My fiancee got divorced in December of 2006. The child support was set during the divorce and his ex wife agreed to the amount. The next day she filed through the state to have the child support increased. She lives in New York, he lives in Montana.
Assuming that he would be paying a fair amount and more than willing to do so, he did not feel a need for legal representation and all proceedings took place over the phone. Boy was he in for a surprise!
After all was said and done, he is paying 00 a month and after taxes and child support, brings home 00 a month.
Now, living paycheck to paycheck (barely), he cannot even think about legal representation, let alone pay for it. His ex-wife made several false claims and told my fiancee that her lawyer said they would take him for everything he’s got.
Now we are expecting a child. I have been turned down for MedicAid due to his gross pay being too high to consider deductions. The baby is due in 6 weeks and we are in debt up to our ears. I finally convinced him to try for modification of child support but he is discouraged and has doubts about anything happening.
Any advice? We are pretty much clueless with this kind of thing. Didn’t exactly attend law school. The judge accepted written receipts from her for proof of expenses for the child. So, she could be coming up with this stuff off the top of her head. Can we call Better business bureau to find out if these places even exist?
Any advice would be very helpful. thank you
I apologize for making my fiancee sound like a deadbeat. apparantly i did. He is more than willing to pay as much as his son needs. We feel like his ex wife is benefitting from this for herself more than his son. His son is not benefitting from the entire amount being sent. Trust me.

How much will Obama’s new health plan cost us?
**Mr. Obama’s proposed income-based health-insurance subsidies, tax credits for tiny businesses, and expanded Medicaid eligibility would cost another .63 trillion, according to the TPC. Thus his tax rebates and health insurance subsidies alone would lift the undisclosed bill to future taxpayers by .95 trillion — roughly 5 billion a year by 2012.

The Wall Street Journal did a great article on how much Obama’s plans are going to cost us.

Just wondering if anyone knows how much it truly will cost us all??

How much will his tax plans cost the average American?
**A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money. Altogether, Mr. Obama is promising at least .3 trillion of increased spending and reduced tax revenue from 2009 to 2018 — roughly an extra 0 billion a year by 2012-2013.

How is he going to pay for it?

Raising the tax rates on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than 0,000-0,000, and phasing out their exemptions and deductions, can raise only a small fraction of the amount. Even if we have a strong economy, Mr. Obama’s proposed tax hikes on the dwindling ranks of high earners would be unlikely to raise much more than billion- billion a year by 2012.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122480790550265061.html

Funny…I am ignorant but how do you all think he will pay for his so called reformed health plan? With his 600 million in campaign funds? I think not!
I see no backup on where you got the numbers on McCain’s health care.

Then why doesn’t Obama propose raising money for his plans by limiting the home mortgage deduction to the amount it exceeds 7.5 % of a persons income( the current threshold for medical deductions)? Why doesn’t he propose to make health costs fully deductible for those that itemize? And for those that don’t have a special box on the 1040 & EZ. This box would be the deduction for the amount paid for a private healthcare policy (defined by the government as a basic plan). The companies that could give the best rates would get the most business. Why can’t the government define a basic policy? They define the minimum car insurance I need to carry?
Are is a power grab more important? If passed into law, what will be the anticipated date that these government subsidy/ rebate taxes paid back to taxpayer plans will go broke in the same fashion that medicare, medicaid, and social security are anticipated to run out of money and need more tax dollars from EVERYONE?
medicare is not efficient with the same outcomes – at the present time there are restrictions in medicare eligible care that you can get if you have private insurance. Medicare accounts for 40% of all US health spending yet covers far less than 40% of the US population. When they say they are going to reduce medicare costs they do it by reducing the amount the reimburse providers (leaving disadvantaged patients to pick up the difference & more providers opting out of providing Medicare services increasing the stress on heavily regulated hospitals.
Advances in medicine are available more widely and sooner in the US than anywhere else and most come from the US.
Part of the problem is the legal system which encourages and allows patients hit the lottery. Depending on the specialty it is possible for 30-45% of a Drs salary to go to malpractice insurance. That money has to come from somewhere and many Drs leave the field when able rather than tolerate it.

wouldn’t require either individuals or employers to get coverage.

It avoids expanding the federal role in overseeing the health insurance industry.

it would not set up new federally regulated purchasing pools for individuals and small businesses.

it would allow individuals to use the Internet to purchase lower-cost coverage available anywhere in the country.

The plan would offer tax deductions and tax credits to help make the purchase of health insurance more affordable for individuals.

The GOP bill would take on medical malpractice, limiting jury awards for pain and suffering and creating new health courts in which a specially trained judge would hear and decide cases involving medical negligence.

It isn’t a government take over but entitles everyone to get available insurance and pools the coverages on a website so people can compare and should drive prices down through competition

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/house_GOP_health_bill/2009/07/29/241516.html

EDIT: This is the republican version of reform.

It is NOT a public option. There would be not takeover under this option. It simply seems much better than Hussein Obama’s idea for complete take over.
Edit:

APR: What do we do with an the uninsured? Medicaid is a failure. Ever since Nixon passed that law that enabled the health care to dictate prices they flew up.

1) People buy health insurance for themselves, or receive it through their employers. Whatever cost is not covered is paid by the individual, or through Medicare or Medicaid if eligible. (present system)

2) People pay for their health insurance. Insurance paid for by employers is now treated as income to the individual, but each individual also receives an equivalent tax deduction or credit to buy insurance. (This has the effect of getting employers out of the health insurance business somewhat, and making individuals more active in the process.) Allow for more interstate competition among insurance companies. Individuals pay for whatever is not covered, with some govt assistance if needed.

3) People pay taxes for an insurance system administered the government. The level of coverage (and who pays what "premium" and who gets what service) is determined by the government.

Which do you choose? Why? Are there any additions or changes you would make to my facts?

— Broaden the 1.45-percent Medicare tax on earned income to “passive income,” which could include money from capital gains, rental properties and businesses that do not require direct participation. This could raise 0 billion.

— Levy a five-percent surtax on individuals who earn more than 0,000 and couples that make million.

— Tax health benefits at a higher level than had been considered. Two scenarios are in play. Taxing plans worth more than ,300 for a family and ,300 for an individual could raise 0 billion. Increasing the cut-off to plans worth more than ,000 would bring billion.

— Capping the tax break on itemized deductions at 28 percent, as President Barack Obama had proposed, or freezing the top deduction rate at 35 percent when the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. The first scenario would raise 8 billion, while the second would collect billion.

— Issue tax credit bonds to pay for the proposed Medicaid expansion, raising billion.

— Charge fees to pharmaceutical manufacturers, bringing in as much as billion, and insurance providers, raising billion.

– Raise taxes on sodas and sugary drinks. A 3-cent hike could pick up billion, and a 10-cent hike could make 0 billion. This one already appears out of favor: Many senators have specifically ruled out the sugar tax, and a Senate Democratic source said it was the one option that was clearly not gaining traction with committee members.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24752.html

— Broaden the 1.45-percent Medicare tax on earned income to “passive income,” which could include money from capital gains, rental properties and businesses that do not require direct participation. This could raise 0 billion.

— Levy a five-percent surtax on individuals who earn more than 0,000 and couples that make million.

— Tax health benefits at a higher level than had been considered. Two scenarios are in play. Taxing plans worth more than ,300 for a family and ,300 for an individual could raise 0 billion. Increasing the cut-off to plans worth more than ,000 would bring billion.

— Capping the tax break on itemized deductions at 28 percent, as President Barack Obama had proposed, or freezing the top deduction rate at 35 percent when the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. The first scenario would raise 8 billion, while the second would collect billion.

— Issue tax credit bonds to pay for the proposed Medicaid expansion, raising billion.

— Charge fees to pharmaceutical manufacturers, bringing in as much as billion, and insurance providers, raising billion.

– Raise taxes on sodas and sugary drinks. A 3-cent hike could pick up billion, and a 10-cent hike could make 0 billion. This one already appears out of favor: Many senators have specifically ruled out the sugar tax, and a Senate Democratic source said it was the one option that was clearly not gaining traction with committee members.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24752.html

I’m 22 and a full time student (16 credits). I pay for my own tuition, books, and other misc. school expenses. I also pay a relatively small monthly "boarding fee" to live at home. My parents are dropping me from their insurance this month. I teach music lessons to get through school and have made close to 10K while taking 16 credits. Can they feasibly claim me as a dependent and keep taking tax reducing "education credits" for me? It doesn’t seem to be adding up. I don’t qualify for medicaid and will have to go without insurance. I also pay my own car bill and car insurance.
It seems to me that this year I should be filing as an independent? It is my concern that because I have made 10K, that should they make me file as a dependent I will need to pay more in taxes than if I filed as an independent? I’ve kept good business logs and think with proper deductions I’d pay a lot less as an independent.
Thanks so far everyone. As far as food and clothes go…that is all me. I usually cook for everyone when I am around. Most of what I eat at the house is breakfast, and even with that if we are out of something I go buy it. I didn’t think I had to make an issue out of it until this. Market value for the room is definitely fair game for them (I pay 200 a month for a room in a 4 bedroom house)…but how many people do you know that would move into a house with 3 other people and live in close quarters? I’ve rarely seen that when I was looking for places, and even then it was an elderly person looking to give board to a yardsman. I’d think it would be a conflict of interest with a teenage daughter in the house? I’ll check out that sheet.