cheaper and the model is more efficient. yes you give up some choice but there's a reason it is cheaper
before you poo poo it I would give it a try with an open mind
11–20 of 125 posts
cheaper and the model is more efficient. yes you give up some choice but there's a reason it is cheaper
before you poo poo it I would give it a try with an open mind
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any income greater than $50,000 a year does not qualify for any California assistance. $50,000 a year is completely unlivable where I live in the bay area. You have to be near poverty (bay area) to get any government assistance.
> You have to be near poverty (equivalent in bay area) to get any government assistance. Assistance is for those who need it, not those who willingly choose to live in a high COI area. It is possible to live in CA on $50k/year. Would you pay that assistance back if you had a liquidity event? Probably not.
Also, you think it's fair that somebody who makes $55,000 pays the same amount for health insurance as somebody that makes $500,000 a year?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2015/12/how-to-fix-a...
> My understanding is that health insurance originated in this country as a means to plump up employee compensation in a situation where paying more wages was not desirable. You could not entice good employees by offering them a pay raise because it bumped them up into another tax bracket and it just wasn't worth it to them. But the way health insurance got handled, if you offered them a benefits package, it increase…
I am frustrated and not sure what I need to do differently to get that across effectively.
Edit: Feel free to nitpick this version: http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2017/01/direct-prima...
Maybe I shall eventually get it right (just in time for the law to change under Trump).
Thank you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any income greater than $50,000 a year does not qualify for any California assistance. $50,000 a year is completely unlivable where I live in the bay area. You have to be near poverty (bay area) to get any government assistance.
> You have to be near poverty (equivalent in bay area) to get any government assistance. Assistance is for those who need it, not those who willingly choose to live in a high COI area. It is possible to live in CA on $50k/year. Would you pay that assistance back if you had a liquidity event? Probably not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You have to be near poverty (equivalent in bay area) to get any government assistance. Assistance is for those who need it, not those who willingly choose to live in a high COI area. It is possible to live in CA on $50k/year. Would you pay that assistance back if you had a liquidity event? Probably not.
I'd prefer to not get into a political discussion, but once I get on a health care plan, my full premiums will be subsidizing others, so where's my money back when I don't use any of my health care benefits? Also, you think it's fair that somebody who makes $55,000 pays the same amount for health insurance as somebody that makes $500,000 a year?
At your income level, you're not getting subsidies. You can either pay the IRS penalty, around $2k at what I'm estimating your income at, and cash for whatever health expenses come up, or you can seek out a religious organization who will give you a waiver if you join their program (note: the healthcare that can be provided through such a financial program is probably not what you're going to prefer when the time comes for your healthcare needs to be addressed, caveat emptor).
Another option is to move out of the country before the end of the month; you're not required to be insured if you live outside the US at least 330 days/year.
You could also look at a cheaper bronze HDHP plan instead.
EDIT:
> Also, you think it's fair that somebody who makes $55,000 pays the same amount for health insurance as somebody that makes $500,000 a year?
Not at all! I'm just telling you your options. Don't like it? Quit your startup and go into politics. Good people need to grind day and night to fix things like this. Your fight is not with me. The situation in general sucks, and I am genuinely sorry about your frustration with your healthcare insurance costs.
I thought we weren't getting into politics though (re: your edit adding the last line).
try Kaiser permanente cheaper and the model is more efficient. yes you give up some choice but there's a reason it is cheaper before you poo poo it I would give it a try with an open mind
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What happens when you need urgent medical care like the hospital using direct care?
That is what the high deductible insurance or health savings account is for.
" basically a membership in a clinic where you pay a monthly fee in order to get cheap access to your doctor... The monthly fee is substantially less than typical health insurance premiums."
But... I still need a high-deductible plan to contribute to an HSA to deal with catastrophic issues anyway. high deductible plans are putting colleagues of mine in to $1000/month premiums already - saying "spend even more $ each month on a membership plan" isn't going to cut it for most people I know.
5 year ago a 'high deductible' plan cost my family <$300/month. Today it's close to triple what I paid just a few years back.
I initially purchased insurance via CoveredCA (no subsidy) and they just acted as a middleman between my family and Blue Shield without providing any benefit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2015/12/how-to-fix-a...
> My understanding is that health insurance originated in this country as a means to plump up employee compensation in a situation where paying more wages was not desirable. You could not entice good employees by offering them a pay raise because it bumped them up into another tax bracket and it just wasn't worth it to them. But the way health insurance got handled, if you offered them a benefits package, it increase…