quo

which is admittedly the highest and least efficient in the entire world and rated 37th in outcomes by the WHO?

Where is the f!@#king VALUE? Where is the REFORM?!!

[pitohui]

9. right now all i expect from reform is for coverage to cover EVERYBODY even if they have no job

we have to start somewhere, bitching abt every little thing just means that people w.out insurance at all (i was one of them for 15 yrs) will continue to die or receive lifelong injuries because of not being able to afford treatment in time


i'm sick of living in fear that if my husband dies, i will have everything taken away from me that i've worked for, over a lifetime, because i'm uninsurable

i'm sick of watching friends live in fear that they will lose everything because they can't get a job so they have to work for themselves, but no one will sell a self-employed person health insurance at a price anyone can actually pay -- most self employed people have low incomes or are actually losing money every day they work (most small businesses DO fail) -- do they deserve to die because they were screwed out of chances at being employed at a job w. benefits?

there are not enough jobs for everyone but we have the technology to treat everyone...we just don't have the will...little costa rica can provide public health care for everybody but rich usa can't? it's bullshit...

[Walk away]

27. This "reform" is going to negate the state regulations and...

(because I am a cancer survivor) my premiums are likely to sky rocket. I am an independent contractor. I will either have to give up my home and lose my business or be fined for not having insurance.

You have no idea how bad this will be for the middle class, small business owner.

This bill has no regulations on premiums. If you have a recurrence of cancer your rates can go up to a lot more than 17%. Those are the rates for thin, healthy, cancer free, non smokers. What are you going to do if you develope an illness?

[pnwmom]

19. The reform would help people with preexisting conditions who can't buy insurance

at any price. Like our young relative who was denied coverage for a trivial condition and now has no coverage -- and CANCER.

And the reform would prevent companies from dropping customers after they became sick.

That is why Paul Krugman's saying that even this lousy bill is reform, and if it doesn't get approved, the version that does get approved 20 years from now will be even WEAKER.

[pitohui]

22. thank you, exactly EOM

/

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

35. Well, you might be interested to know that as far as I am aware

the banning of prior conditions as a basis for exclusion is pushed out to 2013 and there are no price controls that anyone can find. ( I always WELCOME people to correct me if I am wrong, because this is one scenario when anyone should LOVE to be proved wrong)

I have repeatedly asked in multiple threads about the National High Risk Pool that exists solely in the House bill and which would provide relief for someone like your relative - (there is nothing comparable in the Senate Bill)- and would it survive reconciliation?

no one seems to have the answer

Also relevant to your relative's condition is the fact that the Senate snuck back in ------ANNUAL CAPS! You'll appreciate this - they snuck them back in a clause titled "No Annual or Lifetime Caps" -The very thing that drives most cancer families into bankruptcy

So what I am saying is that we all expected that it would provide affordable coverage for your relative, but in fact in may not for a period of YEARS. Your young relative could die uncovered. THAT IS EXACTLY WHY SO MANY ARE FURIOUS!!!! You are counting on getting help that you won't get - at least under the Senate Bill

[pnwmom]

47. Unlike you, I still think the bill will be improved when it goes to the

conference committee. We'll just have to see.

[truedelphi]

65. Thank you for tackling this issue.

I know exactly how much 54k is because that was the main salary in the household till we both became sick and unemployable.

There was no way we could have afforded to pay 17% of our income for HC.

We paid 9% and that also included putting money aside for retirement!

I very much relate to those in terrible circumstances who are tempted to want this bill rather than nothing. Because after all, when a person is not insurable -what can they do?

But over all, I find myself hoping that this bill is killed off.

[eridani]

48. Not if she had a bad credit record. She'd just be denied for that instead n/t

The insurance companies will keep on dropping people for sickness. The government will then go after them and likely win the case. Meanwhile the patient will have died. Mission accomplished! That happens already in states that have such laws.

[thereismore]

49. I know. That's better than nothing, but I would not mandate it on everyone. nt

[Donnachaidh]

63. so you're basically okay with the insurance companies offering extremely expensive

insurance to people who they previously wouldn't cover? REALLY?

I don't want my kid shackled to a for profit insurance mandate because he had the misfortune of being born with a genetic disorder. And with NO cost controls this bill is GARBAGE -- and will be WORSE for those who haven't been able to get insurance.

I know - I've been laughed at when trying to buy my son insurance. They will *offer* it - but it will NOT be affordable. And what will happen then? *WE* will be FINED because we cannot afford it.

This is NOT reform.

[wtbymark]

11. and in every other industrialized country

you premiums for a family of two would be roughly $310/mo max

[Laelth]

2. Indeed. It is unlikely that I will be able to "afford" this "affordable" insurance.

Besides which, it's just a bad idea, and the Democratic Party will be punished for it by the electorate if we are stupid enough to enact the individual mandate.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the solution to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.


:dem:

-Laelth

[Walk away]

29. You are so right! nt

[PBS Poll-435]

3. Anything over 7.5% is tax-deductible

:shrug:

[dionysus]

8. don't go ruining a good rage!

they didn't purposefully leave out all the subsidies did they?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

10. No, that is with the subsidies. nt.

[dionysus]

23. and after the tax deductions?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

26. "tax-deductable" usually means at the rate one is paying so that would vary

Big deal, it might be lowered from insane to horrific - is that your point? If it is deductable at 28% it would bring it down from the trauma inducing 17% to a merely nauseating 12%. Yippeee! You're right, I was completely wrong to think that we all couldn't afford this by merely vacuuming out the spare change in our cars.

[dionysus]

30. i haven't read the bill, but you can't convince me that easily the entire Democratic group in the

senate and house are all pushing for obvious political suicide.

[Tailormyst]

51. Great ! Everyday living expenses can wait until the Spring, when the tax return arrives !!!!!

I think those of you cheerleading this have very little clue about the lives of blue-collar working class america.

[Lorien]

54. "Deductible" doesn't mean "get it back"

it just means that it's deducted from your taxed income so you are taxed on 7.2% less. I know you understand this, but I doubt the person you replied to does.

[Tailormyst]

55. Yup

People just don't get that this will be a serious hit to alot of people financially. People who live paycheck to paycheck. Here in the North East 54000 is not alot to live on for a family of 4, after taxes 750 + co-pays + deductibles makes this a huge expense that they wont be able to afford to use anyway.

[PBS Poll-435]

58. (Adjust your W-4)

:eyes:

[Tailormyst]

61. You seriously don't get it

[Lorien]

52. Um, I pay for my own insurance. "Tax deductible" doesn't make up for the hit

it's still a shitload of money out of pocket that you DON"T get back in any way, shape or form. You sure as hell don't get it back in coverage if you get sick: I've got a 12k deductible to pay before anything gets covered.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

70. Rich people and Republicans think tax deductions are the be-all and end-all

Let me educate you about reality.

I am self-employed with a highly variable income. My insurance premiums are 100% deductible. However, I occasionally have trouble affording them in a specific month. At that point, a tax deduction does NOTHING for me.

[PBS Poll-435]

72. Sole Prop?

Do you remit quarterly tax payments?

[rwheeler31]

4. Move into a box and Quit eating we must have profit.

[valerief]

5. You got that right! And spend the same proportionate percentage on

housing, utilities, food, clothing, transportation, and other necessities. Oh, yeah, and no savings and debt in proportion to their earnings (income, lobbyist tips, capital gains).

[MichiganVote]

7. Why do you hate America?

[azurnoir]

12. thats $750 a month !

most people making $62000 a year could not afford that, and they think there's a foreclosure problem now?

[quiller4]

17. We pay close to $700 each month on retirement income of closer to $50,000

and that is for two people--not 4. Of course we pay somthing approaching 7% for housing now that we own our place free and clear.

[pitohui]

21. it isn't $750 a month

the person is including co-pays and deductibles in the quote, so it's no different from the co-pays and deductibles you're paying now if you have a job

you have a job paying abt that amt, my hubby does, maybe a little less, but every month off the top i think about $400 goes for our share of the insurance costs

then, if and when there's a serious health problem, all those nuisance co-pays and ridiculous deductibles kick in

however it is not fair to say you're paying $750 every month, you're paying like $300,300, 300, then something goes wrong and you're hit with a bill for your deductible, say $5,000 -- that's exactly the situation now for anyone with a job, as far as i know...

and yet we are still far better off with my husband having the job and having the insurance than i was during 15 years where i could not buy insurance or get health care AT ALL

have an awful sickness and pay $9K a year or have an awful sickness and pay $280,000? you see the difference now?

sure, it stinks

health care should be a right

but i'd rather get something for people than get nothing

[Unvanguard]

13. There's a hardship exemption, and the out-of-pocket costs are average, not median.

So they include cases where someone gets sick--where, if they lacked coverage, they would be in even deeper trouble.

Edit: And people can always choose to pay the penalty.

[MadMaddie]

14. So I was told by my young co-worker who has never had a

hard day in his life that people that don't have jobs in this economy are not employed because they are not willing to take the jobs that pay 8 dollars an hr. I then asked had he ever tried to survive on 8 dollars an hr? ..............Crickets I asked had he ever had his electricity turned off or had to eat beans and rice until the next pay day..........crickets......Oh did I mention he proclaims he is a Christian?

That's even though I had to explain that there are 400 people applying for 1 job.....didn't phase him....he said they can go into the military. I said but they would be paid with tax dollars......
he said but the government is their employer.......and I said and the government is run with our tax dollars....

I felt like I was running around an endless track......
:banghead: :wtf:

[mrs_p]

25. of course he is a christian

color me surprised (and i'm an ex-nun)

[MadMaddie]

31. I know it baffles me

They love endless war and killing innocent civilians in other countries, and apparantly because people volunteer to go in the military then that's the risk they took if they get killed.

Keep in mind he is about 25, daddy and mommy have always provided everything for him. He is married now and he and his wife have never had to struggle for anything. I really do like him other than his naive repuglican views.

I haven't said anything about the Christianity angle because we are at the office but one day when we are not I am going to ask how he reconciles all of things I mentioned above with his religion.

[pnwmom]

15. It's affordable in places

where you can buy houses for $50,000.

:shrug:

[varelse]

36. What's the median income for a family of four

in most of those places?

What's the employment rate like?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

38. The median household income in America overall in 2007 was around 50K

you can Google median income and census.org I think comes right up and you can find out anything you want about anywhere. Not sure if it's census.org might be .gov which is why I said Google.

[varelse]

42. I meant, what is the median income in areas where a house costs 50k on average

I doubt it is 50k or even close... but if there exists such a place, I'm friggin moving there like tomorrow. Just tell me where.

[pnwmom]

46. Of course the median income is low in those places.

So the few people who have an income that high are relatively well off.

[BenitoCellini]

73. Median income for a family of four by state

The median income for a family of four is about $68,000 nationwide in 2009,
but closer to $52,000 in Arkansas and Mississippi compared with $94,441 in New Jersey.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/liheap/guidance/SMI75FY09.pdf

The cost of living (inculding taxes) is much higher in New Jersey and Arkansas, of course,
which is one reason national poverty lines are a very crude basis for qualification for Medicaid in the new health bills.

[OHdem10]

16. Biggest Fattest Gift to Big Insurance.---and it will not stop at

9,000 . The Insurance Cos will raise rates, you better
believe.

Millionaires in the Senate have no concept of how the real
world lives.

I am not knocking millionaires. There are many many who
really understand the plight of the working people. The Senate
is just out of touch, IMO. Yet they have the power.

[FormerDittoHead]

62. But think of the 30 million! They'll have healthcare along with their $3,000 deductables.

Not bad, however. The gov't will pay $5,000 a year for their "minimum-minimum" coverage, and if they get sick they can go to an ER!

Why am I guessing there will be some kind of bankruptcy prevention provision as well, like Delaware Joe saw put in the credit card "reform".

Oh I forgot - THAT BROUGHT RATES DOWN! :sarcasm:

[Walk away]

18. It would be great if we could run it like the "Producers".

17% for health care, 55% for mortgage and taxes, 20 % for utilities, 30% for food and gas, 10% clothing and school supplies, 10% car and car insurance, 10% college fund and don't forget 10% for that Roth IRA!

[QC]

20. These people are rich. Many of them spend that much a year on the dry cleaning.

Quite a bit more than that on the gardener and pool maintenance.

$9k is a pittance to our overlords. Pocket change.

[mrs_p]

24. we make under $20K a year

(i'm a student, he is a seasonal biologist) and we pay $15K for my husband's health insurance - that's right $15,000 a year. he has a pre-existing condition and we have to borrow from his family fund every year to pay it.

[stray cat]

28. What does the family pay now?

[baldguy]

32. They think it's affordable because they're all millionaires.

[Fire1]

33. You got a link for this "information?" This is the second time

today I've heard this. Who made this claim? What source provided this info?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

34. Sorry. The source is the Nate Silver column that has been discussed in many contexts

over the last few days. My apologies and I should have sourced it in my OP. As you say, this figure has benn bandied about.

here is the link - it's down the page aways to "Why Progressives Are Batshit Crazy to Oppose the Senate Bill"

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/why-progressives-are-batshit-crazy-to.html

[Fire1]

39. Ok. Under the status quo the avg. cost of hc for a family of four

is considerably higher than it would be under the tentative senate bill. I'm also reminded that the employer also pays a significant portion under the tentative bill. The problem from my point of view, is the unemployed. I posted a summary of the bill by Stabenow where these issues were addressed.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

41. Yes without subsidies the cost would be even higher. So what, if it's still unaffordable?

I posted this example earlier today - You have 5K to buy a car. The government tells you that you must purchase a car that costs 20K but good news! they will subidize you 10K. You still only have 5K and you still cannot afford the car even with the government subsidy.

That table doesn't address employer subsidies because it's TALKING ABOUT THE UNINSURED! The people who DON"T GET HEALTHCARE THROUGH THEIR EMPLOYER - the whole reason we are having this discussion ok?

You say you posted a summary of the bill by Stabenow where these issues are addressed. Please share.

[Fire1]

43. No need to yell and thank you for the link. This is a

condensed summary of an ever changing bill NOT a full text, as it is only 56 pages. Hope it proves useful.
http://stabenow.senate.gov/healthcare/Patient_protection_section.pdf

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

44. I'm sorry. I post like I actually speak and I do get hyper sometimes.

My apologies for raising my voice :blush: and thanks for your link!

[hootinholler]

37. 17% of gross income paid out of net income

So it's a bit worse than 17% Between taxes and insurance that will be about 50% of gross income.

-Hoot

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

40. and yet the apologists for this piece of crap will ask you

Is that per Turbo Tax or Quicken? Like it matters.

Are they siphoning 1 pint of blood a day from you or merely 14 oz.?

[HughMoran]

45. The employee rate is $18k for that coverage where I work

& many people make less than 20k.

Insurance in general ridiculously overpriced for sure.

[Tailormyst]

50. These people have no idea what it's like in the real world

750 as month + copays+ deductibles= a huge bill that they can't afford and can't use anyway because of the deductibles. It's basically just catastrophic illness insurance. Wildly expensive catastrophic illness insurance.

[Skittles]

53. and it will be CRAPPY COVERAGE too

expect to pay a lot more than that if you actually have to USE it

[prole_for_peace]

56. Hell, I am single with no kids and make about 50K a year

and $9000 would not be affordable to me.

[Armstead]

57. kick

[windbreeze]

59. Right now...2 of us pay about $7200 and make 34,000 a year...plus co pays/prescriptions

so $9,000 for 4 on $54,000 sounds pretty good to me, as it's only 1800 more for twice as many people, on $20,000 more income....wb

[quiet.american]

60. The thing is, it's not "9k" a year, every year. Silver edited his commentary to address this:

Silver: EDIT -- Another important point or two: To the extent there are critiques about this post, they are liable to revolve around the fact that $9,000 is not so affordable for our not-so-imaginary family. Two things to note on this:

Firstly, in most years, the family will not be paying $9,000. They'll be paying closer to $4,000 -- the base cost of the premium -- or maybe $5,000 for a few meds and doctors' visits and so forth. The costs will be much higher in those years when a member of the family gets sick. But the alternative in those years would be not having health insurance at all -- and in that case, either the the family member might die from the condition or the family will go bankrupt trying to prevent that.

----------------

So, if I'm reading him correctly, the 9k figure derives from approx. 5k in out-of-pocket costs if a serious illness strikes, but it's not reflective of what a family would be paying yearly in premiums.

[ClarkUSA]

69. "...in most years, the family will not be paying $9,000. They'll be paying closer to $4,000"

Thanks for some facts.

[Armstead]

64. Give this thing ,....

another little kick

[treestar]

66. There are tons of studies from which they get the figures

You're just looking for a reason to complain.

[Generator]

67. Well no, most of them don't care that it's not affordable

that's the real problem. After hearing Senator Landrieu talk about how she basically agrees with Lieberman because she doesn't want to see the insurance companies hurting (my mouth went agape and then I called her names you can't say on this board back at the teevee) while at the same time talking about her state being a poorer one.

She knows. They know. They just don't really give a shit except about THEIR political career. It's tempting to not call them horrible names.

That's what revolutions are for you know. Then they have to care. Because they are not stupid, just abetting evil cleverly.

[earth mom]

68. Affordable my a$$!!!

:grr:

[gravity]

71. The US already spends 16% of its GDP on healthcare

Which means that 16% of the countries income already goes to healthcare costs.