Totally ticked about my Insurance (venting) | Arthritis Information
I am self employed, my insurance premiums have skyrocketed in the last year. My husband and my premiums jumped to $ 2,180.00 a month!
We had to change our benefits to get the premium down to $ 1, 550.00 a month, by doing this we now have to pay the first $ 2,500.00 of any thing and everything, from Dr. visits and medications before our insurance will pay. The 2,500 is per person. After we meet that the insurance will pay a 100%.
The problem is, (besides the monthly premium) is that our medications are very exspensive. My betaseron is aprox 1,800 a month, and my husband takes plavix and a few other costly drugs, so we have done the math the first $ 23,600.00 we make a year goes for health care.
Makes me sad and tired to think about this. We got change alright....(and it jingles in my pocket)
You repiglicans didn't want government health care so you can pay through the nose. You deserve what you get. I have no sympathy here inflamed. This is what you and yours wanted. The insurance companies can charge you what they want, the sky is the limit. This is the type of system YOU want. Now, pay for it!Wow inflamed, you have my sympathy. That is utterly ridiculous! We definitely could not afford that. Hello Welfare......
Thank you GG and Snow for your kind words. I completely understand my problem is not unique to just my husband and myself. It is a problem that will effect us all.
Lorster, your calling me a "pig" ?...clever...(rolls eyes).
When all else fails I guess calling someone in a hard spot names is all that is left.
(just so you understand, it is because of obamacare that my premiums jumped over 0.00 in the last year)
Another little gem hidden in the Obamacare policy is anyone selling their home starting in 2013 will have to pay a 3.8% tax on the sell price of their home to help fund public health care. No thank you. That would be aprox ,000.00 of my hard earned equity in my home. My house is currently for sale. ... but you called me a pig? Have a nice day Lorster.
[QUOTE=#1inflamedOnline]
This should help stimulate the Real Estate market!
UNDER THE NEW HEALTH CARE BILL - DID YOU KNOW THAT ALL REAL ESTATE
TRANSACTIONS ARE SUBJECT TO A 3.8% “SALES TAX”?
YOU CAN THANK NANCY, HARRY & BARACK (AND YOUR LOCAL CONGRESSMAN)
FOR THIS ONE.
IF YOU SELL YOUR 0,000 HOME, THIS WILL BE A ,200 TAX.
Verified
Higher taxes on real estate investments. The 3.8% Medicare surtax
would hit average, middle-class investors in real estate. A middle-class
taxpayer who happens to sell real estate for a gain in a particular
year would be liable for this new tax, regardless of how low her income
might be in other, more typical years.
From FactCheck.org:
April 22, 2010 Does the new health care law impose a 3.8 percent tax on
profits from selling your home?
No, with very few
exceptions. The first 0,000 in profit from the sale of a personal
residence won’t be taxed, or the first 0,000 in the case of a married
couple. The tax falls on relatively few — those with high incomes from
other sources.
. . . only those with incomes over 0,000 a year (0,000 for married
couples filing jointly) will be subject to it. And even for those who
have such high incomes, the tax still won’t apply to the first 0,000
on profits from the sale of a personal residence — or to the first
0,000 in the case of a married couple selling their home. . . .
. . . the tax falls only on that portion of any gain that is "taken into
account in computing taxable income" under the existing tax code. And
the fact is, the first 0,000 in profit on the sale of a primary
residence (or 0,000 in the case of a married couple) is excluded from
taxable income already.
. . . a typical home sale would not incur any tax. In March, for example,
half of all existing homes sold for 0,700 or less,
according
to the National Association of Realtors. Obviously, none of those
sales could possibly generate a 0,000 profit, and so none would be
subject to the tax.
Thus, for the vast majority, the 3.8 percent tax won’t apply. The Tax
Foundation, in a
report released April 15, said the new tax on investment income
(including real estate) "will hit approximately the top-earning two
percent of families" when it takes effect in 2013.
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/a-38-percent-sales-tax-on-your-home/
Joie2010-10-04 23:46:54Thank you Joie =)
IO,
Boy, isn't Lorster full of rage, hate and anger? I think I know why. It's because even she has realized that even pigs are smarter than community organizers.
LEV
PS,
You have to double check factcheck. They are very liberal leaning. They also stated that the stimulus did indeed creat up to 3.3 million jobs. Or that it's somewhere between 1.5 and 3.3, depending on which time they made the claims. Oh, their factcheck came from, of course, the CBO's findings. One thing is absolutely for sure, 150,000 new government jobs were created with the stimulus money. Cool, huh? 150,000 new jobs with benifits and pensions that the average citizen can only drool over. We'll pay for them for a long long time. Shouldn't we all be government workers, with government salaries, vacations and sick days, with government benifits and government pensions???????????
LEV
Thanks Joie. I just sold my home IO and didn't pay anything like that. Not sure where you got our information...oh....wait....you heard it through the grapevine.awww...look...the family is back together. Group hug everyone!
[QUOTE=#1inflamedOnline]Thank you Joie =)
[QUOTE=lorster]Thanks Joie. I just sold my home IO and didn't pay anything like that. Not sure where you got our information...oh....wait....you heard it through the grapevine.[/QUOTE]
Lorster, I said it was to begin in 2013. Uh..this is 2010..(stop acting like such a bitch)
Lev, How you been feeling?
Kelly...yes we can group hug...lol
<>
I didn't have the time earlier to respond about the
increase in your premiums, so will do so in this post.
First of all, I am very sorry to hear about the
jump in the premiums for your individual policy. That is an outrageous amount.
People with individual insurance policies not only pay higher premiums compared
to those covered by group rates, but have also seen yearly higher increases.
This is not due to the new health law, but is due to rising health care costs
and to the nature of the individual health insurance market.
Individual health insurance plans have a higher
administrative cost than group insurance. Also, because they have a smaller
pool of insurees as compared to large group plans, they cannot spread the
cost/risk over a larger pool of insurees that would include young and old, the
sick and the healthy.
In California this year, Anthem Blue Cross announced a hike in premiums on
individual policies of up to 39%. They attributed it to the rise
in unemployment and declining wages which lead to healthy people dropping their
insurance. Anthem Blue Cross said the remaining risk pool became more expensive to insure. This forced up prices and pushed more people out of the market.
For those that must buy insurance in the individual
market and have a preexisting condition or are older, their options are to pay
the higher premium, switch to a less-generous policy with higher deductibles, or drop
insurance all together.
To provide more options for those with such
limited choices, the Affordable Care Act sets up a regulated marketplace --
insurance exchanges -- where individuals and
employees of small businesses can compare and buy comprehensive policies
like employees of large businesses now get. Exchanges would be set up by 2014.
Individual and small group insurance would still be available outside the
exchanges.
If interested, here is a link from about.com about
exchanges:
Joie2010-10-05 17:12:55Thanks again!
I should mention we are on group rates. It is a small group, but it is a group. I shutter to think of individual policy premiums.
#1. You blame reform for your increased premiums. Please site where, in the bill, the reform required your insurance company to raise your rates. I don't think you will find it. Place blame where it belongs. Your insurance company. The reform has made it more difficult for people to qualify for medicaid in my state. Reform did some good things. It prevents your insurance company from kicking you off due to your health history. Look at the good this has done for you. Quit blaming everything on the government. You want to live in the best nation in the world? Then be willing to pay for it. IO,
I can't imagine your insurance premiums being raised. Here, look at this, the community organizer being "cute" acting just like a community organizer. He claimed that most would see a decrease of 3000 percent in their insurance premiums.
LEV
[QUOTE=#1inflamedOnline]Thanks again!
The small business market (small group
health insurance) has some of the same problems as the individual
health market. Small group health insurance lacks market power, economies of
scale, stable risk pools and protections against adverse selection.
I don't know if you would be eligible, but
the AFFORDABLE CARE ACT provides a health care tax credit for small
businesses. Small businesses can claim the credit starting with the 2010 income
tax return they file in 2011. If interested, check the IRS website:
[QUOTE=levlarry]IO,
. . . Visiting a Cleveland suburb this week, the
president described how individuals and small businesses will be able to buy
coverage in a new kind of health insurance marketplace, gaining the same
strength in numbers that federal employees have.
"You'll be able to buy
in, or a small business will be able to buy into this pool," Mr. Obama said.
"And that will lower rates, it's estimated, by up to 14 to 20 percent over what
you're currently getting. That's money out of pocket." . . . .
Mr. Obama
asked his audience for a show of hands from people with employer-provided
coverage, what most Americans have.
"Your employer,
it's estimated,
would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent," said the president, "which
means they could give you a raise."
A White House press spokesman later
said the president misspoke; he had meant to say annual premiums would drop by
,000. . . .
The statistics Mr. Obama based his claims on come from
two sources. In both cases, the caveats got left out.
A report for the
Business Roundtable, an association of big company CEOs, was the source for the
claim that employers could save ,000 per worker on health care costs, the
White House said.
Issued in November, the report looked generally at
proposals that Democrats were considering to curb health care costs, concluding
they had the potential to significantly reduce future increases. . . But the
analysis didn't consider specific legislation . . .
. . . The premium reduction of 14 percent to 20 percent
that Mr. Obama cites would apply only to a portion of the people buying coverage
on their own - those who decide they want to keep the skimpier kinds of policies
available today.
Their costs would go down because more young people
would be joining the risk pool and because insurance company overhead costs
would be lower in the more efficient system Mr. Obama wants to create.
The president usually alludes to that distinction in his health care
stump speech, saying the savings would accrue to those people who continue to
buy "comparable" coverage to what they have today.
But many of his listeners may not pick up on it.
"People are likely to not buy the same low-value policies they are
buying now," said health economist Len Nichols of George Mason University. "If
they did buy the same value plans ... the premium would be lower than it is now.
This makes the White House statement true. But is it possibly misleading for
some people? Sure."
Lev, Statements like the one made by "Our community Organizer" just go to prove how stupid he thinks we are...sad... did you hear everyone automatically just clap and cheer? Just a going along with whatever comes out of his mouth, not pausing to even do the math!
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
decrease! Bahhhh
[QUOTE=#1inflamedOnline]
I don't know how people with autoimmune diseases
like RA, would manage on a high deductible plan, with the expensive drugs we
have to take, yet mo
re and more people have high deductible plans because
of the lower premiums. They may work well for young, healthy folks who don't
spend much on health care, but those w/chronic health conditions or the sick,
end up paying a lot out of pocket or go without the drugs or medical care they
need.
In 2014, the health insurance exchanges that the Affordable Care Act
establishes, will provide a marketplace for the self-employed like yourself,
workers of small businesses. and the uninsured, to compare and shop
for affordable and comprehensive health insurance.
I hope the Affordable Care Act's small
business tax credit may be of help to you this year.
Good luck and take care.
I want to make it perfectly clear, I do not embrace ANYTHING about the obamacare health care. I support little if any of his politics.[QUOTE=Joie] [QUOTE=levlarry]IO,
. . . Here, look at this, the community organizer being "cute" acting just like a community organizer. He claimed that most would see a decrease of 3000 percent in their insurance premiums. . . .
LEV
[/QUOTE]
<>
From cbsnews.com
WILL HEALTH CARE BILL LOWER PREMIUMS?
March 17, 2010
. . . Visiting a Cleveland suburb this week, the president described how individuals and small businesses will be able to buy coverage in a new kind of health insurance marketplace, gaining the same strength in numbers that federal employees have.
"You'll be able to buy in, or a small business will be able to buy into this pool," Mr. Obama said. "And that will lower rates, it's estimated, by up to 14 to 20 percent over what you're currently getting. That's money out of pocket." . . . .
Mr. Obama asked his audience for a show of hands from people with employer-provided coverage, what most Americans have.
"Your employer, it's estimated, would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent," said the president, "which means they could give you a raise."
A White House press spokesman later said the president misspoke; he had meant to say annual premiums would drop by ,000. . . .
The statistics Mr. Obama based his claims on come from two sources. In both cases, the caveats got left out.
A report for the Business Roundtable, an association of big company CEOs, was the source for the claim that employers could save ,000 per worker on health care costs, the White House said.
Issued in November, the report looked generally at proposals that Democrats were considering to curb health care costs, concluding they had the potential to significantly reduce future increases. . . But the analysis didn't consider specific legislation . . .
. . . The premium reduction of 14 percent to 20 percent that Mr. Obama cites would apply only to a portion of the people buying coverage on their own - those who decide they want to keep the skimpier kinds of policies available today.
Their costs would go down because more young people would be joining the risk pool and because insurance company overhead costs would be lower in the more efficient system Mr. Obama wants to create.
The president usually alludes to that distinction in his health care stump speech, saying the savings would accrue to those people who continue to buy "comparable" coverage to what they have today.
But many of his listeners may not pick up on it.
"People are likely to not buy the same low-value policies they are buying now," said health economist Len Nichols of George Mason University. "If they did buy the same value plans ... the premium would be lower than it is now. This makes the White House statement true. But is it possibly misleading for some people? Sure."
See COMPLETE article:
Oh No he " Misspoke " again. I guess the telepromter was off
[/QUOTE]
Gosh,
It's getting hard to tell the difference between republicans and democrats. West Virginia democratic Governor running for senate actually posted a picture with him and President Bush. Said that President Obama is "dead wrong" on cap and tax. Most democrats running for office don't even put "democrat" on their ads. None at all bragging about the healthcare or stimulus and other Obama "yes votes". Here is how much Harry Reids son wants a government job. He's saying that Obamacare may hurt Nevada. "Sorry Dad".
Rory Reid Warns That Health Care Law Poses Risk to Nevada
By Melanie Starkey
Roll Call Staff
Oct. 8, 2010, 12:03 a.m.
Rory Reid expressed wariness Thursday night over the health care overhaul ushered through the Senate under his father’s watch this year.
“I don’t deny that Nevada needs to be vigilant on this issue,” the Democratic gubernatorial candidate said at a debate in Las Vegas. “The law that was passed gives time for the new system to go into effect, but there is potential for it to put significant pressure on states because Medicaid rates could go up significantly.”
Reid, the son of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), said he opposes lawsuits filed by some states in opposition to the law, saying he believes that they are politically motivated and that they will not lead to a resolution to his state’s health care spending problems.
Rory Reid is running against Republican Brian Sandoval, who resigned as a U.S. district judge to run for governor and beat incumbent Gov. Jim Gibbons in the primary.
Reid’s father is running for re-election and is in a close race with GOP candidate Sharron Angle.
The debate was the second of four planned. It aired on C-SPAN.
Everyone's insurance has gone up...I think it's because the insurance companies are going to make those already insured pay for those who are getting the insurance from our loser president.
Copyright ArthritisInsight.com