Today registration opens around the country for the new Affordable Healthcare Plans (a.k.a. Obamacare) which will take effect on January 1, 2014. People on both sides of the fence are fired up and expressing their support or disgust for the plans. It got me thinking though: What does this mean for self-employed photographers?
I voted for Romney in the last election. I have not been the biggest supporter of Obama and the choices he has made so far. However I have got to say I am quite interested in what the new health insurance plan means for our industry. Let me explain.
Self-employed photographers finally have a way of purchasing a reasonable health insurance plan.
I have been working for myself for the last 3 years. I have 5 kids under the age of 12. My wife works for herself as well. We have managed to get by over the last year without any health insurance at all. Fortunately for us, our family has been healthy. I hate to admit this openly. But if one of us were to need health care, we don't have a plan. I think about this often. One broken bone, one sick child, one surgery, one hospital visit, any of these things could end up costing us a fortune. According to a recent study medical bills are the biggest cause of bankruptcies. Being uninsured is not the way to live as it causes a lot stress, praying everyone in the family stays healthy. (I hope my mother doesn't read this as she always asks about whether or not we have health insurance and I have just fibbed telling her we did as to not stress her out as well.)
Every couple of weeks I wonder if it would be better for me to have a full-time job with health benefits rather than work as a wedding photographer. But I just can't do it. I feel like it is my calling to photograph weddings and create photos that couples can cherish throughout their life. So while I have yearned for some kind of health insurance protection, my wife and I have just continued rolling the dice hoping we all stay healthy as a family.
Even with pre-existing conditions you still qualify for health insurance.
I didn't think much about this before. After all, my wife, kids and I have been healthy. But in one discussion inside a Facebook group of photographers one person spoke up. She explained that in her early 20's she was diagnosed with cancer. She fought the battle and won but as a result she has found it extremely difficult to find any insurer that will cover her. With the new Obamacare she can finally get the health insurance she desires and not have to worry about being disqualified because of her past condition. I was truly excited for her. It opened my eyes that there are a lot of people out there in her same shoes. These people are now going to be able to get the prescription medications and doctor checkups they need without having to pay out of pocket to cover all the costs.
More people will be able to follow their dream to become a photographer.
One of the biggest hurdles for people interested in becoming photographers is that as much as they would love to do it they just couldn't see how it was possible. Insurance was too expensive. Their child had a pre-existing condition. It was a risky choice for them to make and so more often than not they just stayed in their 9 to 5 job and did a little photography on the weekend. I have a feeling in 2014 we are now going to start seeing many of these people leave their "9 to 5" and find a more fulfilling life as they actually are able to do something they love.
Is Obamacare perfect? Absolutely not. Am I looking forward to paying an estimated $7,000 a year for my family to get the insurance or be penalized? Nope, not at all. In fact, when my wife and I first talked it over about a month ago we were fired up. We were angry that we were being forced into something we didn't want. But as we educated ourselves more and more about what this meant to us as a family we started realizing this was not such a bad thing after all for us. I have a feeling that on January 1, 2014 a lot of stress of worrying about my family needing health care will finally be lifted from my shoulders. Will we need to use it? I hope not. But it is there to assist us in case of an emergency.
You hear about outrageous hospital bills all the time. In fact, I bet if you asked around you probably have a friend that has received one for $50,000+ and hopefully they had insurance to cover it. My feeling is that as a family we might go years and stay healthy never needing a doctor visit. But when that one time happens. When one of us gets sick, cancer, Parkinsons, heart disease, I am grateful to know that we will be able to get the help we need without having to worry about breaking the bank or reaching our hands out desperately to family members to help.
When we buy a new car, before we drive the car off the lot we have to show them proof of insurance. Same thing goes when we get pulled over by a cop. It is required by law to have it. When we buy a house they often bill the cost of insurance right into our mortgage because the lenders want to make sure we are insured. Insurance is all of us pitching in a little bit today so that the person who needs the help tomorrow can find it.
I realize that Obamacare is not perfect. In fact far from perfect. But I do believe that for us self-employed photographers it does give us certain benefits that were once not available. I thought that was definitely worth mentioning. If you would like to find out more information about it you can visit this link, Healthcare.gov. I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments. Please keep it civil and keep party lines out of it. While the new Affordable Health Care plan is not perfect, it is here, it is happening. What are some of the additional benefits we can get out of it as self-employed photographers? What are some of the disadvantageous? Chime in below.
Jan, I understand where you are coming from, but I can't stand by your comment.
I don't hope illness on Scott, but I can think of many long term illnesses that would bankrupt him, take away his ability to work, and require a family member to care for him full time.
I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Which is the reason I support the idea of affordable healthcare.
Won't happen loser. Good karma is always on my side. I donate to so many charities and do so much charitable photography it's ridiculous. In addition I make plenty of money to cover my own bills and or pay for my own insurance if necessary. I'd like to see what charitable work you do, if you even work.
One of my main issues with it is that this is another power grab by the federal government. Everyone talks about how Obamacare is just like Massachusetts, and since it worked there, it can work for the entire country. If the other 49 states want to do it, more power to them, but this should have been left for the states to decide and fund on their own. The removal of power from the states to the federal government moves the power further from the people.
How did you get 5 kids without health insurance? I still remember the invoice from the hospital after our daughters birth, only that ammount would cover your $7,000 for a while. Should be happy to have insurance!!!
I had health insurance previously. Yeah baby birth is extremely expensive.
Heck, I had a kidney stone that cost $7000!
Obamacare is just another tax on the middle class. It is unconstitutional, wrong, and unethical. The Government cannot and should not mandate that anyone purchase anything, health insurance included. Anyone that does not see that has been deeply misinformed and does not understand the rights granted to us by the Constitution.
Agree!!!! 100%
I don't believe that the affordable healthcare act is a great law either. It may also be unconstitutional (although the supreme court doesn't seem to agree), but it is the only solution put forward to fix a growing healthcare crisis in this country. Health care costs are inflating beyond control and without reason. Fewer and fewer Americans are covered by insurance every year (it gets worse by generation as well). The middle class is not exempt from that. Even the professorial faculty at prominent universities is 60% part time adjuncts, which means they don't qualify for health benefits. Unexpected medical bills or poor health due to lack of care will wipe out the middle class just as easily as "unethical" taxes.
I am all for other solutions, but so far everyone else keeps claiming there is no crisis.
Saying something is unconstitutional does not make it so. There is a test to see if it constitutional or not. That highest test is litigation in the Supreme Court. You may not like it but that is the definition of the word you are using. If another court overturns the judgement then you can say it is unconstitutional. Until then that word does not apply.
Also government mandates purchases all the time. If you have a car in most states you must have car insurance (If you baby in the car you must have a car seat). If you have a restaurant you must have the required sanitary and food storage equipment. If you want to walk the streets you must have clothing.
Finally people actually read the constitution
Section 8 Says
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
By any stretch Heath Care is in the general welfare. And so says the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court might be the be all and end all in the matter it doesn't make it right. While the country obviously needs a healthcare system overhaul an individual mandate should not be part of the package. Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy got it correct, and Roberts was, simply put, blackmailed. At the end of the day our justice system is sadly dysfunctional.
The constitution is definitely up to interpretation and there were dissenting opinions (although your comment about Roberts is a bit strange). Let's say that the minority opinion is actually the correct opinion; what is the proposed solution that would satisfy that interpretation of the constitution? I, for one, would be perfectly willing to consider it.
The problem with your analogy of car insurance, car seats, restaurants is that you don't have to buy a car and thus insurance, if you don't have a car a car seat is not needed, you aren't being forced to own and operate a restaurant. You are being forced to buy insurance whether you want to or not.
The idea behind Section 8 you have pointed out, is that Obamacare was not passed as a tax, and it's not uniform either, there are exemptions for unions, business, and most aggravating of all Congress, Senate and the President. Why is it that the general public is being forced into something when the people that passed the damn law in the first place don't have to participate, that's F'ed up no matter what your position is on the subject.
These are responsibilities that we must uphold. I say they are responsibilities because they have been deemed civic duties that must be enforced to protect ourselves and our family. Politics aside, It is irresponsible to not have health insurance, just like it is irresponsible not to have car insurance. This article points out that the writer is clearly rolling the dice with his family every day he does not have health insurance. That is the definition of being irresponsible, because he has the option to work under an agency that will provide him with health benefits. Now individuals who run their own businesses are allowed to have health care without the risk of jeopardizing himself and his family physically and financially. You are right.. no one is forcing you to purchase a car thus you are not forced to partake in purchasing car insurance. Your same logic applies.. no one is forcing you to live in the United States of America, thus no one is forcing you to purchase health insurance. This ideology is synonymous.
The responsibility of the federal government is NOT to supply me with health insurance, a job, a house, food, a paycheck, means of transportation, ect. Those fall under my personal responsibility or that of the state to which I live in at best (i.e public transportation). It is your opinion that the writer of the article is irresponsible, but he is not asking you to cover his medical bills if some thing were to happen to his family. He is taking a calculated risk, he and his family are healthy and thus in his eyes the cost of insurance is higher than the risk of not having it. He also understands fully that if some thing were to happen he is up sh*t crick without a paddle.
With the ACA the cost of someone who decides that having insurance now is more expensive than paying the fine, and then getting insurance at a later date because you can now purchase it whenever with any pre-existing condition (to which I don't have a problem with the pre-existing condition part, but it should have stipulations that you can't wait until the condition presents itself to buy insurance) will be passed on to others on the network, it has to be paid for in one way or another.
In the ACA the Federal Government is not suppling you with health care. They are creating a market place where you go and buy a product. They may assist you in buying it but it is not free. Also when you pay the fine you still don't have care. If you pay for insurance you have a service.
So going back to your belief on risk vs. irresponsibility... to be clear.. you do not "believe" calculating a "risk" of you and your loved ones is not being "irresponsible" when other options are viable that entail a 0% risk factor at the expense of your dreams. The writer is stating a difference between wants and needs, and displaying the "want" (shoot weddings) over a "need" (health insurance). I am not sure I follow with your deduction, please clarify.
Risk is the wrong word. Risk infer the a probability of less than 100% that something will happen. It is a 100% certainty that your biomechanical vessel (Your Body) will require repair and preventative maintenance. It is going to happen. When it happens no one is sure but it will happen. I am going beyond the writer of article here. The day you get ill you will thank the stars. I have see a 23 year old kid get a $6000 bill for a kidney stone and $75,000 each for hip surgery for 2 kids that crashed into each while one was skating and the other was walking. I have seen a 20 year old that inhaled a small rock and got a $50,000 bill. People this is not a joke. Its not politics its life. Get some health for your own best interest.
Ok, in my instance, I want to be a professional photographer, I need to keep my job because I need the insurance because my children are still young and yes I believe the risk of them getting an injury is greater than my desire to be a professional full time photographer and incur the expense of insurance myself.
However when I was 25 years old and not married, I didn't have insurance because I felt the risk of me getting injured was far lower and the cost of insurance was more than I wanted to come out of my paycheck. So I took the calculated risk that I was and would continue to stay healthy. Sure, something could have happened, I could have been diagnosed with an illness, I could have broken a bone skiing, or any number of other things could have happened. If that was the case, yes I would have wished I had insurance, but in no way would I have expected anyone else to pay my bills. In your opinion my actions at 25 are irresponsible, however I felt at the time it a risk worth taking. When my children are older would I take the same risk to start my own business, I don't know there are too many variables.
To address your statement about being irresponsible about calculating a risk for me and my loved ones, what's the difference if I would at some time take the risk of starting my own business and going full time. I would be leaving a steady, well paying job for the uncertainty of being my own boss. The risk is it could fail, cause my family financial uncertainty, amongst others, but if I felt it was worth it and my family was on board with it I would do it, and health insurance would play a roll in the risk of that move.
I'm sorry, my response prior to this was a little convoluted, my point is not carrying insurance is a risk that is based off an individual decision. If you are a wedding photographer, your kids don't partake in risky behavior (i.e dirt bikes, bmx, skateboarding, ect) and your family is healthy then it is reasonable to expect that you are a low risk for getting sick or injured. Now sure, something will happen at some point and when it does hopefully you have bought insurance and are covered, if not shame on you.
Now on the other hand, if you photography extreme sports, your kids ride motocross or other more risky behavior, then yes it's reasonable to expect that you run a high risk of being injured and not having insurance would be incredible irresponsible.
On the other hand, I would also find it incredible irresponsible if someone decided that because of the ACA it was cheaper for them to pay the fine for not having insurance until such a time that something major happened and they were able to buy it then, because under the ACA pre-existing conditions can not exempt you from coverage.
Now should something you have no control over, i.e cancer at some point in your life cause you not to be covered if you are looking to buy insurance, NO. But, you should not be able to skip out of buying insurance by paying a fine until you are diagnosed with cancer and then suddenly pick up insurance because now you realize you need it.
Totally agree Capion. Beside did anyone even list to the author saying how stressful it is hoping with you finger crossed that no one get sick. Further, what about prevention (mammogram-wife, prostate exam-husband). I mean who wants to find out their have 2 months to live because they have never taken routine exams and now they are stage 4 cancer or fall dead to a heart attack because of untreated HBP or CHOL. Really, I'm thankful I have both of my parent who are in theirs 80's who are very diligent about their health and healthcare. Don't people in America want to live in optimal health?? I just don't get it!!!
Amen Brotha! This is considered liberal radical thinking however.. making it mandatory to take care of ourselves and those around us is waaaay too utopian society, sounds more like communism to me. Next thing we know we will be accused of not liking apple pie ;)
Actually my analogy is quite apt. Our "essence" is house in a bio mechanical vehicle. This vehicle is for certain at some time in the future going to require repair. When this time comes you will seek said repair. If you cannot afford to pay the totality of the cost you will either not receive and live a life serious and constant disease or the cost of the repair will be born by others who pay. I do not want to pay for the care of people who have the mean to but refuse to pay for a utility that would mitigate that risk. If you are independently wealthy and can afford to pay out of pocket fine. But if you are not please do not take money out my pocket and impinge on my freedom.
PS The President and Congress can utilize if they want to a Federally administered health care plan. They can buy into the State Exchanges if they want to but they cant be dual partakers of the Federal Plan.
Ok, but what makes you think that someone who can not currently afford health insurance because they do not make enough money, or do not work at all will suddenly be able to afford it when they get on the state exchange. You are still going to be paying for people who can not afford insurance, the same as you pay for it now through Medicaid. The fact that I could ignore buying insurance by paying the fine until such a point that I have a serious illness and then buy it is only going to make the cost go up. That would be like paying a fractional fine for life insurance until you realized you have a terminal disease then suddenly purchasing $500,000 policy because you know you are going to need it. You haven't paid into it until that point to cover the cost of it, so someone else (the person who buys it years before they need it) is going to foot the bill through increased cost.
So we have made some progress.
If they cant afford hopefully they can get a subsidy. But think about it. It is bigger then insurance. There are people working 40 hours a week for a company that make billions in prophets and the minimum wage they make does not allow then to afford health care. There is a systemic problem they we have to face. Greed is not Good. It kills. We have walmart paying workers low that the have to take public assistance to survive. Thus we have tax payers subsidizing wages.
And as photogs we would want people to have disposable income so they could book that seasonal family shoot. :)
To your second point. If you dont want to pay of insurance till you get sick. You are playing russian roulette with phaser. You will still have to pay a fine. You are not getting regular check ups and preventative care and when final start to show enough systems to alarm you to go in and get looked at you might have a situation that would be so far progressed that will have a long and painful recovery if any.
OK, point one; (disclaimer, I don't particularly like walmart, but I will give Sam Walton credit for a business model that has produced one of the largest employers in the world) Walmart employs unskilled labor to do basic retail sales work, the level of skill required to perform the duties required at a walmart is not high enough to justify paying some one $15, $20 or really any amount over minimum wage. This is because in the labor market there are thousands of others will skill sets the are equivalent and could easily replace some one who decides they no longer want to work for walmart. All of this stems from the fact that labor is a commodity.
Take for example, as a wedding photographer (if that's what you shoot) what makes you worth what you charge for a wedding as opposed to some one who buys a DSLR kit and charges $500 with full rights to the images. The answer, your skills as a photographer in composition, exposure, how to get the important shots, off camera flash, ect. Your skill set is greater than some one who shoots their D3100 with kit lens in auto mode, thus you can justify charging more and get paid that money.
Now, back to walmart, if you have a sale associate that puts forth the effort and works very, very hard they may move into a management position where they're labor commodity now demands more money. This is only possible because they have increased their value by learning what is required to take on the new position. Is that an easy way to go, Hell NO! it would suck and be difficult, but it's an option. The same goes for fast food, are McDonalds employees worth $15/hr, No, because there is very little skill required to put together a Big Mac, now if a McDonalds employee works very hard and pushes to advance in the company, there are avenues to become managers, and move up where they are worth $15/hr and eventually much more.
By forcing a company like Walmart, even though they turn a solid profit every year, to pay their employees wages higher than what they are worth will have ill effects across the entire retail market because now other retail outlets such as Kmart will have to pay more to get employees, and for a company like Kmart that isn't doing as well financially as walmart this could eventually lead to closure and the loss of all of the back end jobs that are associated with it's operation.
That's enough, because waiting to get insured is a bad decision, but it's one that some people are going to make I'm sure because of financial reasons.
I am so glad someone else has taken the time to "read" and become "informed" and has the "facts" I too have been a victim of paying for other's inability to pay their medical bill. Long story short I lost an infant child who spent 48hr in ICU at a tune of $22,000. When I inquired about the fee of the itemized bill $$for a bandage (tape) over a shunt. Financial Officer explained to me how the cost is passed to the insured. Uninsured bills are written off as a loss and redistributed. Thank God I was insured and did not have to pay the entire $22,000.
there are no exemptions for unions and of course the big lie, yes congress and the rest of our senators and reps are not exempt
Amen. Well said.
welcome to the first world, US
But we are mandated to buy other insurances (auto, homeowners) to protect ourselves and others. Surely, I would not want my car totaled or my home burned down and I not have no means of replacing either. Same with health insurance, that should be a no-brainer. My health is more important than my auto or home. So why do 'people"have a problem protecting their health?? I just don't get it.The Affordable Healthcare Act was passed into law and upheld by the Supreme Court. Fact is people are in bankruptcy right now because of unexpected medical expenses(uninsured and under insured) Lastly, people pays thousands for life insurance and lively sickly well past the life of the policy (money lost).
Wow are you ever showing your own ignorance with this post! Or are you not aware of the fact that an activist, highly conservative Supreme Court actually ruled that the ACA is in fact constitutional? As for it being wrong, that's a subjective statement and only an opinion based on your obvious ignorance. Please explain to me in exactly what ways it's unethical to provide people with affordable health care? It is in fact unethical NOT to provide health care for people who cannot currently afford a bloated, overly expensive system. Please show me where in the constitution it says that they cannot mandate that people have to buy insurance? If you want to drive a car, you have to have insurance, is that unconstitutional? Nope.
It's you who don't understand your rights. Start learning and maybe you'll be able to speak intelligently about what are and are not your rights.
You, sir, are the ignorant one. The individual mandate to buy health insurance is not the same as having to buy car insurance. Driving a vehicle is a choice and a person can therefore be required to buy car insurance for the protection of OTHERS in case of an accident. The individual mandate takes away someone's right to make a choice to buy, or not buy a product. Never before in history has Congress forced the American people to buy a product of it's choosing. There are obviously many fools like you who think they are able to 'speak intelligently', but alas.
@Simon Do you have a problem with the U.S. Army? It's protecting you and your fellow countryman. So is collective healthcare.
Your comment is the most absurd thing I've read in a while.. Thanks for the laugh.
Hi Simon, I'm glad I made you laugh :-) , but please explain why you find my remark so absurd.
Here's the next part to this. The system can't afford all the babies and other runs on the hospital. Those that pay the least will use the most and the cost has to be passed on to someone. Who pays the difference, the government? No, the tax payer. Paying, let's say $1,400 a year for insurance and having one baby puts the system in hole by $6-10,000. Where does that come from? I think the positive comments here are based on party, not reality. A lot of folks have buyers remorse and must justify their choice by supporting and defending any and all stupidity. Well, that will work until it infringes on your lifestyle and then you'll be crying "what happened?" Let's see how it works out in the next 12-18 months. Somebody gets to say "told you so."
The sad part is, it will probably be me and that's not necessarily a good thing.
In Mexico? My 2 best friends and photographers have lived there for over 10 years and LOVE it.. Unless you've lived there and actually know what you're talking about, you know squat...
I am a victim of Sandy, that's how I wound up in California with NOTHING but my truck. I lost everything. The Red Cross and the Government SUCK. We got NO help for MANY months and even now they're dicking us all around and not paying.
sorry to hear that, Scott. I'm sad for what has happened to people in your position. What brought you all the way here? If you don't mind did you have any insurance to help with what happened?
Thanks Andrew.. It's a very sad situation. People talk, talk, talk but have no clue what they're talking about. Many thousands from Katrina and Sandy are still homeless and jobless because the government screwed them. Insurance only covers certain things and many portions of "an act of God" and flooding are not covered near the coastlines. I've been working out here a few months a year for years. I was offered 2 corporate photography jobs that require me here full time so I decided to make the move.
that really sucks...I haven't been impressed with anything I've heard. I figured insurance wouldn't cover it, it's one of those things. I'm glad you got some jobs that sound good though, good luck in the future and I'll do some research before sending my money anywhere... sounds like something to be very cautious with unless you like throwing money away.
Thanks for the reply.
Thank you Andrew I appreciate it. These days the best places to make any donations after natural disasters are LOCAL services, LOCAL churches and such places that are helping out with meals, clothes, cell phone charging, shelter etc.. I'm very thankful for the work I've gotten and am big on "paying it forward", it can never hurt and only do good. :)
Good to know, in an area that's been destroyed by a disaster I didn't even think about local services. Thanks. :)
Great attitude to have I try to do that myself but don't always remember.
Best Wishes man!
sorry to hear about that Scott. I hope it gets better for you soon. :)
People say we want smaller government. Now when a tragedy hits and there is nothing we forget that we cant get what we did not pay for.
Could you be more ignorant? I've paid taxes for the past 30 years not including the insurance I was paying for the home that was hit by Sandy.. I hope you go through something similar, it will shut you up fast.
With the numbers of all cancers on the rise, everyone needs some kind of coverage. I have carcinoids and require a needle every 4 weeks. $4,450 a month for this shot alone. I am so lucky to have coverage.
wow. just wow. I had a well worded, intelligent response to you, then realized you aren't worth the effort to type it out with a retort like that. Are you sure you're not in congress?
He probably is, at least from what I remember of his comment.
Hopefully he can take you at your word that it was a well worded reply.