I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 18, 2017, 09:09:11 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
516324 Posts in 32243 Topics by 11715 Members
Latest Member: Runwhtubrung
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  I Hate Dialysis Message Board
|-+  Off-Topic
| |-+  Off-Topic: Talk about anything you want. (Moderator: Charlie B53)
| | |-+  Death and Taxes are sure happenings, but are you ready for this!
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Death and Taxes are sure happenings, but are you ready for this!  (Read 3267 times)
talker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 530


Talkers oil painting

WWW
« on: January 13, 2016, 01:12:16 PM »

I wonder how this will play out?

Those with a low level paying job, no health insurance and filing a tax return.
Those with a moderate level paying job, no health insurance and filing a tax return

But in 2016, the penalty for being uninsured will rise to the greater of either $695 or 2.5 percent of taxable income.
Thatís for someone without coverage for a full 12 months.
This year the comparable numbers are $325 or 2 percent of income
Logged

Be Well

"Wabi-sabi nurtures the authentic by acknowledging three simple realities: nothing lasts, nothing is finished, and nothing is perfect."

Don't ever give up hope, expect a miracle, pray as if you were going to die the next moment in time, but live life as if you were going to live forever."

A wise man once said, "Yesterday's the past, tomorrow's the future, but today is a gift. That's why it's called the present."
Simon Dog
Administrator/Owner
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2449


« Reply #1 on: January 13, 2016, 02:22:13 PM »

This is necessary since there is no way to "opt out" of the implied insurance everyone gets with the "ER must treat" laws.

If there was a way to opt out (as in "No health care facility is required to give care absent proof of payment in advance"), it would be a good substitute for the penalty.
Logged
Charlie B53
Global Moderator
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2575


« Reply #2 on: January 14, 2016, 07:05:56 AM »


There is the DNR option (Do Not Reccesatate) (Spelling?).

Even though my Mother had insurance she chose this option as she felt that she had lived long enough.  I didn't agree, but that was her decision.

The biggest problem with this option is it is only written.  If it isn't tattooed ER Staff may not have any knowledge and will follow 'protocol' as they would for any patient that is wheeled in the door.Then again, even tattooed, there will be a percentage of people that once facing death, will recant, claiming they had taken the tattoo in error, and want treatment to continue living.

How, and where is the line drawn?
Logged
iolaire
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1072


« Reply #3 on: January 14, 2016, 07:21:25 AM »

I wonder how this will play out?

Those with a low level paying job, no health insurance and filing a tax return.
Those with a moderate level paying job, no health insurance and filing a tax return

But in 2016, the penalty for being uninsured will rise to the greater of either $695 or 2.5 percent of taxable income.
Thatís for someone without coverage for a full 12 months.
This year the comparable numbers are $325 or 2 percent of income

I don't have much sympathy for people who choose to go without health insurance, except for those people in Republican lead states where they may get much less support affording insurance under the exchanges - i.e. Louisiana prior to this week.  I don't know that poor leadership directly impacts costs or just people who might qualify for Medicare/Medicaid, but I expect that directly makes it harder to afford the mandatory insurance.

Mandatory insurance is good, and I'm happy the government tried to make it more affordable for lower income people.  I'm happy to have my taxes go towards that.  I'm sad that politics and nasty people try to block others from insurance.  I'm not religious so I don't understand how so called religious people care so little about their fellow man/women/children...

Anyone who chooses to not have insurance is passing all the medical risk costs on to the public - that being either charities or the government.  It is completely irresponsible to be living without insurance.  Think of everyone you know, how many have not had some sort of medical issue that costs a lot of money.  You need to pay into the system if you are going to use it.  Very few people are going to go through life without needing serious medical care at some point.  If you are not paying in the $1,000/year into insurance than you will just be a burden on the public.

I first became sick in high school to an uninsured family.  I cost the public roughly $250,000.  After that my mother got a job that provided coverage so my long-term care was covered. 
Logged

Transplant July 2017 from out of state deceased donor, waited three weeks the creatine to fall into expected range, dialysis December 2013 - July 2017.

Well on dialysis I traveled a lot and posted about international trips in the Dialysis: Traveling Tips and Stories section.
Jean
Member for Life
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 5981


« Reply #4 on: January 14, 2016, 05:52:24 PM »

$1000.00 a year for two people would be outstanding. Howver, the quote my son got was $1400 per MONTH for his family.They cant afford it, so now they are stuck with the penalties as well.
Logged

One day at a time, thats all I can do.
Simon Dog
Administrator/Owner
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2449


« Reply #5 on: January 14, 2016, 06:38:03 PM »

$1000.00 a year for two people would be outstanding. Howver, the quote my son got was $1400 per MONTH for his family.They cant afford it, so now they are stuck with the penalties as well.
But, even so, the amount of free care you son will received if he has a heart attack or major accident will FAR exceed the cost of the penalty he is paying.
Logged
iolaire
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1072


« Reply #6 on: January 15, 2016, 06:28:11 AM »

$1000.00 a year for two people would be outstanding. Howver, the quote my son got was $1400 per MONTH for his family.They cant afford it, so now they are stuck with the penalties as well.

Yes that was a random number. Really for me under my employer provided insurance it would be something about $3380 for family insurance for the year, under my wife's plan it would be more.  An that doesn't include the co-pays of $3000-$5000 should the insurance be needed.

Personally I don't think my family worried about insurance coverage, but they were worried about accidents and had good medical supplies, but still when my brother and sister cut off the tips of their fingers they went to the hospital and my father went to the hospital for a concussion, and as a young adult my brother was medevaced for an appendix problem (the debt from that followed him for years). 

In my family not having money for things like insurance was 100% a lifestyle/career choice, my parents wanted to move to Alaska and live in the wilds.  They were not one for real jobs, instead did artisan wood work and commercial fished, living a subsistence lifestyle.  As my mother proved when she wanted to she was able to get a job and get insurance coverage. But by that time we were by choice living closer to town.  My father is an artisan and only has insurance through my mother, luckily when she passed the insurance remained with him, maybe because she had retired prior to death.

In my family with four siblings we have had lupus and the corresponding kidney failure, and brain cancer.  Both huge expenses which luckily affect those of us with stable jobs that provide insurance (after my initial issues in high school which were paid for with small town collections, state support and likely some hospital write-offs).

On a side note my family if I had grown up today probably would have received coverage at VERY low cost due to living under the poverty line.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2016, 06:29:30 AM by iolaire » Logged

Transplant July 2017 from out of state deceased donor, waited three weeks the creatine to fall into expected range, dialysis December 2013 - July 2017.

Well on dialysis I traveled a lot and posted about international trips in the Dialysis: Traveling Tips and Stories section.
Charlie B53
Global Moderator
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2575


« Reply #7 on: January 15, 2016, 06:39:39 AM »


I have to conceed the INTENT of a mandatory insurance law is good.  However, the effect is terrible.  The majority of Insurance Companies are FOR PROFIT organizations.  Even with massive salaries for upper management they are still reporting record earnings.

This is all well and good for the stock holder.  The bad part is most people cannot afford those insurance policies.

Even the few Not-for-Profit Insurance Companies have very well paid administration, outstanding salaries and benefit packages.  Insurance rates are better than the for-profit companies but still would be lower yet if salaries and benefit were more in-line with the rest of 'Middle-America'.

How to get this to come about?    I haven't a clue as there are very few individuals on this planet that would be willing to take a voluntary salary cut.

If middle America ever managed to get a substantial salary increase the business world would simply counter with an price increase for all goods and services.  The net result would be even worse on those families that did not get any salary increase. 

Inflation.

Vicious cycle.
Logged
iolaire
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1072


« Reply #8 on: January 15, 2016, 07:12:23 AM »

Obviously a single payer system would have made things much easier, but that would never have passed congress...  If its not for war we don't like to increase spending...

The bad part is most people cannot afford those insurance policies.


I find that hard to believe, except in the states that refuse to use federal money to help their residents pay for healthcare or receive Medicare.  I personally believe that people make choices and those choices affect what people can afford.  If people can not "afford" health coverage then they are making choices that result in that problem.  (People in extreme poverty or no job should have subsidies or access to Medicare.) Those choices might be to specialize in a job that doesn't provide insurance, spend money on one thing over another, move to areas where you can not afford your life on your salary.

If someone allows themselves to not afford insurance it means they are passing off that expense to the public - the rest of us. 
Logged

Transplant July 2017 from out of state deceased donor, waited three weeks the creatine to fall into expected range, dialysis December 2013 - July 2017.

Well on dialysis I traveled a lot and posted about international trips in the Dialysis: Traveling Tips and Stories section.
Charlie B53
Global Moderator
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2575


« Reply #9 on: January 15, 2016, 08:01:06 AM »


I know you mean well.

Single male here in MO on SSD since late teens.  Father of one that is living with the Mother.

SS pays low $700 something.  Works part-time making roughly $400/mo.

NOT eligible for SSI, nor Food Stamps.Rent, utilities,  car insurance, he's broke immediately after paying monthly bills. Not even enough to buy groceries for the month.

Recently received a letter from the State that since his Son is now 9 Dad is required to carry medical insurance on the child.

No way.


How many younger males on Dialysis are in a very similar situation?  Not enough money to make it through the month, yet have Fathered a child and soon expected to provide medical coverage for the child?

Some of these people HAD jobs prior to their medical issue and losing their employable.  Now UN-employable or under-employed because of infirmity, no fault of their own, will be further suffering from yet another responsibility they are unable to fulfill.

The 'System' is flawed.  And no true relief is in sight.
Logged
Deanne
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 1837


« Reply #10 on: January 15, 2016, 08:12:19 AM »

How do people who are averse to mandatory insurance think their medical costs *should* be paid?
Logged

Deanne

1972: Diagnosed with "chronic kidney disease" (no specific diagnosis)
1994: Diagnosed with FSGS
September 2011: On transplant list with 15 - 20% function
September 2013: ~7% function. Started PD dialysis
February 11, 2014: Transplant from deceased donor. Creatinine 0.57 on 2/13/2014
Charlie B53
Global Moderator
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2575


« Reply #11 on: February 02, 2016, 03:55:49 PM »


I am not adverse to mandatory medical insurance.

I am adverse to insurance companies taking advantage of the 'mandatory insurance' laws and charge such outragous insurance policy rates far in excess of the rates of only a few years prior to the law.

What drove up the rates?

Corporate greed.   Not claims.  Pure greediness that the consumers are now MANDATED to pay.

Actually very simple.  We saw this same effect when auto insurance became mandatory.   And prior to that law being passed the auto insurance industry advertised how the 'mandatory insurance law' would actually reduce insurance rates.  All Lies.

They have simply increased their greed now requiring insurance not just on every auto, but now on every person.

What and see what scam they pull next to again line their pockets with our money.  Or from those that can afford it.

Look what they have done with homeowners.  Because foul weather in one area raised claims they increased rates NATIONWIDE.   What chance of tidal storm damage is there in Denver?   None, yet their rates increased along with everyone else damaged by coastal weather.   Local seasonal problems and costs  should not be spread about Nationally.  I moved away from such areas to avoid the possible costs, now I have those same expenses.  It isn't right.

Insurance is a game of risks.   The insurance companies are constantly reducing their risks and increasing their profits, not only limiting pay-outs but increasing premiums so as to ensure their increasing profits.   We have no recourse other than to go without coverage at tremendous risk, and now a tax penalty also.

There will be a great number of healthy people that will find it far cheaper, or more affordable, to pay the tax penalty that to pay the insurance rates.

I can only hope they stay healthy.

Take Care,

Charlie B53
Logged
MooseMom
Premium Member
Member for Life
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 9921


« Reply #12 on: February 02, 2016, 04:19:47 PM »

I have never understood why corporate America and all business owners stand for being required to carry the burden of their employees' health insurance.
Logged

"Empathy is the soul of democracy."  Jeremy Rifkin
Charlie B53
Global Moderator
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2575


« Reply #13 on: February 02, 2016, 06:10:14 PM »

Some time ago Japanese Big Business's set a shining example for the world.  Although they did not pay the employee that will, the benefits more than made up for the salary.  The Company not only supplied housing for the employee AND family, but medical, hospital, education, AND future employment for the children of that employee.  An new hire didn't just get a job, they gained a lifetime housing, for the entire family at no cost to them but their honest work and loyalty to the Company.

Company built cities, hospitals, schools.  A whole community.

Here in the U.S. it seems the companies only care about profit.  Never considering the workforce anything but disposable.

China today has complete cities built and mothballed, waiting to business or industry to move in.  Ready to take advantage of any large Corporation ready and willing to make use of the Chinese workforce and their ready-made spaces.




EDITED - Added statement - CharlieB53
« Last Edit: February 02, 2016, 06:23:10 PM by Charlie B53 » Logged
Simon Dog
Administrator/Owner
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2449


« Reply #14 on: February 02, 2016, 06:59:18 PM »

I have never understood why corporate America and all business owners stand for being required to carry the burden of their employees' health insurance.
WWII wage controls made it impossible for companies to compete for employees by offering better salaries, so companies started adding benefits like health insurance that were outside the scope of the regulations.
Logged
Michael Murphy
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1483


« Reply #15 on: February 02, 2016, 07:54:54 PM »

In New Jersey the uninsured are covered by a plan that has hospitals raising the rates of other uninsured people, big insurance does not pay the additional costs, just the people with money, then they declare bankruptcy and the medical provider gets a tax deduction that nets them the same amount the insurance pays,
Logged
Charlie B53
Global Moderator
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2575


« Reply #16 on: February 03, 2016, 03:46:28 AM »


Tax breaks, some of the allowable deductions set me off big.

I see so many empty business properties.  Whole malls, a lot of the strip malls, down-town business buildings to numerous to count.  And this is most everywhere across the nation.   Check into the space rent on these places and be ready for a huge sticker shock.  Utilities NOT included.  And many owners want a lease, fine, I', O.K. with that, but when it is laid on the renter to maintain and repair the building including plumbing and electrical.  I'm out.

I see a number of start-ups that fail within the first year because they simply do not have enough business to afford the place.

Yet these property owners are continuing to receive huge tax credits for 'loss of income' for the empty properties.   Granted this is a burden for relatively new properties the owner may still be making payments for.  But those older, paid for properties are pure gravy and off-setting taxes on other income.


Lower those rates and give new business an opportunity to become established.  This should stimulate the local economy a small amount, growing more as the new business grows, hopefully employing a few more people.  Adding to the local tax revenue.

The owner even makes a small return but reduces the former tax credit.


Death taxes are another sore point.  A person pays taxes his whole life yet manages to save and accrue a property.  Once dead the State and Fed Governments want 'their' share.  What share, they got their taxes all along!   But no, they claim a % of everything.  But it doesn't end there.  They also tax inheritances.  The inheritor must also pay inheritance tax, more like an income tax.  Any way you look at it the money is taxed TWICE.  Governmental Greed.  It's real.    Attorneys and accountants are constantly studying the tax laws to come up with ways to transfer or invest moneys so as to minimize the taxes in these situations, But the Government is also constantly re-writing tax code to stop or severely limit those loop-holes.  It's a race that the Government most always wins, as they want ALL the money.


Logged
Jean
Member for Life
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 5981


« Reply #17 on: March 02, 2016, 12:51:31 PM »

Even though I live in Ca, the "golden" state where everything is "free", it is not. Had my Son and or any member of his family had a severe illness or an accident, there would be no free medical care and the bills would haunt them for years to come.   It is a hard fact that there are many people in this country who have incomes so small, they are living borderline poverty. Most times it is more urgent to have food in your house than pay for medical insurance. Doesnt mean that people should be negligent, just means they don't have the money to pay for it, so then, yes, the rest of us carry them.
 ;D   ;D    Peace Out!!
Logged

One day at a time, thats all I can do.
Simon Dog
Administrator/Owner
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2449


« Reply #18 on: March 02, 2016, 02:01:49 PM »

dupe removed (mod, please delete this post)
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 10:01:31 AM by Charlie B53 » Logged
Simon Dog
Administrator/Owner
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2449


« Reply #19 on: March 02, 2016, 02:03:31 PM »

Quote
Check into the space rent on these places and be ready for a huge sticker shock.  Utilities NOT included.
It's worse than that - google what  "triple net lease" means  :o
Quote
But those older, paid for properties are pure gravy and off-setting taxes on other income.
Not really.   Assume your "paid off" building has a fair market value of $10M.    You need to get a return on your $10M, just as you would if you invested in the bank, T bills, or the market.    Opportunity cost is as real as an expense you pay in cash.
Quote
What share, they got their taxes all along!   But no, they claim a % of everything.  But it doesn't end there.  They also tax inheritances.  The inheritor must also pay inheritance tax, more like an income tax.
Inheritance taxes can be reduced with judicious use of trusts, or in extreme cases, relocation to a state with a higher exemption or threshold.

One way to get back at the feds on inheritance taxes is to not sell highly appreciated stock.   When your heirs inherit it, the cost basis is re-set to that at the  time of your death.   Those discontinuing dialysis can do a bit of market timing by discontinuing in an up market (had to get back on topic).
« Last Edit: March 02, 2016, 02:06:33 PM by Simon Dog » Logged
Charlie B53
Global Moderator
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2575


« Reply #20 on: March 09, 2016, 07:04:29 AM »


Simon as usual points out perfectly logical points that should be obvious if I went blinded so much by my anti-government and big business attitude.

I attempt to reconcile both sides.....

If the businessman/land/building owner could still take advantage of the tax breaks of 'lost revenue' but off-set by reducing the rent and leasing the space at a more market friendly cost, this could conceivable stimulate new business and still allow the owner the total value of rent and tax allowance.


If this is NOT allowable under current law,  then the Law MUST change.

Actually, the law ideally should benefit the owner with some small reward, minimal percentage perhaps as by helping to generate new business is positively stimulating the economy.   So the owner's total rent + tax credits + stimulation credits would be greater than tax credits alone.
Logged
Simon Dog
Administrator/Owner
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2449


« Reply #21 on: March 10, 2016, 11:46:03 AM »

I share B53's general attitude towards government, but I also have to remember that my dialysis is paid for by nature of the government's threat of overwhelming force against my fellow subjects who try to avoid paying for my treatment.
Logged
iolaire
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1072


« Reply #22 on: March 10, 2016, 12:16:18 PM »

I feel VERY fortunate that I'm able to have a major chronic illness and I'll be able to afford treatment even if I stop working. 

I travel a lot and I'm constantly happy for the level of services my taxes pay for.  I personally am happy that there is a huge safety net for people, I don't envy other countries with higher levels of poverty, crime, petty theft, and begging...  Everyone in the US has a very high standard of living, and I fully support my huge tax bill making that possible. At the local level we have no children and don't use the local schools or sports centers but that is offset by things we use like Bike share and the library.

I'm not supportive of huge tax breaks for any business, but understand some are beneficial, such as tax rebates for hiring handicapped people who otherwise would be passed over.  In general I feel businesses both large and small should be self supportive and not need my taxes in order to survive - if they can not they should go away and a better operated company will take its place.
Logged

Transplant July 2017 from out of state deceased donor, waited three weeks the creatine to fall into expected range, dialysis December 2013 - July 2017.

Well on dialysis I traveled a lot and posted about international trips in the Dialysis: Traveling Tips and Stories section.
iolaire
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1072


« Reply #23 on: March 11, 2016, 05:55:14 AM »

Here is another thing that I'm happy my taxes pay for, NIA and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:
New Procedure Allows Kidney Transplants From Any Donor
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/10/health/kidney-transplant-desensitization-immune-system.html?_r=0
Supported by grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK098431 and K24DK10182801) @ http://www.niddk.nih.gov/Pages/default.aspx - a US government website.
Logged

Transplant July 2017 from out of state deceased donor, waited three weeks the creatine to fall into expected range, dialysis December 2013 - July 2017.

Well on dialysis I traveled a lot and posted about international trips in the Dialysis: Traveling Tips and Stories section.
PrimeTimer
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 1795


« Reply #24 on: March 11, 2016, 07:50:38 AM »

I'm not happy that we pay more and more in taxes and left with less and less in our bank account while it is taking more and more dollars to buy food and necessities. I thought my days of eating PBJ's and chicken pot pies were over, seems we are going backwards and having to live like we did when we were kids first starting out. (not all of us lived with mom and dad til our 20's and not all of us have government jobs).
Logged

Husband has ESRD with Type I Diabetes -Insulin Dependent.
I was his carepartner for home hemodialysis using Nxstage December 2013-July 2016.
He went back to doing in-center July 2016.
Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
 

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines | Mobile View Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!