Recently a friend of mine and I were sipping iced chai’s at a cute little café a few blocks from my house, and I was talking about how I wasn’t sure what to do with the one month gap I’ll have between leaving my current company and starting school, when she interrupted with:
“So are you going to go COBRA?”
Not sure if this was some kind of freaky code name for backpacking through South America, I paused.
“Huh?”
As it turns out, her mind instantly went to my one-month gap in health care. COBRA is an acronym which stands for Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, which is the federal law that allows employees to continue coverage in a group health plan after quitting. Provided I’m still insured the day before I quit, I can extend my coverage up to 18 months after I leave. Good thing I’ll only need it for a month as I’m preparing myself for extreme sticker shock.
But since I am young, single and healthy, I may look at short term individual health insurance too, just to compare. Employers can charge the entire premium (so what I paid, PLUS what they paid), as well as an extra 2% for administrative costs.
I’m only paying $47 a month now, but I’m not sure how much my company is paying in my stead?
Showing posts with label money and politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label money and politics. Show all posts
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Saturday, February 21, 2009
On Privatizing Marriage...
Just finished “Nudge” – a libertarian tome on how to help people make better choices without restricting their freedom. One of their nudges was the proposal of privatizing marriage.
This would essentially turn what we know as marriage today into simply a civil union. Instead of getting a marriage license from the state, you would get a piece of paper licensing a civil union. Any contract beyond that would be dealt by another institution – the church. I presume that the majority of protestant churches would go on pronouncing folks man and wife as per usual. And your church would decide whether or not you can marry under their auspices, and certainly a whole marketplace of religious houses already exist so that practically any two people who desired would no longer have an obstacle.
What this would do would essentially eliminate the debate on gay marriage – the government would no longer be involved in or associated with the notion of “marriage” at all. They would have nullified the argument not by granting homosexual marriage rights, but by moving everyone down to the civil union level. No distinction between the benefits of being married and the benefits of having a civil union. It seems like human rights activists would have to be appeased by this – if all benefits are present, and all are equal, how can you take issue with that arrangement – no matter what you call it?
But if you simply find-and-replace “marriage” with “civil union,” are there any other ramificiations? Are marriages less consequential somehow without government sanction? i.e. Would we see any social changes that would affect our society for better or worse? Certainly, we could expect the amount of marriages overall to increase, accounting for all of the people who could now marry as a result. Would heterosexual marriages also increase? Would it all seem like “less of a big deal” such that we’d have high school sweethearts rushing out to get married, ahem a civil union, with the deep underlying knowledge, that they may have multiple marriages in their lifetime, creating a new social norm that makes it even less sacred than it already is? Would good friends across the globe apply for civil unions for the government benefits alone? Would our society be less stable if people saw not having a civil union with someone as “leaving money on the table.” Or is that argument inane simply because, nothing’s stopping anyone from doing that now, other than the fact that it says marriage instead of civil union on the document.
Or is the concept of privatizing marriage too idealized? When we privatized healthcare with the HMO system, government was still very much entangled, via a world of lobbyists vying for favorable legislation. What sort of additional “marriage markets” would crop up for various couples, and how would the government still be involved with the industry if not the endorsement of marriages.
I did find another interesting 2007 OpEd which brings in a lot of the history of marriage, but didn’t help me resolve any of these thoughts…. I’m intrigued by these libertarian folks…
This would essentially turn what we know as marriage today into simply a civil union. Instead of getting a marriage license from the state, you would get a piece of paper licensing a civil union. Any contract beyond that would be dealt by another institution – the church. I presume that the majority of protestant churches would go on pronouncing folks man and wife as per usual. And your church would decide whether or not you can marry under their auspices, and certainly a whole marketplace of religious houses already exist so that practically any two people who desired would no longer have an obstacle.
What this would do would essentially eliminate the debate on gay marriage – the government would no longer be involved in or associated with the notion of “marriage” at all. They would have nullified the argument not by granting homosexual marriage rights, but by moving everyone down to the civil union level. No distinction between the benefits of being married and the benefits of having a civil union. It seems like human rights activists would have to be appeased by this – if all benefits are present, and all are equal, how can you take issue with that arrangement – no matter what you call it?
But if you simply find-and-replace “marriage” with “civil union,” are there any other ramificiations? Are marriages less consequential somehow without government sanction? i.e. Would we see any social changes that would affect our society for better or worse? Certainly, we could expect the amount of marriages overall to increase, accounting for all of the people who could now marry as a result. Would heterosexual marriages also increase? Would it all seem like “less of a big deal” such that we’d have high school sweethearts rushing out to get married, ahem a civil union, with the deep underlying knowledge, that they may have multiple marriages in their lifetime, creating a new social norm that makes it even less sacred than it already is? Would good friends across the globe apply for civil unions for the government benefits alone? Would our society be less stable if people saw not having a civil union with someone as “leaving money on the table.” Or is that argument inane simply because, nothing’s stopping anyone from doing that now, other than the fact that it says marriage instead of civil union on the document.
Or is the concept of privatizing marriage too idealized? When we privatized healthcare with the HMO system, government was still very much entangled, via a world of lobbyists vying for favorable legislation. What sort of additional “marriage markets” would crop up for various couples, and how would the government still be involved with the industry if not the endorsement of marriages.
I did find another interesting 2007 OpEd which brings in a lot of the history of marriage, but didn’t help me resolve any of these thoughts…. I’m intrigued by these libertarian folks…
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Financial Freedom and HandCuffs
I've been reading every drop about the billions in the stimulus packages and listening to all of the NPR stories on the economic crisis, the credit crisis, the housing crisis, ad nauseum, and I don't think I could hear an original thought about it at this point. But then I brushed across this quote in an old Moleskine, and it seemed extremely salient...
“The ideas that liberate one generation become the shackles of the next”
– Sir Isaiah Berlin
“The ideas that liberate one generation become the shackles of the next”
– Sir Isaiah Berlin
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
The "Why" Behind Expensive Health Care
I wanted to do a series about how much health care costs (i.e. literally answering the “what” for all of these services), but the more I researched, the more I found answers to a different question, the “why.” As in “Why does U.S. health care cost so much?”
The variations in how much health care costs in various nations are mostly explained by G.D.P. per capita. And everything else is being attributed to:
1. Simply higher prices for the same thing
2. Higher admin/overheard costs
3. More widespread use of high tech equipment
4. More defensive medicine and tests to fend off malpractice suits
I wonder if any of Obama’s universal health care plans are addressing any of these specific issues or if universalizing will simply being evening the playing field for lower income families who can’t even get the baseline of care being offered in the U.S. I will be interested to learn more.
To my original question of how much health care costs… does anyone have ideas for good resources on where to find better itemization of what things cost?
In the meantime, I'm doing a pretty good job of noting Rx costs on my recipts (that little line that tells you how much your insurance saved you....)
Read more in-depth in this great Economix article from Nov. 14 NYTimes
The variations in how much health care costs in various nations are mostly explained by G.D.P. per capita. And everything else is being attributed to:
1. Simply higher prices for the same thing
2. Higher admin/overheard costs
3. More widespread use of high tech equipment
4. More defensive medicine and tests to fend off malpractice suits
I wonder if any of Obama’s universal health care plans are addressing any of these specific issues or if universalizing will simply being evening the playing field for lower income families who can’t even get the baseline of care being offered in the U.S. I will be interested to learn more.
To my original question of how much health care costs… does anyone have ideas for good resources on where to find better itemization of what things cost?
In the meantime, I'm doing a pretty good job of noting Rx costs on my recipts (that little line that tells you how much your insurance saved you....)
Read more in-depth in this great Economix article from Nov. 14 NYTimes
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Put your Vote where your Tax Cuts are!
Election Day. Hopefully a day of exuberance and then we can all go back to talking about something else. I truly respect all of those non-partisan “Just go Vote!” people. But I am just not one of them. (By the way it took me two hours to vote this morning. I live very close to a university... so I was very encouraged by the 'youth' vote turnout! And very frustrated at the time...)
In honor of the day, I had to write about politics one last time. Money Magazine’s November issue hosted a decomp on the candidates tax policies (from the Tax Policy Center): "What Would They Do to Your Tax Bill" It makes it abundantly clear that the McCain plan is to raise no one’s taxes, but not cut anything significant for people who aren’t in the half-millionaire category and above.
Definitely check out the whole article, but I will just highlight one income bracket (my own)! For folks that make anywhere from $37,596 to $66,354 (20% of the population), Obama’s plan would cut their tax bill an average of $1,118. McCain’s plan would cut their tax bill $325 on average.
But what’s really enlightening is how Obama’s tax increases on the wealthy are really laid out. By now, everyone has been saturated by the media promise of “If you make under $250,000 a year, your taxes will stay flat or go down.” But for the income bracket of $227K to $603K the average increase is only $121. One hundred twenty-one dollars! That’s it! But for those making over $603K, the average increase would be $93,000. So, the significant tax increases are only going to the 1 of the population (half millionaires and above)!
Enjoy all of those election night parties!
In honor of the day, I had to write about politics one last time. Money Magazine’s November issue hosted a decomp on the candidates tax policies (from the Tax Policy Center): "What Would They Do to Your Tax Bill" It makes it abundantly clear that the McCain plan is to raise no one’s taxes, but not cut anything significant for people who aren’t in the half-millionaire category and above.
Definitely check out the whole article, but I will just highlight one income bracket (my own)! For folks that make anywhere from $37,596 to $66,354 (20% of the population), Obama’s plan would cut their tax bill an average of $1,118. McCain’s plan would cut their tax bill $325 on average.
But what’s really enlightening is how Obama’s tax increases on the wealthy are really laid out. By now, everyone has been saturated by the media promise of “If you make under $250,000 a year, your taxes will stay flat or go down.” But for the income bracket of $227K to $603K the average increase is only $121. One hundred twenty-one dollars! That’s it! But for those making over $603K, the average increase would be $93,000. So, the significant tax increases are only going to the 1 of the population (half millionaires and above)!
Enjoy all of those election night parties!
Friday, August 8, 2008
Obama vs. McCain on the Economy
My vote is already decided, but I was really happy to find this clear article from Forbes on the economic policies of the two presidential candidates. It’s a good read with some quotes from Obama’s main economic advisor, but I’ve summarized the highlights below:
Corporate Taxes
- John McCain has proposed lowering the maximum corporate tax rate from 35 to 25%.
- Obama has also proposed to lower the corporate tax rate, though he hasn’t announced how sharply. Also, he’ll go about it in a different way. His plan is to clean up the tax code which taxes company differently based on various factors (whether or not the company is financed through debt or equity for example).
On the National Debt
- Obama’s plans will send the national debt to 3.4 Trillion by 2018.
- John McCain will send the national debt to 5 Trillion by 2018.
Tax Increases & Reforms
- Obama is proposing a payroll tax surcharge on people earning more than $250,000 annually, a dividend tax rate of between 20-28%, an income tax exclusion for seniors making less than $50,000, and an increase in the maximum capital gains taxes from 15 to 25%
- John McCain: no new taxes, (maybe?)
Oh, and I couldn't resist: Paris Hilton's response to the McCain attack ad on Obama.
Corporate Taxes
- John McCain has proposed lowering the maximum corporate tax rate from 35 to 25%.
- Obama has also proposed to lower the corporate tax rate, though he hasn’t announced how sharply. Also, he’ll go about it in a different way. His plan is to clean up the tax code which taxes company differently based on various factors (whether or not the company is financed through debt or equity for example).
On the National Debt
- Obama’s plans will send the national debt to 3.4 Trillion by 2018.
- John McCain will send the national debt to 5 Trillion by 2018.
Tax Increases & Reforms
- Obama is proposing a payroll tax surcharge on people earning more than $250,000 annually, a dividend tax rate of between 20-28%, an income tax exclusion for seniors making less than $50,000, and an increase in the maximum capital gains taxes from 15 to 25%
- John McCain: no new taxes, (maybe?)
Oh, and I couldn't resist: Paris Hilton's response to the McCain attack ad on Obama.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Homage to a Government
Next year we are to bring the soldiers home
For lack of money, and it’s all right.
Places they guarded, or kept orderly,
Must guard themselves, and keep themselves orderly.
We want the money for ourselves at home
Instead of working. And this is all right.
It’s hard to say who wanted it to happen,
But now it’s been decided nobody minds.
The places are a long way off, not here,
Which is all right, and from what we hear
The soldiers there only made trouble happen.
Next year we shall be easier in our minds.
Next year we shall be living in a country
That brought its soldiers home for lack of money.
The statues will be standing in the same
Tree-muffled squares, and look nearly the same.
Our children will not know it’s a different country.
All we can hope to leave them now is money.
That was Philip Larkin’s poem from 1969 - on Vietnam, entitled "Homage to a Government." And America’s leadership is disappointing now for different reasons. “Lack of money” has never been a concern with this administration. The position on military spending has rather been – money is no object.
As the economy has grown since the seventies, those annual upward ticks of growth have ballooned military spending naturally, since there’s a larger and larger bucket from which to draw. But the unnatural part has been an attitude change with regards to money and priorities.
The last time I checked on the National Priorities Project link, the Iraq War has cost a total of $537.8 Billion. $15.8 Billion of that total was paid by my current state of Minnesota. The tradeoff for those dollars – that same figure could have been spent on health care for 4.5 million people (that’s just shy of the state population, 5.2 Million).
It’s true that money has been an influence on the Iraq War – as we’ve spent and become aware of those kinds of trade-offs, the more America has called the purposes of our presence there into question. But politics, not money, will (hopefully) pull our troops out of the region (or at least divert them to a more rational, resolute mission).
My own homage to the government will truly begin after a different fiscal moment of truth: do we deal with the deficit and count “lack of money” as the reason we avoid thorough reconstruction of the regions? Or do we devote the same “money as no object” mentality to healing what we’ve hurt? I attended the unveiling of the Obama headquarters in Minneapolis this morning and volunteered my Friday afternoons until election day to help out in the office and put in some time at the phonebank. I already donated a small amount of money, and would love to be able to give more, but I will devote my time until.
For lack of money, and it’s all right.
Places they guarded, or kept orderly,
Must guard themselves, and keep themselves orderly.
We want the money for ourselves at home
Instead of working. And this is all right.
It’s hard to say who wanted it to happen,
But now it’s been decided nobody minds.
The places are a long way off, not here,
Which is all right, and from what we hear
The soldiers there only made trouble happen.
Next year we shall be easier in our minds.
Next year we shall be living in a country
That brought its soldiers home for lack of money.
The statues will be standing in the same
Tree-muffled squares, and look nearly the same.
Our children will not know it’s a different country.
All we can hope to leave them now is money.
That was Philip Larkin’s poem from 1969 - on Vietnam, entitled "Homage to a Government." And America’s leadership is disappointing now for different reasons. “Lack of money” has never been a concern with this administration. The position on military spending has rather been – money is no object.
As the economy has grown since the seventies, those annual upward ticks of growth have ballooned military spending naturally, since there’s a larger and larger bucket from which to draw. But the unnatural part has been an attitude change with regards to money and priorities.
The last time I checked on the National Priorities Project link, the Iraq War has cost a total of $537.8 Billion. $15.8 Billion of that total was paid by my current state of Minnesota. The tradeoff for those dollars – that same figure could have been spent on health care for 4.5 million people (that’s just shy of the state population, 5.2 Million).
It’s true that money has been an influence on the Iraq War – as we’ve spent and become aware of those kinds of trade-offs, the more America has called the purposes of our presence there into question. But politics, not money, will (hopefully) pull our troops out of the region (or at least divert them to a more rational, resolute mission).
My own homage to the government will truly begin after a different fiscal moment of truth: do we deal with the deficit and count “lack of money” as the reason we avoid thorough reconstruction of the regions? Or do we devote the same “money as no object” mentality to healing what we’ve hurt? I attended the unveiling of the Obama headquarters in Minneapolis this morning and volunteered my Friday afternoons until election day to help out in the office and put in some time at the phonebank. I already donated a small amount of money, and would love to be able to give more, but I will devote my time until.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Slackonomics: Our Part in Rehauling the economy as we know it
Just read the introduction for the book Slackonomics: Generation X in the Age of Creative Destruction by New York Times contributor Lisa Chamberlain (I think the snappy description under the subtitle sums up the premise nicely: “How financial insecurity and technological innovation changed everyday life for a generation poised to take the reins from boomers – and not a moment too soon.”
I guess I should say that I’m a Gen Y person by definition, but I’m excited to finish this one. So far what I like about it is that it really seems to be just an anthropological look at a unique era, the specific cultural experience that we’ve had. I really like that Chamberlain doesn’t try to compare our generation to another and make some argument about how we’ve missed a lesson somewhere, financially. Her point is that in some ways, these economic times were almost inevitable and unavoidable – but this creative destruction we’ve experienced and are experiencing is likely to uproot a lot of the old definitions and economic modes, and spit us out into a totally different realm – for better or worse.
For instance – take social security (note: this is my own example, not Chamberlain’s). Scottrade Investing just completed a survey that noted that although 87% of Gen X’ers believe they deserve social security benefits from the government, most aren’t counting on actually getting any benefits. Other highlights from the survey:
43% believe they won’t be able to retire fully
26% aren’t sure they’ll ever be able to leave the workforce
37% predict they’ll need $1 million to retire
40% haven’t hit the $25 thousand mark yet
40% are saving more as a result of their insecurity over social security
I think those stats exemplify Chamberlain’s definition of creative destruction – because of all of the financial insecurity (first four bullets), Generation X will be forced to create a new economic reality for themselves (last bullet). Right now, they are just saving more, but will there be a reinvention of how we save for retirement, or protest that results in genuine change to the entire social security infrastructure.
Otherwise, I’m reading Jane Eyre at night before bed. I used to have a tradition of reading one l-o-n-g classic every summer (back when I got summer breaks), and I’m trying to carry that over now. What’s your favorite classic?
Monday, April 7, 2008
Return to the Slush... & Financial Literacy in Congress
Back from my Chicago weekend, which was great fun! All of the wedding festivities were cute, and for the most part I was really good. The only thing that I bought was this really cute shirt from Threadless. They opened their flagship store in Chicago, and the Guy’s a big fan, so we had to check it out. And you know how much I love vegetables! I couldn’t resist.
In other news, in last Tuesday’s edition of Iconoculture, they announced that Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash) recently introduced a bill that would reserve $250 million for financial literacy education in public schools. Looks like the government is not only looking at quick-fix stimulus checks, but also long term measures, including The Cardholder’s Bill of Rights, which was also proposed. Really great news for next generation… just reminds me how cyclical all of our economic issues are. I also wonder what this will look like, since I think personal finance is so personal and so individual, depending on one’s circumstances. It’s hard to dole out generic principles for kids that really work hard for everyone.
In other news, in last Tuesday’s edition of Iconoculture, they announced that Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash) recently introduced a bill that would reserve $250 million for financial literacy education in public schools. Looks like the government is not only looking at quick-fix stimulus checks, but also long term measures, including The Cardholder’s Bill of Rights, which was also proposed. Really great news for next generation… just reminds me how cyclical all of our economic issues are. I also wonder what this will look like, since I think personal finance is so personal and so individual, depending on one’s circumstances. It’s hard to dole out generic principles for kids that really work hard for everyone.
Friday, February 22, 2008
$54,000,000,000,000
Twelve zeros. It’s a weird number to look at. That would be the national debt. And we regular-joe consumers thought we were screwing it up. That figure, according to Alan Quasha of Quadrant Management in this article is 3.9 times our revenues as a nation. I have been watching and listening to NPR and CNN a lot about the sub-prime mortgage crisis and the impending recession. I still haven’t deduced what exactly this means to me and what, if anything I’m supposed to change about my life. I got on board with blogging about my wallet and my goals before there was any panic in the air about the economy. I started because I wanted to be more conscientious about how I spent my money and what my priorities were so I could 1) stop worrying about it and 2) start getting better at building my net worth. (And I’ve stuck with it because it’s kinda fun). So net net, I think I’ll stick with that plan and not worry too much about the nation. I’ll leave that to Obama next year :o)
Happy Weekend, all!
Happy Weekend, all!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
