Can I deduct my individual Health Insurance Premium in Tax
"Yes, you can. See the instructions for line 29 of form 1040. Self employed health insurance premiums are an ""above the line"" deduction."
&gt;Starting in 2014, the hiring of a company's 50th worker will cost an extra $40,000 per year.  Assuming 19 employees *do not have qualifying coverage* (FTA the first 30 are exempt)  &gt;This is one reason the unemployment rate is still above 8 percent three years after the end of the recession. Employers plan ahead.  Reaching.   &gt;$750 a year, is too small relative to the cost of health care coverage -- about $5,500 a year. Because insurance companies are required to take all applicants, healthy people (especially the young) would be wise to pay the penalty rather than buy the insurance. This makes the pool of insured individuals sicker and more costly, on average, and their premiums will higher. With higher premiums, more people will choose to pay the penalty, and a downward spiral will unfold.  An assumption that no healthy person wants to pay for insurance means the whole system will fall apart?  A lot of broad assumptions, although it is an OpEd. "Evaluate if the Rs 5 million term insurance is sufficient. Typically the term insurance provided by employer is in the range of 1 to 3 times the gross. Generally one should be covered in the range of 5 to 10 times the Gross. The sooner you start the lesser the premium and you can get insured for a large amount for a long duration at very nominal rate.  NOTE:  You can also buy a health insurance for your father, note these typically come at high cost, generally if over 70 years of age, 25% is the premium amount and 25% as co-pay. So if your dad doesn't fall ill once in 3 years, its a loss making proposition. Edit: Accident insurance best take is along with rider on term plan. Additional Health insurance is a good idea and helps if you are in between jobs. Plus the new company health insurance can reject a particular treatment as ""Pre-Existing"". i.e. certain illness [in certain plans] require one to have coverage for 3 years before the claim for it can be covered." I like this part:  &gt;Because insurance companies are required to take all applicants, healthy people (especially the young) would be wise to pay the penalty rather than buy the insurance. This makes the pool of insured individuals sicker and more costly, on average, and their premiums will higher. With higher premiums, more people will choose to pay the penalty, and a downward spiral will unfold.  Which is the exact opposite of reality.  If you have more people in an insurance pool, premium costs go down, which is the whole point of the individual mandate.  It's like they're trying to scare people to not buy health insurance and waste it on a fine instead.  Real nice. In all probability, having lower coverage levels will result in higher premiums. As my insurance agent explained to me, the higher your coverages, the lower the insurance company believes your risk to be - because you think about insurance smartly, you're less likely to make spurious claims. I have my coverages run at various levels every 18-24 months, and it is almost always true that higher coverages result in lower premiums. Also, there is no guarantee you'll still be employed by the same company if an injury happens. Or that they'll continue to offer the same plans every year. Insurance is a calculated risk on the part of the insurer, and a means of sharing/deflecting risk (at a cost known as your premium) on the part of the insured. Even if your premiums are slightly higher (on the order of a couple dollars per month, for example), do you really want to save a couple dollars and then be surprised when your health insurance company doesn't want to cover something? "There are many people who have deductions far above the standard deduction, but still don't itemize. That's their option even though it comes at a cost. It may be foolish, but it's not illegal.  If @littleadv citation is correct, the 'under penalty of perjury' type issue, what of those filers who file a Schedule A but purposely leave off their donations? I've seen many people discuss charity, and write that they do not want to benefit in any way from their donation, yet, still Schedule A their mortgage and property tax. Their returns are therefore fraudulent.  I am curious to find a situation in which the taxpayer benefits from such a purposeful oversight, or, better still, a cited case where they were charged with doing so. I've offered advice on filings return that wasn't ""truthful"". When you own a stock and cannot find cost basis, there are times that you might realize the basis is so low that just entering zero will cost you less than $100 in extra tax. You are not truthful, of course, but this kind of false statement isn't going to lead to any issue. If it gets noticed within an audit, no agent is going to give it more than a moment of time and perhaps suggest, ""you didn't even know the year it was bought?"" but there would be no consequence.  My answer is for personal returns, I'm sure for business, accuracy to the dollar is actually important." "Even though this isn't really personal finance related I still feel like there are some misconceptions here that could be addressed. I don't know where you got the phrase ""pass-through"" insurance from.  What you're describing is a self-funded plan.  In a self-funded arrangement an employer contracts a third-party-administrator (TPA), usually one of the big health insurance carriers, to use it's provider network, process and adjudicate claims, etc.  In addition to the TPA there will be some sort of stop-loss insurance coverage on each participant.  Stop-loss coverage usually provides a maximum amount of risk on a given member and on the entire population for a given month and/or year and/or lifetime.  The employer's risk is in between the plan deductible and the stop loss coverage (assuming the stop-loss doesn't have a maximum). Almost all of the claim dollars in a given plan will come from very very few people.  These costs typically arise out of very unforeseen diagnoses not chronic issues.  A cancer patient can easily cost $1,000,000 in a year.  Someone's diabetes maintenance medicine or other chronic maintenance will cost no where near what a botched surgery will in a year. If we take a step back there are really four categories of employer insurance. Small group is tightly regulated.  Usually plan premiums are filed with a state authority, there is no negotiating, your group's underwriting performance has zero impact on your premiums.   Employers have no way of obtaining any medical/claim information on employees. Mid-market is a pooled arrangement.  The overall pool has a total increase, and your particular group performs better or worse than the pool which may impact premiums.  Employers get very minor claims data, things like the few highest claims, or number of claims over a certain threshold, but no employee specific information. Large-group is a mostly unpooled arrangement.  Generally your group receives it's own rating based on its individual underwriting performance.  In general the carrier is offloading some risk to a stop-loss carrier and employer's get a fair amount of insight in to claims, though again, not with employee names. Self-funded is obviously self-contained.  The employer sets up a claims checking account.  The TPA has draft authority on the account.  The employee's typically have no idea the plan is self funded, their ID cards will have the carrier logo, and the carrier deals with them just as it would any other member.  Generally when a company is this size it has a separate benefits committee, those few people will have some level of insight in to claims performance and stop-loss activity.  This committee will have nothing to do with the hiring process. There are some new partially self-funded arrangements, which is just a really low-threshold  (and relatively expensive) stop-loss program, that's becoming somewhat popular in the mid-market group size as employers attempt to reduce medical spend.   I think when you start thinking on a micro, single employee level, you really lose sight of the big picture.  Why would an employer hire this guy who has this disease/chronic problem that costs $50,000 per year?  And logically you can get to the conclusion that with a self-funded plan it literally costs the company the money so the company has an incentive not to hire the person.  I understand the logic of the argument, but at the self funded level the plan is typically costing north of half a million dollars each month.  So a mid-level HR hiring manager 1. isn't aware of specific plan claims or costs and is not part of the benefits executive committee, 2. won't be instructed to screen for health deficiencies because it's against the law, 3. a company generally won't test the water here because $50,000 per year is less than 1% of the company's annual medical expenses, 4. $50,000 is well below the cost to litigate a discrimination law-suit.    Really the flaw in your thought process is that $50,000 in annual medical expense is a lot.  A harsh child-birth can run in the $250,000 range, so these companies never hire women?  Or never hire men who could add a spouse who's in child bearing years?  Or never hire women who might have a female spouse who could be in child bearing years?  A leukemia diagnosis will ratchet up $1,000,000 in a year.  Spend a bit of time in intensive care for $25,000 per day and you're fired?  A few thousand bucks on diabetes meds isn't anything relative to the annual cost of your average self-funded plan. The second flaw is that the hiring managers get insight in to specific claims.  They don't. Third, you don't hand over medical records on your resume anyway. I typed this out in one single draft and have no intention of editing anything.  I just wanted paint a broad picture, I'm sure things can be nit-picked or focused on." "This is called ""Net Operating Loss"", and it is in fact applicable for individuals as well. You can, under certain circumstances, have NOL even as an individual. But it is far more common in the corporate world. What happens is that you can carry it back or forward, and get refund on taxes paid or adjust income for taxes to pay. In your example, you could carry the $75 NOL back and deduct it from the prior year earnings, reducing the taxable income from $100 to $25, getting $18.75 of the $25 paid as taxes - back. The link is for individual NOL, corporate rules are different, but the principle is the same." "You can deduct what you pay for your own and your family's health insurance regardless of whether it is subsidized by your employer or not, as well  as all other medical and dental expenses for your family, as an itemized deduction on Schedule A of Form 1040, but only to the extent that the  total exceeds 7.5% of your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) (10% on tax returns for year 2013 onwards). As pointed out in KeithB's comment, you cannot deduct any health insurance premium (or other medical expense) that was paid for out of pre-tax dollars, nor indeed can you deduct any medical expense to the extent that  it was paid for by the insurance company directly to hospital or doctor (or reimbursed to you) for a covered expense; e.g. if the insurance company reimbursed you $72 for a claim for a doctor's visit for which you paid $100 to the doctor, only $28 goes on Schedule A to be added to the amount that you will be comparing to the 7.5% of AGI threshold, and the $72 is not income to you that needs to be reported on Form 1040. Depending on other items on Schedule A, your total itemized deductions might not exceed the standard deduction, in which case you will likely choose to use the standard deduction. In this case, you ""lose"" the deduction for medical expenses as well as all other expenses deductible on Schedule A. Summary of some of the discussions in the comments   Health care insurance premiums cannot be paid for   from HSA accounts (IRS Pub 969, page 8, column 2, near   the bottom) though there are some exceptions.  Nor   can health care insurance premiums be paid from an   FSA account (IRS Pub 969, page 17, column 1, near the top). If you have a business on the side and file a Schedule C as a self-employed person, you can buy medical insurance for that business's employees (and their families too, if you like) as an employment benefit, and pay for it out of the income of the Schedule C business, (thus saving on taxes). But be aware that if you have employees other than yourself in the side business, they would need to be covered by the same policy too.  You can even decide to pay all medical expenses of your employees and their families too (no 7.5% limitation there!) as an employment benefit but again, you cannot discriminate against other employees (if any) of the Schedule C business in this matter.  Of course, all this money that reduced your Schedule C income does not go on Schedule A at all. If your employer permits your family to be covered under its health insurance plan (for a cost, of course), check whether you are allowed to pay for the insurance with pre-tax dollars.  The private (non-Schedule C) insurance would, of course, be paid for with post-tax dollars.  I would doubt that  you would be able to save enough money on taxes to make up the difference between $1330/month and $600/month, but it might also be that the private insurance policy covers a lot less than your employer's policy does.  As a rule of thumb, group insurance through an employer can be expected to offer better coverage than privately purchased insurance. Whether the added coverage is worth the additional cost is a  different matter.  But while considering this matter, keep in mind that privately purchased insurance is not  always guaranteed to be renewable, and a company might decline to renew a policy if there were a large number of claims. A replacement policy might not cover pre-existing conditions for some time (six months? a year?) or maybe even permanently.  So, do consider these aspects as well.  Of course, an employer can also change health insurance plans or drop them entirely as an employment benefit (or you might quit and go work for a different company), but as long as the employer's health plan is in existence, you (and continuing members of your family) cannot be discriminated against and denied coverage under the employer's plan."