Health insurance for Americans

[sailpower]

Originally Posted by Don L

I must not have. The one I got read like it didn't matter if I left the US or not, I was going to pay either way.

Oops, sorry. I was commenting on the new and improved US health care system and missed your point.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by rognvald

Sailpower,
Perhaps I need to reiterate: Nothing is free. Who pays for Medicare? The American taxpayer. And, as our tax base becomes less in the future and our cost of social services increases, where does the money come from? This is, indeed, a real mess. Good luck and good sailing.

Why will the tax base become less in the future. The tax base can be varying at will from budget to budget ?

Dave

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Why will the tax base become less in the future. The tax base can be varying at will from budget to budget ?

Dave

It has to do with the population age distribution due to the baby bloomers. The taxes from the younger groups aren't growing at a higher enough rate to pay for the retirements so will be withdrawing faster than deposits for SS and Medicare.

[svBeBe]

Originally Posted by zboss

Well, because of Obamacare you are going to be required to have insurance regardless of your location if you are a US citizen. It'll run you about $3k a year with basically no significant benefits. Not sure if having insurance that qualifies you for only overseas coverage counts as having insurance already or not but IF not you will be required to have both insurance plans and pay a stiff penalty if you don't.

Obamacare Requires Americans Supply Health Insurance Info to IRS

The OP said he is 70 years old. He will be covered by Medicare. The new Obamacare will not change that. He can have Medicare A & B and the roughly $100 premium will automatically be deducted from his monthly SS benefit. At age 70 he more than likely already has this since Medicare starts at age 65. Medicare A & B will be sufficient insurance coverage for Obamacare. But Medicare does not pay anything outside USA.

Judy

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Don L

I must not have. The one I got read like it didn't matter if I left the US or not, I was going to pay either way.

Not sure what your income, i.e. tax bracket, will be when you 'leave' the US. If it is low, the Obamacare policies with their subsidies will most likely be pretty cost effective. I looked at the estimates on the Washington Sate site, for me a better policy than I have now will cost about $200 less a month than what I am paying now with the subsidy.
For us, we really don't want pre-pad medical type of policies that seem to be the typical in the US. We want catastrophic insurance that will not have us become one of the 60% of bankruptcies due to health care issues, should we get a catastrophic illness.
Of course, if your income is high, then there's no subsidy. But then your income is high, so what's the issue.

[svBeBe]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

<snipped.......>

But obviously I am drifting well away from the thread topic - someone earlier made a comment well worth investigating, that if visiting the EU the Schengen visa requires folks to have own healthcare......not sure if that is true, seems too sensible to be true!

Nothing I have read states that Schengen visa requires proof of any form of healthcare insurance. However, if applying for a long stay visa for any of the EU countries which are signatories of the Schengen Treaty then one is required to provide proof of healthcare insurance.

Guess they figure the likelihood of a tourist requiring healthcare in any one 90-day period is pretty slim. If the tourist is going to be in a particular EU country longer then they don't want to be stuck providing healthcare to someone who is not insured by a company that will pay direct to the medical provider within the EU country.

I checked into obtaining healthcare insurance that would meet Italy's requirements for a long stay visa. Completely cost prohibitive.

Judy

[goboatingnow]

Just to clarify. US visitors to the Schengen Area in the EU do not need healthcare cover for normal 90 day tourist visa

[goboatingnow]

Eurooe by the way does not have a general issue with do sovereign debt ratios if you leave out specific banking issues and Greece. Hence by shifting its tax polices ( and tax base) it can adequately fund its social programmes

That of course doesn't stop constant criticism of such programmes, search for value etc. the US can now also john that debate ! !

Financial crisis on the Eurozone is exclusively a function of cresting a straight jacket currency without banking and fiscal union. Those union efforts ate now being fast tracked through the Eurozone countries ( if anything can be actually fast tracked in the EU ) which should result in a better currency management , better union wide regulation and a proper central bank and Eurozone wide monetary policy.

I don't think the US has any problem paying for socialised medicine , nor education , etc. it all boils down to priorities.

Dave

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Of course, if your income is high, then there's no subsidy. But then your income is high, so what's the issue.

Wonder...........full. Thanks.

What do you consider a high enough income that it does not matter to the person having to pay it? Obviously you have a line to draw somewhere too.

I probably would not get a subsidy. No surprise there as I have never gotten one even when I asked for one and was qualified. I have, however, known those in my same shoes get a subsidy or two. Reverse discrimination sucks too. But my point is.................

Any catastrophic illness on our end would end in the same 60% you mention. And insurance rates are going to go up. Not down.

Me, wife and one son pay 24,000.00 (US) a year. We are considering dropping our insurance altogether. It is KILLING us. Heh!

I want to cruise some. If I do I plan to do without while doing it. Can't do both it seems. Maybe the "Diver" program though.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Therapy

Wonder...........full. Thanks.

What do you consider a high enough income that it does not matter to the person having to pay it? Obviously you have a line to draw somewhere too.

I probably would not get a subsidy. No surprise there as I have never gotten one even when I asked for one and was qualified. I have, however, known those in my same shoes get a subsidy or two. Reverse discrimination sucks too. But my point is.................

Any catastrophic illness on our end would end in the same 60% you mention. And insurance rates are going to go up. Not down.

Me, wife and one son pay 24,000.00 (US) a year. We are considering dropping our insurance altogether. It is KILLING us. Heh!

I want to cruise some. If I do I plan to do without while doing it. Can't do both it seems. Maybe the "Diver" program though.

What in the name of god are u buying for 24k a year. That would fund some boat !

Dave

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Therapy

Wonder...........full. Thanks.

What do you consider a high enough income that it does not matter to the person having to pay it? Obviously you have a line to draw somewhere too.

I probably would not get a subsidy. No surprise there as I have never gotten one even when I asked for one and was qualified. I have, however, known those in my same shoes get a subsidy or two. Reverse discrimination sucks too. But my point is.................

Any catastrophic illness on our end would end in the same 60% you mention. And insurance rates are going to go up. Not down.

Me, wife and one son pay 24,000.00 (US) a year. We are considering dropping our insurance altogether. It is KILLING us. Heh!

I want to cruise some. If I do I plan to do without while doing it. Can't do both it seems. Maybe the "Diver" program though.

If you are cruising fulltime then your income is probably pretty low, so you do qualify for the subsidy rates. My second point was that if you have a lot of income and want US insurance, then pay up and whine on as needed.

For me, health insurance is more an asset insurance than pre-paid medical. I don't want to get seriously sick and burn through our assets and end up dead, like we all will, leaving my wife with nothing. So $10,000 a year deductible is fine with me.

[rognvald]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Why will the tax base become less in the future. The tax base can be varying at will from budget to budget ?

Dave

Good question, Dave. As the Baby Boomers begin their retirement and begin to drain the already questionable funds, the cost of social welfare grows disproportionately in future years as the underclass continues to outproduce working families in birthrates , the destruction of the middle class in wages with businesses eradicating full time jobs for jobs less than 30 hours per week with no benefits, American jobs and manufacturing being shipped overseas for cheaper labor and production costs to the detriment of the American worker, a growing disparity between "haves" and "have nots" further reducing the tax base, population growth requiring more money to feed the system and the lack of a responsible government budget based upon real numbers that chooses borrowing and printing money rather than fiscal responsibility and the question becomes . . . where's the money? A National debt of 17 trillion dollars and growing to 17.5 trillion dollars by years end. The top 1% of income earners in the US if taxed 100 percent of their income would not put a dent in our debt. The money must be generated by a healthy, growing economy where a large percentage of Americans of all income levels contribute to the tax base. Otherwise, it is a fast track to Greece. This may not be a solveable problem for Americans since we have a government that is unwilling to act responsibly as we near the cliff. But, Dave, we do have hope since our president is currently in Africa to increase trade relations at the cost of 100 million dollars to the American taxpayer and we all know how productive this trip will be . . . as another paid vacaction for our president and his family.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by rognvald

Good question, Dave. As the Baby Boomers begin their retirement and begin to drain the already questionable funds, the cost of social welfare grows disproportionately in future years as the underclass continues to outproduce working families in birthrates , the destruction of the middle class in wages with businesses eradicating full time jobs for jobs less than 30 hours per week with no benefits, American jobs and manufacturing being shipped overseas for cheaper labor and production costs to the detriment of the American worker, a growing disparity between "haves" and "have nots" further reducing the tax base, population growth requiring more money to feed the system and the lack of a responsible government budget based upon real numbers that chooses borrowing and printing money rather than fiscal responsibility and the question becomes . . . where's the money? A National debt of 17 trillion dollars and growing to 17.5 trillion dollars by years end. The top 1% of income earners in the US if taxed 100 percent of their income would not put a dent in our debt. The money must be generated by a healthy, growing economy where a large percentage of Americans of all income levels contribute to the tax base. Otherwise, it is a fast track to Greece. This may not be a solveable problem for Americans since we have a government that is unwilling to act responsibly as we near the cliff. But, Dave, we do have hope since our president is currently in Africa to increase trade relations at the cost of 100 million dollars to the American taxpayer and we all know how productive this trip will be . . . as another paid vacaction for our president and his family.

I don't disagree. But then" tax base" and tax spending is a function of priorities. If say national healthcare is important then the tax base AND spending priorities can be adjusted to preserve or expand it. Military spending could be curtailed , vanity projects curtailed etc.

I mean its just a question of priorities , I agree you can't have everything , but you can decide what's important for the nation

Dave

[Gadagirl]

Sigh....Sorry to Hi-jack OP but this issue has been my obstacle and conundrum in my planning. I'm actively researching and seeking something that will fit my model. The ACA has been encouraging for me for a couple of reasons.....1) I do not have to stay married to my job/corporation to maintain health insurance. 2) I no longer fear, that should I experience a catastrophic illness, the insurance company is allowed to drop me mid-stream in treatment. 3) 100% covered screening for certain cancers and diseases (preventative).

So, As long as I can afford a catastrophic policy with a high deductible, in the off chance I develop a disease that would force me home for treatment. I can combine that with self insurance (pay cash for dental work, minor ailments, etc. in more affordable countries along the way), buy a minimum policy to repatriate me if need be, and I should be good to go right?

Reading the TIME article encourages me to sell all and spend it cruising. Hell, I can spend it cruising or hand it over to the collection agency later. Right? Because regardless, I'll either be denied care, when no money left for care, and die, or be living under a bridge and die if I'm cured and they consume what small savings I have. This thread inspired me on how can Americans can get care or afford care and the results were crushing, I cried reading the pleas on this forum

Need Help Paying Bills, Debt, and Mortgage &bull; Index page

Plea after Plea going unanswered. I couldn't find any forums, or open source information on how to obtain or get help other than this and although it leads people back to all of the charitable organizations it seems that most were denied or had difficulty navigating this impossible system.

You'd assume that those that couldn't afford help were provided for, but you would be wrong. Nope, they were expected to pull up their big panties and make plans to afford what was the inevitable and not be a burden on those that capitalize upon it. How can you be "fiscally responsible" by saving for retirement when your insurance premiums are 20% of your earnings? But in our society, not all are born to luck, intelligence, or wealth. So just as well they they falter and die, because they are of no use to the machine that feeds you. Right? You've got yours.

And I sympathize with the people that jump through hoops, overwhelming paper work, that is near impossible to discern, let alone submit, (some undereducated, making things more overwhelming) only to be denied while grasping straws, trying to balance all. I'd rather dive overboard and feed the real sharks than hand over my life savings to a corporation. It's a disgusting system at best.

[Boatguy30]

Here's the problem; medical industrial complex employees earn to much money. A guy on my street is an surgeon of dubious repute. He makes let's say 400K. The average male head of household on this town earns let's say 40K.

In the UK or any other first would country the average earner would get say 50K and the doctor would get maybe 200K max.

See the problem??

To be clear; I'm not bashing American "exceptionalism" I'm just pointing out the math isn't sustainable. The problem with fixing the system is huge, but the problem is simple.

FYI when Flint Michigan was going backrupt. The CEO of the "non profit" hospital was making 5 million a year. Personal acquaintance of my in-laws.