[Craig328]

supersloth, on 30 September 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:

what did they actually quote you for the premium increase in july of 2014? just curious, you left that out and just said 'way more'

edit: unless that was the third paragraph. i confused current rate/rate moving to before aca/rate after aca.

They don't know yet as the ACA isn't yet in force (and because it's still a political football). They are apparently basing projected increases on what the exchanges or the government is telling them. What they did do was offer to extend our policy what amounts to an additional...5 months I believe...for a modest premium increase, solely to allow us to extend that time before we get walloped by the increases that will come via ACA. As an aside, I was the last of my social circle to get this notice. Friends and neighbors got similar offers from their carriers as well starting a few months back. Understand, this is entirely voluntary on our part. We don't have to accept their offer and can allow our policy to run with our premiums unaffected until the policy expires.

lordofduct, on 30 September 2013 - 01:48 PM, said:

You should also consider the tax credits you should be receiving as well. I don't know what you bring in, but with a family of 4, and if you use the exchange, you should be able to get tax credits to lower your effective premium.

Yeah, well, we won't qualify for premium offset payments because we're not within X range of the poverty line for our state. Now, tax credits via the annual tax filing is a different matter and I actually have a call in to our tax preparer asking them how a ridiculous premium increase will affect what we can write off. I'm told there will be a similar percentage impact as we've been getting...but with larger premiums the percentage we'll still end up eating will be concurrently higher.

I'll tell you what the worst part is: we're a relatively healthy family (knock on wood) but we've always carried health insurance because it's the responsible thing to do. The issue is this: you can't be denied care for inability to pay under ACA, right? Well, why on earth would I volunteer to pay almost $10K per year to continue to have a $15K exposure (via copays and deductibles) when I can simply say "fuck it", not carry healthcare coverage at all, pay the $1000 penalty the first year and no more than $2800 in subsequent years...and still have the same cost exposure due to the law? In other words, where is the incentive to participate? Keep in mind, if I bank the difference between what I would pay in a premium minus the penalty...I can simply pay cash for my care. Do I want to do that? Nope, but what idiot would pay $7K+ more per year when they don't have to?

I'm in a position where I have that choice (paying an extra $5K/yr) but there are lots of people who aren't and who will, almost certainly, opt for the "fuck it" option and take their chances.

[Craig328]

farrell2k, on 30 September 2013 - 02:21 PM, said:

The $9,880 you wrote is > than 9.5% of the maximum you can earn and still receive subsidies, $94,199.............................................just saying.

And? Yes, I will probably make more than that. So what?

[farrell2k]

Craig328, on 30 September 2013 - 06:25 PM, said:

Well, why on earth would I volunteer to pay almost $10K per year to continue to have a $15K exposure (via copays and deductibles) when I can simply say "fuck it", not carry healthcare coverage at all, pay the $1000 penalty the first year and no more than $2800 in subsequent years...and still have the same cost exposure due to the law?

Ummmm...... see below:

Craig328, on 30 September 2013 - 06:25 PM, said:

we've always carried health insurance because it's the responsible thing to do.

Craig328, on 30 September 2013 - 06:25 PM, said:

Yeah, well, we won't qualify for premium offset payments because we're not within X range of the poverty line for our state. Now, tax credits via the annual tax filing is a different matter and I actually have a call in to our tax preparer asking them how a ridiculous premium increase will affect what we can write off.

Obamacare subsidies are based on Federal poverty levels. State levels are irrelevant. If you are self-employed, your health insurance premiums are 100% tax deductible. You can deduct the FULL cost of the premiums on your federal tax return.

Craig328, on 30 September 2013 - 06:31 PM, said:

farrell2k, on 30 September 2013 - 02:21 PM, said:

The $9,880 you wrote is > than 9.5% of the maximum you can earn and still receive subsidies, $94,199.............................................just saying.

And? Yes, I will probably make more than that. So what?

Then your insurer cannot use the subsidy calculator to determine the cost of your premiums, as it would be pointless...

This post has been edited by farrell2k: 30 September 2013 - 11:36 AM

[Craig328]

Um...first of all, health insurance premiums are only deductible if you qualify and then they aren't ever 100% deductible. They act to lower you AGI, they're not dollar for dollar offsets against your tax bill and never have been.

You're right about the poverty level as it being based against the federal set poverty level. That will actually screw hell out of people in more affluent states. It's easier to get by at $40K/yr for a family of 4 in Mississippi than it is to try and do so in Manhattan.

[farrell2k]

Craig328, on 30 September 2013 - 06:45 PM, said:

Um...first of all, health insurance premiums are only deductible if you qualify and then they aren't ever 100% deductible. They act to lower you AGI, they're not dollar for dollar offsets against your tax bill and never have been.

Self employed can always get a 100% tax deduction for premiums. If you are not, get a better tax accountant. He or she is screwing you. If deductibles and out of pocket expenses are more than 10% of your AGI, you can even deduct 100% of those.

Deductions establish your AGI, by lowering your GI, dollar for dollar.

A family of 4 earning $40k per year anywhere in this country is going to get Obamacare free or nearly free, if they don't qualify for Medicaid.

I am starting to think that you are just parroting right-wing anti-obamacare nonsense.

[Michael26]

Quote

I am starting to think that you are just parroting right-wing anti-obamacare nonsense.

Better known as Fox News.

[macosxnerd101]

jon.kiparsky, on 30 September 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

Do you know how unemployment insurance works? It's paid for by you, and you might get to collect some of it back, if you're lucky enough to be fired in just the right way, and to manage to jump through all the hoops. You're not paying for anyone when it comes to unemployment insurance. They already paid.

Look at a pay stub some time. You'll see an entry for your unemployment insurance - that's yours, and nobody else is paying for it. Good luck collecting it if you ever need it, though, because the "rugged individualist" party has made it very difficult for working people to actually get what they paid for. A person who gets fired has to essentially spend their life proving to the state that they're looking for work before they can get payment on their claim. Just so we're clear: once again, it's the "every man for himself" capitalists who are putting the people in thrall to the state. Not the socialists.

Actually, in all but three states, unemployment benefits are paid for solely by the employers. Virginia is one such state. I've actually held three different jobs where I collected a paycheck. None of my paystubs ever had unemployment insurance taken out.

Quote

The Virginia Employment Commission (VEC) administers the unemployment insurance program that provides temporary financial assistance to individuals who become unemployed through no fault of their own. Benefits are paid through taxes on

employers covered under the Virginia Unemployment Compensation Act. No part of the cost of your unemployment benefits is deducted from your earning

http://www.vec.virgi...esponsibilities

Quote

In the majority of States, benefit funding is based solely on a tax imposed on employers. (Three (3) States require minimal employee contributions.)

http://workforcesecu...uifactsheet.asp

farrell2k, on 30 September 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

macosxnerd101, on 30 September 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

Why am I obligated to pay for people indefinitely?

Because you live in a society, brotha! If you want roads, schools, police, fire services, water and sewage filtration, relatively safe food, a military, affordable education, and a strong economy that goes along with all of that, you need to contribute to keep the system going. We all pay for one another in some way.

You're drawing comparisons between indefinite unemployment benefits and paying for roads. This isn't the same. I don't begrudge someone a bit of unemployment to help them get back on their feet. If someone is taking five years to find a job, I would seriously doubt if they are really looking. If someone is really looking that long and can't find a job, I think that's a good indicator that one's skillsets need work. There are lots of ways to increase one's skillsets. Volunteer work is a great way to do this (as well as network), as is going to the free public libraries with free public internet. It's almost like one could learn rudimentary web design without paying a dime. Frankly, why should we keep paying for someone who refuses to adapt to the job market? Haven't people had to constantly adapt to new situations? Seriously- kids have to adapt simply in the transition to high school, and then the transition from high school to adulthood. It's a part of life.

I'm not jumping up and down "omg- not socialism!" We clearly don't live in a purely capitalistic society as well. I just think a little common sense goes a long ways rather than going from one extreme of little to no unemployment, to the other extreme of unlimited unemployment.

[farrell2k]

macosxnerd101, on 30 September 2013 - 07:21 PM, said:

You're drawing comparisons between indefinite unemployment benefits and paying for roads. This isn't the same. I don't begrudge someone a bit of unemployment to help them get back on their feet. If someone is taking five years to find a job, I would seriously doubt if they are really looking. If someone is really looking that long and can't find a job, I think that's a good indicator that one's skillsets need work. There are lots of ways to increase one's skillsets.

I don't like this argument, because it really only works if there is zero unemployment. Without unemployment at zero, someone will always be out of work, regardless of skill set.

macosxnerd101, on 30 September 2013 - 07:21 PM, said:

Actually, in all but three states, unemployment benefits are paid for solely by the employers. Virginia is one such state. I've actually held three different jobs where I collected a paycheck. None of my paystubs ever had unemployment insurance taken out.

My right-wing friends are quite fond of pointing out that all taxes on employers are actually tax paid by its customers.

[macosxnerd101]

Quote

I don't like this argument, because it really only works if there is zero unemployment. Without unemployment at zero, someone will always be out of work, regardless of skill set.

No it doesn't. Your argument is that indefinite unemployment benefits society in the same way that roads, education, the police, etc., do. This isn't true. I clearly benefit from the road as I drive over it. Nobody except the person drawing it (and his/her family) benefits from indefinite unemployment. Sure, there probably will be people unemployed in society at every point. That doesn't mean these are the same people. A lot of this comes from market friction. You don't make a compelling case for indefinite unemployment.

Quote

My right-wing friends are quite fond of pointing out that all taxes on employers are actually tax paid by its customers.

Businesses shouldn't make money. Profits are bad.

[Sergio Tapia]

People who are against this have never felt the sting of not having enough money to get checked at the hospital. "No meat this week because we had to buy flu medicine for our child." Real, hardcore shit like that.

Sure you are against it because right now your situation is good, but nothing lasts. When shit hits the fan, and it does for every family at least once, you'll change your tune quickly.

[farrell2k]

macosxnerd101, on 30 September 2013 - 07:39 PM, said:

No it doesn't. Your argument is that indefinite unemployment benefits society in the same way that roads, education, the police, etc., do. This isn't true. I clearly benefit from the road as I drive over it. Nobody except the person drawing it (and his/her family) benefits from indefinite unemployment. Sure, there probably will be people unemployed in society at every point. That doesn't mean these are the same people. A lot of this comes from market friction. You don't make a compelling case for indefinite unemployment.

You have me thoroughly confused. I thought all I did was state why we all have to pay for one another as part of a shared societal obligation. I don't want to try to make any case about unemployment being good for anyone.

Quote

Businesses shouldn't make money. Profits are bad.

Again, I don't get what you're hinting at here...

This post has been edited by farrell2k: 30 September 2013 - 12:48 PM

[macosxnerd101]

@Sergio Tapia: I can't tell if that's directed to me specifically or just a general comment. Also, if it is directed to me, are you talking about unemployment or Obamacare? If that wasn't directed to me, disregard!

Quote

You have me thoroughly confused. I thought all I did was state why we all have to pay for one another as part of a shared societal obligation. I don't want to try to make any case about unemployment being good for anyone.

I was talking about unemployment specifically. I was against indefinite unemployment, and you replied saying that indefinite unemployment benefits were great.

Quote

Quote

My right-wing friends are quite fond of pointing out that all taxes on employers are actually tax paid by its customers.

Businesses shouldn't make money. Profits are bad.

My point is that the employer has to make money in order to stay in business and pay the employees. You seem to be implying that taxes on the employer really aren't taxes, as they're passed onto the customers. Taxes hurt employers. Both my parents are small business owners. Tax increases affect them in a very real way. I'm happy to whip out Pareto diagrams if you want me to get into the economics of this.

[lordofduct]

macosxnerd101, on 30 September 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

Quote

I don't like this argument, because it really only works if there is zero unemployment. Without unemployment at zero, someone will always be out of work, regardless of skill set.

No it doesn't. Your argument is that indefinite unemployment benefits society in the same way that roads, education, the police, etc., do. This isn't true. I clearly benefit from the road as I drive over it. Nobody except the person drawing it (and his/her family) benefits from indefinite unemployment. Sure, there probably will be people unemployed in society at every point. That doesn't mean these are the same people. A lot of this comes from market friction. You don't make a compelling case for indefinite unemployment.

So by that argument, because I don't directly benefit from education, parks, or roads (if I happen to not own a car)... stick in whatever you feel you shouldn't have to do if you don't directly benefit from it.

But wait, I indirectly benefit from those things.

And I also indirectly benefit by everyone getting healthcare.

[macosxnerd101]

Please present me with an argument about how indefinite unemployment benefits are a good thing, and I will reconsider my stance. Did you read my post where I argued against it?

Quote

You're drawing comparisons between indefinite unemployment benefits and paying for roads. This isn't the same. I don't begrudge someone a bit of unemployment to help them get back on their feet. If someone is taking five years to find a job, I would seriously doubt if they are really looking. If someone is really looking that long and can't find a job, I think that's a good indicator that one's skillsets need work. There are lots of ways to increase one's skillsets. Volunteer work is a great way to do this (as well as network), as is going to the free public libraries with free public internet. It's almost like one could learn rudimentary web design without paying a dime. Frankly, why should we keep paying for someone who refuses to adapt to the job market? Haven't people had to constantly adapt to new situations? Seriously- kids have to adapt simply in the transition to high school, and then the transition from high school to adulthood. It's a part of life.

[lordofduct]

Please tell me what "indefinite" unemployment you're referring to?

As far as I know unemployment is not indefinite. I usually hear of limits between 5 months up to 26 months in the most liberal states like New York.