Community Chat

[nun ya]

---

@Drythe wrote:

---

@NUNYA wrote:

 I liked it better when it was taken out of pre-taxed money. That does make a difference to the average working person.

---

@nun ya

Did your company stop it's Health Savings Account?  Is that how you lost your pre-tax payments?

---

We had insurance, then the company my husband worked for closed. His unemployment was almost up and he took a job at a small company that offered no benefits.

When filling out the ACA , they wanted total family income. My daughter has a job in her field and lives here after graduation. So I added her income, when I called and asked they said that was correct even though she has her own insurance through her employer. Which puts us way over the line forany help

[Reba055]

---

@Drythe wrote:

---

@Nicknack wrote:

Interestingly, I saw on the Today show this morning that the American Cancer Society has come out with new guidelines for mammograms.  Instead of starting them at age 40 they are now saying 45.  Also, they're recommending them every two years instead of every year.  The woman who was speaking about it said that most doctors are really upset about this.  They said it was just a guideline and you could still start at age 40 and still get mammograms every year.  They said they didn't know how insurance companies would treat this new guideline.

---

@NickNack

I saw that show also.  Please note:

That was with regular screening (breast exam by a physician) the new standard is moving toward starting mammograms at 45 every other year. 

That standard is for women not on certain medications, without family history, or with other conditions.

This came from the American Cancer Society, not the Government or Insurance companies.

---

Unfortunately the statistics I heard yesterday were that only 15 percent of women diagnosed with breast cancer by mammogram are in a high risk group. That means 85 percent of those diagnosed would fall into the category that they are proposing delaying the age of first mammo and frequency. Pretty alarming. 

[Drythe]

---

@Reba055 wrote:

---

@NoelSeven wrote:

---

@Reba055 wrote:

---

@NoelSeven wrote:

---

@Reba055 wrote:

So I guess calling someone out for implying I'm some crazy convinced the government is out to get me, while bragging about their cheap insurance supplemented by taxpayer money is unkind but all the snarky remarks directed at me are not unkind??  I'm confused. 

---

++++++++++++++++++

You are just wrong if you assume all college healthcare is paid by the taxpayers.

---

I in no way implied that.  The new law requires insurance companies to include children over 18 etc, etc., all part of the whole healthcare act, all additional cost absorbed by everyone paying into the system. That would be the taxpayers. The poster stated her insurance premium was the same for four as two. Who do YOU think is paying it?

---

++++++++++++++++++

Others in her insurance group.  That's how insurance works.

---

It's semantics, but the requirements to include previously excluded groups results in higher premiums for all. That means I'm paying more, you are paying more. Regardless of the group, it is the same across the board. We are taxpayers, paying higher insurance premiums to include those as required by the new law. 

---

@Reba055

For those who have health care through their insurance rates are driven primarily by three factors:

How hard your company is willing to NEGOTIATE for good rates for you and how well they leverage the size of the group

How MUCH your company is willing to pay on your behalf.

Utilization of the group within the plan.

THOSE included in the new law are paying TOO.

* I understand that this is all Koolaid under the bridge, but still I'm going to say it.

[GingerPeach]

---

@NUNYA wrote:

---

@Drythe wrote:

---

@NUNYA wrote:

 I liked it better when it was taken out of pre-taxed money. That does make a difference to the average working person.

---

@nun ya

Did your company stop it's Health Savings Account?  Is that how you lost your pre-tax payments?

---

We had insurance, then the company my husband worked for closed. His unemployment was almost up and he took a job at a small company that offered no benefits.

When filling out the ACA , they wanted total family income. My daughter has a job in her field and lives here after graduation. So I added her income, when I called and asked they said that was correct even though she has her own insurance through her employer. Which puts us way over the line forany help

---

@nun ya

This makes me very uncomfortable that this company told you it was OK to include your daughter's income.  Unless she gives her complete income to you, that can't be right to add hers to yours.  Of course they would say that since it benefits them, not you.

What you might consider is only adding whatever she might contribute to rent or food or other expenses, but not her whole paycheck.  The income you receive would be her payments to you, not the payment she receives from her employer -- especially since she has her own insurance.

I'm sure you'll get other help with this from other posters.

[Drythe]

---

@Reba055 wrote:

---

@Drythe wrote:

---

@Nicknack wrote:

Interestingly, I saw on the Today show this morning that the American Cancer Society has come out with new guidelines for mammograms.  Instead of starting them at age 40 they are now saying 45.  Also, they're recommending them every two years instead of every year.  The woman who was speaking about it said that most doctors are really upset about this.  They said it was just a guideline and you could still start at age 40 and still get mammograms every year.  They said they didn't know how insurance companies would treat this new guideline.

---

@NickNack

I saw that show also.  Please note:

That was with regular screening (breast exam by a physician) the new standard is moving toward starting mammograms at 45 every other year. 

That standard is for women not on certain medications, without family history, or with other conditions.

This came from the American Cancer Society, not the Government or Insurance companies.

---

Unfortunately the statistics I heard yesterday were that only 15 percent of women diagnosed with breast cancer by mammogram are in a high risk group. That means 85 percent of those diagnosed would fall into the category that they are proposing delaying the age of first mammo and frequency. Pretty alarming. 

---

@Reba055

I wasn't addressing you, but since you jumped in, please provide your source.

[Drythe]

---

@NUNYA wrote:

---

@Drythe wrote:

---

@NUNYA wrote:

 I liked it better when it was taken out of pre-taxed money. That does make a difference to the average working person.

---

@nun ya

Did your company stop it's Health Savings Account?  Is that how you lost your pre-tax payments?

---

We had insurance, then the company my husband worked for closed. His unemployment was almost up and he took a job at a small company that offered no benefits.

When filling out the ACA , they wanted total family income. My daughter has a job in her field and lives here after graduation. So I added her income, when I called and asked they said that was correct even though she has her own insurance through her employer. Which puts us way over the line forany help

---

@nun ya

Sorry to hear about your Hubs loss of job.  So that's how you lost your pre-tax payments - I understand now.

Yes, any income into your home is counted.  NONE OF MY BUSINESS, but since this is true I hope your DD is helping with the bills.

[nun ya]

---

@GingerPeach wrote:

---

@NUNYA wrote:

---

@Drythe wrote:

---

@NUNYA wrote:

 I liked it better when it was taken out of pre-taxed money. That does make a difference to the average working person.

---

@nun ya

Did your company stop it's Health Savings Account?  Is that how you lost your pre-tax payments?

---

We had insurance, then the company my husband worked for closed. His unemployment was almost up and he took a job at a small company that offered no benefits.

When filling out the ACA , they wanted total family income. My daughter has a job in her field and lives here after graduation. So I added her income, when I called and asked they said that was correct even though she has her own insurance through her employer. Which puts us way over the line forany help

---

@nun ya

This makes me very uncomfortable that this company told you it was OK to include your daughter's income.  Unless she gives her complete income to you, that can't be right to add hers to yours.  Of course they would say that since it benefits them, not you.

What you might consider is only adding whatever she might contribute to rent or food or other expenses, but not her whole paycheck.  The income you receive would be her payments to you, not the payment she receives from her employer -- especially since she has her own insurance.

I'm sure you'll get other help with this from other posters.

---

Posters have said that it didn't seem right, but being she was a college student last year and was lived here 6 months and was on our taxes as a dependent. 

The only thing she contributes is paying her students loans. So I am hoping now that she has a full time job, and will be on her own taxes, this won't happen. But I still don't think the info they gave me is correct. 

[nun ya]

---

@Drythe wrote:

---

@NUNYA wrote:

---

@Drythe wrote:

---

@NUNYA wrote:

 I liked it better when it was taken out of pre-taxed money. That does make a difference to the average working person.

---

@nun ya

Did your company stop it's Health Savings Account?  Is that how you lost your pre-tax payments?

---

We had insurance, then the company my husband worked for closed. His unemployment was almost up and he took a job at a small company that offered no benefits.

When filling out the ACA , they wanted total family income. My daughter has a job in her field and lives here after graduation. So I added her income, when I called and asked they said that was correct even though she has her own insurance through her employer. Which puts us way over the line forany help

---

@nun ya

Sorry to hear about your Hubs loss of job.  So that's how you lost your pre-tax payments - I understand now.

Yes, any income into your home is counted.  NONE OF MY BUSINESS, but since this is true I hope your DD is helping with the bills.

---

Nope, she is responsible for her student loans, which is a large amount. That is all we ask, go to work and pay it back while you still have a place to live and food to eat lol

[tansy]

That seems very unfair, @nun ya.  I'd be frustrated

[Reba055]

---

@Drythe wrote:

---

@Reba055 wrote:

---

@NoelSeven wrote:

---

@Reba055 wrote:

---

@NoelSeven wrote:

---

@Reba055 wrote:

So I guess calling someone out for implying I'm some crazy convinced the government is out to get me, while bragging about their cheap insurance supplemented by taxpayer money is unkind but all the snarky remarks directed at me are not unkind??  I'm confused. 

---

++++++++++++++++++

You are just wrong if you assume all college healthcare is paid by the taxpayers.

---

I in no way implied that.  The new law requires insurance companies to include children over 18 etc, etc., all part of the whole healthcare act, all additional cost absorbed by everyone paying into the system. That would be the taxpayers. The poster stated her insurance premium was the same for four as two. Who do YOU think is paying it?

---

++++++++++++++++++

Others in her insurance group.  That's how insurance works.

---

It's semantics, but the requirements to include previously excluded groups results in higher premiums for all. That means I'm paying more, you are paying more. Regardless of the group, it is the same across the board. We are taxpayers, paying higher insurance premiums to include those as required by the new law. 

---

@Reba055

For those who have health care through their insurance rates are driven primarily by three factors:

How hard your company is willing to NEGOTIATE for good rates for you and how well they leverage the size of the group

How MUCH your company is willing to pay on your behalf.

Utilization of the group within the plan.

THOSE included in the new law are paying TOO.

* I understand that this is all Koolaid under the bridge, but still I'm going to say it.

---

Yes, you are totally right. Its definitely very complicated, but while some companies are in a position to negotiate by volume, the insurance companies are not going to take a hit. Where a lower cost is negotiated by one, the difference in cost then has to be spread out amongst others, some who are least able to afford it like small businesses and individuals.  By forcing an insurance company to include a previously excluded group your negotiating power is diminished considerably regardless of your company size. Some companies can or will pay more on behalf if their employees. Some companies have elected to not provide insurance at all. 

And then you have the rest that are not covered through an employer which is yet another beast.