Join Early Retirement Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-21-2014, 02:48 PM   #21
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 1,878
Although HIPAA was supposed to help, it didn't do much. They had to offer a policy, they could make the premiums so high that it defacto denied you. As recently as 2009 big insurers were called before congress to testify concerning rescission practices

Insurers Revoke Policies To Avoid Paying High Costs : NPR

Blue Cross praised employees who dropped sick policyholders, lawmaker says - Los Angeles Times

Pre existing conditions can be anything they choose just because they don't want to sell you insurance. Pretty much when you got 50+ you were in that boat.

Most people I know that have "real" preexisting conditions were already insured and clinging on with everything they had to keep that job for insurance. A lot of us that have been denied are perfectly healthy and just want to be able to buy health insurance for the same reason you buy any insurance, just in case...
__________________

__________________
rbmrtn is offline  
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 03-21-2014, 03:10 PM   #22
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by urn2bfree View Post
I think it is funny when people who are against the ACA or maybe just against anything tied to the current President argue that this aspect of the law that lets people use the ACA to quit is "another" "bad" aspect of this law! They usually frame it as making people lazy, reducing employment, noting reduced number of workers, etc.
I don't get it- if I were an employer whom would I want working for me- people who want to be working there or people who only remain working there because they have to in order to have health insurance? Which group is likely to be the better employees? Is a fearful dependent employee really better than a satisfied employee? Isn't this ability to separate health insurance from employment an example of "if you love someone, set them free, etc....?"
If I wasn't expected to subsidize their insurance when they quit, I could care less. It's the quit/not get another job/ oh, yea, subsidize me for doing that that literally angers me. It's absurd.
__________________

__________________
gerntz is offline  
Old 03-21-2014, 03:12 PM   #23
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Live Free View Post
I'd like to see the tie between work and insurance eliminated altogether.
Eliminating the wage deduction for employer provided health insurance would do it for me. If an employer still wants to offer & the employee buy, fine. If (s)he buys elsewhere, fine too.
__________________
gerntz is offline  
Old 03-21-2014, 03:18 PM   #24
Full time employment: Posting here.
Al in Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Columbus OH
Posts: 688
Quote:
Originally Posted by easysurfer View Post
I know when doing the iQuit, health insurance was the final piece of the puzzle. This was back in 2008 but I was healthy enough to get a private policy so it was see you later alligator to Megacorp.

Easy. Just curious how old were you st the time?
__________________
Ohio INTJ ENG ER Hopeful
Al in Ohio is offline  
Old 03-21-2014, 03:19 PM   #25
Full time employment: Posting here.
Al in Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Columbus OH
Posts: 688
Quote:
Originally Posted by urn2bfree View Post
I think it is funny when people who are against the ACA or maybe just against anything tied to the current President argue that this aspect of the law that lets people use the ACA to quit is "another" "bad" aspect of this law! They usually frame it as making people lazy, reducing employment, noting reduced number of workers, etc.
I don't get it- if I were an employer whom would I want working for me- people who want to be working there or people who only remain working there because they have to in order to have health insurance? Which group is likely to be the better employees? Is a fearful dependent employee really better than a satisfied employee? Isn't this ability to separate health insurance from employment an example of "if you love someone, set them free, etc....?"

Very well said. Great point.
__________________
Ohio INTJ ENG ER Hopeful
Al in Ohio is offline  
Old 03-21-2014, 03:42 PM   #26
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 16,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Live Free View Post
... I'd like to see the tie between work and insurance eliminated altogether.
+1 it was a dumb idea to begin with and as I understand it a response to some different government meddling.
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.
pb4uski is online now  
Old 03-21-2014, 03:45 PM   #27
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Chuckanut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: West of the Mississippi
Posts: 6,330
I know a number of people who retired early because they could finally get medical insurance. They had the financial resources to retire, but were afraid one illness would wipe them out.

My totaly empirical observation is that ACA has created a number of new jobs for younger workers. And I don't just mean the bureaucracy that administers the program.
__________________
The worst decisions are usually made in times of anger and impatience.
Chuckanut is online now  
Old 03-21-2014, 03:49 PM   #28
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post
+1 it was a dumb idea to begin with and as I understand it a response to some different government meddling.
+2. It makes even less sense to lose your health insurance when you leave or lose a job as it would be to lose your car or homeowners insurance.

It dates back to a way employers used to try to get around World War II wage controls.
__________________
daylatedollarshort is offline  
Old 03-21-2014, 04:15 PM   #29
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Humble
Posts: 188
I think it's a huge incentive. LOTS of people at my megacorp, burned out and ready to go. One poster is right, the managers are the ones that should be worried. They've eliminated so many positions, that losing one or two key people can really leave the dept in the lurch. Oh wait, they're managers, they won't worry about it
__________________
Turn_the_Page is offline  
Old 03-21-2014, 04:45 PM   #30
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by easysurfer View Post
I know when doing the iQuit, health insurance was the final piece of the puzzle. This was back in 2008 but I was healthy enough to get a private policy so it was see you later alligator to Megacorp.
While it wasn't the last piece of my ER puzzle back in 2008, it was one of the last. That policy's premiums jumped 50% in the next 2 years (2010 and 2011) so I had to drop it for a bare-bones policy which was not ACA-compliant. However, by the time I dropped it, the ACA had already been passed and signed into law so I knew this was a short-term move until the start of this year.
__________________
Retired in late 2008 at age 45. Cashed in company stock, bought a lot of shares in a big bond fund and am living nicely off its dividends. IRA, SS, and a pension await me at age 60 and later. No kids, no debts.

"I want my money working for me instead of me working for my money!"
scrabbler1 is online now  
Old 03-21-2014, 05:33 PM   #31
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerntz View Post
If I wasn't expected to subsidize their insurance when they quit, I could care less. It's the quit/not get another job/ oh, yea, subsidize me for doing that that literally angers me. It's absurd.
+1

FIRE is fine, but something else for able-bodied non-FI to ER on someone else's hard-earned $$. As recent history proves, if too many in a society do that entire economies collapse.
__________________
ERhoosier is offline  
Old 03-21-2014, 06:38 PM   #32
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbmrtn View Post
Although HIPAA was supposed to help, it didn't do much.....
Obviously not a real solution, but it did help significantly. I know way too many folks who truly were trapped in bad jobs until HIPAA. For the 1st time folks (or family members) with serious pre-existing conditions could switch to better jobs & employer HI plans without having to go uninsured during long waiting periods which were typical pre-HIPAA. Agree 100% that HIPAA did not solve hte big HI/HC cost issue.
But in fairness the situation ain't that different under ACA. The rich still can buy whatever care they want, and lower income folks have Medicaid &/or ACA subsidies. But millions of middle-class (or better) with MAGI's just a bit too hi for subsidies are still forced to continue w#rking to 65 & Medicare eligibility, or burn thru their hard-earned nest eggs. Consider a reasonably well-off 60 yo couple with significant chronic health conditions looking to ER from their small business with $2M nest egg. Seems like solidly FIRE territory with 3.5% SWR yielding them $70k in annual investment income. But HC costs remain basically unaffordable to these folks (i.e. total HC costs approaching half their net (after-tax) income).
According to fig's from KFF's subsidy calc for US ave: Silver Plan for 60yo non-smoking couple $13,800/yr (non-deductible) + $12,700/yr OOPmax (plus misc HC expenses not covered).

Neither HIPAA nor ACA tamed the 800# gorilla of astronomical & ever increasing overall HC costs.
__________________
ERhoosier is offline  
Old 03-21-2014, 06:57 PM   #33
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerntz View Post
If I wasn't expected to subsidize their insurance when they quit, I could care less. It's the quit/not get another job/ oh, yea, subsidize me for doing that that literally angers me. It's absurd.
Before the ACA, our tax free, employer subsidized $300 a month health care premiums went to $2,300 a month for a post COBRA policy, after DH retired from his job.

I think it is absurd to have to work a W2 job we otherwise wouldn't need just to obtain affordable, employer subsidized health insurance. I think it is better for us to be out of the workforce and leave a job or two open for people who would otherwise be unemployed, and maybe keep them off unemployment benefits, Medicaid and food stamps.
__________________
daylatedollarshort is offline  
Old 03-21-2014, 07:00 PM   #34
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERhoosier View Post
+1

FIRE is fine, but something else for able-bodied non-FI to ER on someone else's hard-earned $$. As recent history proves, if too many in a society do that entire economies collapse.
What recent history?
__________________
daylatedollarshort is offline  
Old 03-21-2014, 07:42 PM   #35
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by urn2bfree View Post
I think it is funny when people who are against the ACA or maybe just against anything tied to the current President argue that this aspect of the law that lets people use the ACA to quit is "another" "bad" aspect of this law! They usually frame it as making people lazy, reducing employment, noting reduced number of workers, etc.
I don't get it- if I were an employer whom would I want working for me- people who want to be working there or people who only remain working there because they have to in order to have health insurance? Which group is likely to be the better employees? Is a fearful dependent employee really better than a satisfied employee? Isn't this ability to separate health insurance from employment an example of "if you love someone, set them free, etc....?"
Huh? Employers do not need to retain under achieving employees. This includes poor performers who "hang around just for the health benefits." Depending on the situation, employees who do not offer sufficient value to the employer are more likely to be let go during layoffs or they are fired. Likewise, employers compensate for lower performance via salary differentials. Employers, at least those in the private sector, do not need the ACA to "set employees free." Employers have no trouble setting employees free on their own. Employers regularly terminate the employment of millions of people every year.

Most laws, even controversial ones, have positive aspects and negative aspects. If the ACA is motivating a significant number of individuals to voluntarily leave the workforce, this is not a positive aspect of the law. While it may be good for individuals, it is not good for society at large. It lowers productivity. It is clearly not good for businesses that would otherwise choose to keep these people on the company payroll because they offer something of value (i.e., human capital). If encouraging people to leave the workforce is such a good idea then the social security retirement age should be lowered to 60.
__________________
Shawn is offline  
Old 03-21-2014, 08:20 PM   #36
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,929
Summary: Health insurance shall be allocated only to productive labor units. Unproductive labor units shouldn't have health insurance. In fact, unproductive labor units should probably be sold to the Soylent Corporation for effective repurposing, salvage, or reclamation.

That seems to be the general drift I'm getting from the punditverse.
__________________
M Paquette is offline  
Old 03-21-2014, 08:22 PM   #37
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerntz View Post
If I wasn't expected to subsidize their insurance when they quit, I could care less. It's the quit/not get another job/ oh, yea, subsidize me for doing that that literally angers me. It's absurd.
But remember that workers in employer-based plans are not taxed on the employer subsidy portion of the premium, so they are also getting a government subsidy but in an indirect manner. The ACA subsidies merely try to even out this inequity.
__________________
Retired in late 2008 at age 45. Cashed in company stock, bought a lot of shares in a big bond fund and am living nicely off its dividends. IRA, SS, and a pension await me at age 60 and later. No kids, no debts.

"I want my money working for me instead of me working for my money!"
scrabbler1 is online now  
Old 03-21-2014, 09:16 PM   #38
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Paquette View Post
Summary: Health insurance shall be allocated only to productive labor units. Unproductive labor units shouldn't have health insurance. In fact, unproductive labor units should probably be sold to the Soylent Corporation for effective repurposing, salvage, or reclamation.

That seems to be the general drift I'm getting from the punditverse.
The Congressional Budget Office director has said the ACA will reduce unemployment -

CBO director: Obamacare will reduce unemployment

I am not sure how that is getting spun into a bad thing.
__________________
daylatedollarshort is offline  
Old 03-21-2014, 09:31 PM   #39
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 1,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by daylatedollarshort View Post
The Congressional Budget Office director has said the ACA will reduce unemployment -

CBO director: Obamacare will reduce unemployment

I am not sure how that is getting spun into a bad thing.
Works against the Cheap Labor principle
__________________
razztazz is offline  
Old 03-21-2014, 10:13 PM   #40
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by daylatedollarshort View Post
What recent history?
Greece is an economic basket case after decades of overly generous spending on social benefit programs the nation could not afford. It's an economy remaining afloat only via EU bailouts. Even Sweden, the historical bastion of social welfare, pulled back after overall public spending ht 70+% of GDP.

I'm not saying all subsidies in ACA are bad, but to the extent they DIScourage productivity they risk harming the economy. The overall standard of living, inc HC spending/benefits, of any country ultimately depends on per capita GDP. A directed HI tax credit to individuals, NOT their employers, would sever the HI/j#b link & let folks pursue vocations/interests they enjoy. Inc. PT, FT, or OT w#rk without affecting their HI arrangement. Happy w#rkers tend to be more productive, and many successful small (& not so small) businesses started out as hobbies.
__________________

__________________
ERhoosier is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The New Health Care Law, Health Ins & 'New Plans' dex FIRE and Money 14 06-28-2010 07:36 AM
A mystery for readers to ponder donheff Other topics 23 09-28-2009 03:52 PM
Something for retirees to ponder. UncleHoney Other topics 17 02-26-2008 12:39 PM
Another Value vs Growth article to ponder mickeyd FIRE and Money 1 08-18-2007 05:43 PM
Suggestion: Detailed data for 95% rule option and Bernicke option. Sam FIRECalc support 2 03-25-2007 08:16 AM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:54 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.