I can't tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me, but I'm sure the study took into account people who pay very little/nothing for insurance and people who pay more/a lot for insurance to come up with the average.
I was just posting proof to back up my claims that my numbers weren't "anecdotal" and were pretty close to the truth for the "average" middle class American.
your numbers are anecdoctal. KFF's are not. just because your numbers come close to KFF's doesn't mean your numbers aren't anecdotal. it means that you're close to average for what they measured: family care.
not all households are families. i'll bet you dollars to donuts that single-person households (which are included in the pie chart but don't fall under family insurance plans in the KFF numbers) have significantly lower insurance costs than family households.
It is a shame that they took out the piece paid to taxes. Pretty much ruins the whole chart due to that.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2009-09-15-insurance-costs_N.htm
"The average cost of a family policy offered by employers was $13,375 this year, up 5% from 2008, the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust survey found. By comparison, wages rose 3% over that period, the study said.
As insurance costs increase, workers are also picking up a larger share, the survey found. The average employee with family coverage paid 26% of the premium, the study found, but 41% of companies said they are "very likely" or "somewhat likely" to increase the amount employees pay for coverage in the next year."
26% (the average % an employee pays for family coverage) of $13,375 is $3477.50. Divided by 12 months to get the monthly premium amount that the employee pays is about $290. Very close to what I pay.
Oops...looks like my numbers are pretty close to average according to what studies show. "Anecdotal" indeed.
Seriously, you posted a random wiki link trying to "LOLingly" dismiss my claims, and my claims were validated by hard data. Please stop spinning to try and justify your flippant dismissal of my (true) comment.
your evidence provided before you posted the KFF numbers was in all ways anecdotal. i never questioned whether your data was true. it still is anecdotal, you just have the happy circumstance of being average. congratulations.based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation:anecdotal evidence.
when calculating average households they include single people living by themselves as households. that's a big reason why the average family plan cost and the average household plan cost differ.I already discussed single coverage with Genx87 multiple times in the thread. The single member insurance plans are also listed on the link to the study I provided. Yes, they are significantly cheaper...a fact which I mentioned many pages ago. What is your point?
The chart from the OP also specifically states that the chart is based off of an "average" household size ("Number of persons in consumer unit: 2.5") of 2.5 people...in other words, a family (or at least multiple people living together), not a single person.
my "lol" was in a different post. the wikipedia link was the usage of the word anecdotal. maybe you should read it. or, here's something simpler for you, the dictionary:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anecdotal
note definition number 3:
Quote:
based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation:anecdotal evidence.
your evidence provided before you posted the KFF numbers was in all ways anecdotal. i never questioned whether your data was true. it still is anecdotal, you just have the happy circumstance of being average. congratulations.
and, as i noted, there are various reasons why the KFF numbers and the numbers provided in the chart can differ and both be correct.
Posting "lol" then a random wiki link doesn't leave a whole lot of room for interpretation. It sure sounded like you were trying to dismiss my numbers; numbers which turned out to be true. All I was doing was validating my claims and that my numbers weren't just randomly pulled out of the air. I only used myself as an example of what's closer to average, and lo and behold, it was true.
Would you consider the link I provided to fall under a "systematic scientific evaluation"? Or is the study "anecdotal" as well?
seems wrong.
$63k annual income would mean $50k after taxes. article states $49638 annual expenses which means they have some savings leftover, which we know does not exist in this country.
seems wrong.
$63k annual income would mean $50k after taxes. article states $49638 annual expenses which means they have some savings leftover, which we know does not exist in this country.
This. It would make people uncomfortable and see how much better off they'd be if they weren't having a large chunk of their work taken by force and squandered on the political equivalent of hookers and blow.
Then they should include the portion their employer pays for their healthcare too.
That would make people uncomfortable too.
SS is included.
No, because the chart is showing the income of the family, not expenditures of the company. I think the system of employers subsidizing insurance is stupid, but it has nothing to do with this. The government is directly taking money away from families after they have earned it whether the family wants to pay the taxes or not.Then they should include the portion their employer pays for their healthcare too.
That would make people uncomfortable too.
What seems out of line with the car portion? $3k per year on car purchases seems reasonable. If you buy car (new or reasonably good condition used) every 5 years, you'll be right around there. $2k for gas (remember this is two drivers) seems reasonable. Two drivers would drive about 24k miles, which would use over 1000 gallons, so $2k in gas is normal. What is left is $3k for repairs, maintanence, insurnace, bus/train/plane tickets, etc. That doesn't seem too high. Two people with insurance would be $1k-$2k depending on the cars and the location. That leaves only $1k-$2k for all repairs and other transportation costs including airplane tickets. One family plane trip a year will easilly eat that up.
I know this sounds quite liberal of me but...
1) Like NYC, every menu item should have the calorie count listed next to it.
2) I would seriously like to explore the idea of a fast-food fat tax on everything from potato chips to french fries to Coca-Cola, etc. Every cent earned goes to some massive healthcare fund. I mean, can we really have a healthcare debate without looking at one of the biggest root causes of disease in this country?
Only the truly rich can buy a car every few years. Everyone else who isn't a high roller can only afford a car every 10-15 years.
Doesnt your wife have some pre-existing condition and you lost your job????
I know what the cost of my family plan is and it is 120\month with double my deductible. Basically double up my plan.
My wife works for a not for profit health provider. About as close as one gets to being a public employee without being one
$457 for alcoholic beverages seems a little low.
Why don't you get on her health insurance. then?
...a fact which I mentioned many pages ago.
Closed to only employees
I know this sounds quite liberal of me but...
1) Like NYC, every menu item should have the calorie count listed next to it.
2) I would seriously like to explore the idea of a fast-food fat tax on everything from potato chips to french fries to Coca-Cola, etc. Every cent earned goes to some massive healthcare fund. I mean, can we really have a healthcare debate without looking at one of the biggest root causes of disease in this country?
Only the truly rich can buy a car every few years. Everyone else who isn't a high roller can only afford a car every 10-15 years.