First Year There's no Tax Penalty for not Having Insurance!! (United States)

[cbyrne1174]

I just filed for 2019 and FINALLY DON'T OWE. Every year since Obamacare, I've always had a $1,500-$2,500 tax penalty for my husband not having insurance. He does IT and worked a lot of contracts without benefits, so we said no thank you to the $600/month premiums (He was a skinny, healthy 25-29 year old). I think he's been to the doctors twice in 4 years. We have no assets other than old cars and resale Timeshares, so the slim chances of bankruptcy was the lesser of 2 evils. Nothing to lose but a credit score. Him having insurance is essentially just subsidizing everyone else. Which is understandable with socialized healthcare, but not for-profit healthcare.

As much as people bash the Trump administration, I'm so happy they did that. If we are going to make healthcare a for profit system, it should only be mandatory to have if it the cost is calculated like car insurance; based on risk. The older you are, the more money your make. Forcing 20 something year olds to subsidize 50-64 year olds really annoyed me because we're the ones who have lower incomes, no assets and are trying to establish ourselves financially.

Based on the federal calculation if you make $42,000 a year and your wife, for example, is a stay at home mom with a 1 year old, you're not poor enough to get assistance. Lets say your job only covers you, which a lot do. You still have to ensure your wife for at least $400 a month and your kid using full price medicaid for $220. After taxes, you make about $2,900 a month, healthcare costs $620 MINIMUM. That only leaves $2,280 to live off of a month. A 2-bedroom apartment even in Alabama is still $1200 a month. How is that affordable?

My insurance before Obamacare had awesome maternity coverage ( I only paid $1500 for labor and delivery). That was $275 a month for a 24 year old. Now $400 a month doesn't even cover maternity. I know there are young people with health issues too, I feel bad for the Type 1 diabetics and other non disabled people with health issues, but I just hated how we were forced to mainly subsidize people who are more capable of paying. Why can't they just calculate the cost of premiums based on your age alone, but not your preexisting conditions!?!??!

 

[Luanne]

My sil was a skinny, healthy 25 - 29 year old until he wasn't. He has a very rare condition, he's disabled and can't work. It can happen to anyone.

 

[rapmarks]

Especially with the corona virus, but the rest of us will cover for all the people who are uninsured. My son in law had heart attack and stroke at 36, at that time he appeared to be in perfect health.

 

[am1]

So your plan is bankruptcy? I really think debtors prison should make a comeback. Or outlaw bankruptcy. Make people pay the bills that they owe. Exempt houses and cars above a certain value. Get rid of LLCs and such.

 

[PigsDad]

so we said no thank you to the $600/month premiums (He was a skinny, healthy 25-29 year old). I think he's been to the doctors twice in 4 years.

Ok, fine. I say if you take advantage of "saying no" to insurance when you are healthy, then if you develop a chronic issue / disease, the only health insurance you should ever be able to obtain for the rest of your life should exclude your preexisting conditions. Do you agree?

My insurance before Obamacare had awesome maternity coverage ( I only paid $1500 for labor and delivery). That was $275 a month for a 24 year old.

And to make things more "fair", why should my premiums be higher to cover your maternity coverage? There is no way a $275/month premium (or $400/month as you stated is the current cost) would ever come close to covering the costs of a female in child bearing age who chooses to pop out a kid every 2-3 years. As a male, shouldn't my medical insurance be less than a female due to that maternity coverage?

Of course, this is absurd. You can't have it both ways. Sorry.

Kurt

 

[cbyrne1174]

Bankruptcy really isn't as bad as people think. My relatives went through it in 2008. They owed more on their house than what it was worth when the market tanked and lost their job, so they just stopped all payments, paid their taxes and did ch 7. Their cars were old and exempt. When they needed a new ones, they were still able to finance it for 15% APR, which is less than credit card debt that a lot of people get into. They rented a decent 4 bedroom house that only needed a 3 month deposit and proof of income. Anyone that thinks of bankruptcy as the end all be all have never had anything bad every happen to them.

To me taking less than a 1% chance to need to file a ch 7 so save $7,200 a year is worth it. Even if you have insurance, medical bills can still bankrupt you. I didn't create the system. Our system is so screwed up. I am afraid to go to the ER unless I'm actually dying. I have good insurance. I had a miscarriage last year and wouldn't even go because I was afraid of the bill. You can get charged with an "out of network" lab bill for thousands of dollars even if you go to your local ER with insurance. It doesn't matter what your max out of pocket expense it. It's out of network. I wanted Bernie to win the primaries. I want basic income and medicaid for all. I want to know no matter what happens, I have access to food, shelter and medicine. I also would be willing to sacrifice luxury to have that security. Nobody should ever have to be poor when there are billionaires.

Since we don't live in that kind of world, I also think they should open up jobs back for people my age that need to work if they can't find something to fight the virus soon because we only have a 3% chance of being hospitalized and can isolate ourselves from older people. I'd rather risk the 3% than be poor if those were my only options. We chose capitalism, which doesn't work during a crisis. I'm a teacher, so I am remote through this crisis, but I'd rather get corona than be poor. I teach mainly poor kids. Yes I've been watching the news. Yes I know people my age have died. Anyone who says otherwise probably has never actually really been poor. When you go to Walmart, pay attention to how many 50+ year olds are still working those jobs. They know what I'm talking about and even though their risk is much greater than mine, its still worth the risk vs. going further into poverty because they live in it every day.

The misery of feeling like there is no hope to get out of their situation, feeling trapped like there is no way out, feeling like no matter how much you try to swim up, you only sink deeper to the point where you don't even feel the joy that life has to bring your because you are so emotionally shut down from all the crap you have to deal with, not having an actual safe place to sleep, not having any escape from your stressful situation, not caring about anything anymore, not caring to be alive, just surviving. That is what a lot of kids that I teach face on a daily basis. I'm around poverty every day and that's partly why some people don't take it seriously because what they currently live in is worse.

 

[cbyrne1174]

Ok, fine. I say if you take advantage of "saying no" to insurance when you are healthy, then if you develop a chronic issue / disease, the only health insurance you should ever be able to obtain for the rest of your life should exclude your preexisting conditions. Do you agree?


And to make things more "fair", why should my premiums be higher to cover your maternity coverage? There is no way a $275/month premium (or $400/month as you stated is the current cost) would ever come close to covering the costs of a female in child bearing age who chooses to pop out a kid every 2-3 years. As a male, shouldn't my medical insurance be less than a female due to that maternity coverage?

Of course, this is absurd. You can't have it both ways. Sorry.

Kurt

I think it should be done by age and gender if they want to be specific. Put preexisting in with their age group. Popping out a baby isn't as expensive as you think. You have to pay cash for anesthesia, it's not covered in insurance unless you need a c-section, so ins doesn't have to cover one. I didn't get it because it was a waste of money and time. It slows your labor and you can't feel what you're doing so you take longer to recover and can hurt yourself. I was back at work a week and a half later because I had to submit grades. My total visit was 2 days and I delivered an hour after I got to the hospital. A lot of women get lazy in their third trimester and don't stay on their feet anymore, then complain their labor takes forever and use more resources. I was on my feet at least 12 hours a day until my due date, so my labor was efficient and cheap. Our bodies are meant to pop babies out, just not if we abuse them. There's nothing you can do to prevent a breach baby though. That needs a c section. My insurance covered $7,000 and my premium for the year was around $3300. So having insurance saved me $3,700, but I only had 1 kid and have more than paid that back during my childbearing years. Being active and doing a natural birth keeps costs down and shortens recovery. I was back standing and teaching 3 weeks after delivery.

Influence of prenatal physical activity on the course of labour and delivery according to the new Polish standard for perinatal care - PubMed

A review of the literature shows that regular prenatal physical activity can help reduce medical interventions during labour, without having negative consequences for either the mother or the foetus. It should be an important tool to implement the Polish standard for perinatal care. There is a...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[PigsDad]

Popping out a baby isn't as expensive as you think.

And I think you are missing a bunch of expenses. Pre- and post-natal visits, for one. Check out what the actual cost would be if you had to pay cash for all the doctor visits, all of the costs the hospital would bill you for, etc. One C-section blows all of those costs out the door. I invite you to put your money where your mouth is -- go without insurance and have another baby. According to you, you would save money in the long run. Good luck with that one!

Kurt

 

[dioxide45]

I don't get it, but your post was openly political. You seem to be okay to be forced to pay for insurance (those proposals you mention are not "free"), but you don't want to buy insurance when it is voluntary?