Is anyone here still working only for health insurance benefits?

[tfudtuckerpucker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by USGrant1962 Well, it is not the most important issue for the most amount of people. 90% or so of Americans have coverage through employers, Medicare, and Medicaid. About 3% are on ACA exchanges, and the rest uninsured, though many of those are eligible for Medicaid/subsidized ACA/CHIP insurance. A pie chart from 2016 here: SHOW YOUR WORK: Healthcare Coverage Breakout for the Entire U.S. Population in 1 Chart | ACA Signups

That's an interesting link, but there's a reason health care costs are the #1 concern by Americans.
So that would indeed make it most important issue for the most amount of people, correct?

[Fedup]

Yeah, but it’s not the retirees that will be paying if we have free health care. Probably those young millennials who have not get a chance to amass millions from their jobs yet. Here we have a system that people can earn more and save more, then they turn it around and want free healthcare.

[Aerides]

Mod Hat On:

Please let's keep this discussion on the generally interesting subject of healthcare options, vs. the impacts of elections and party representation in congress. Partisan political commentary is not permitted per ER site guidelines.

[ImaCheesehead]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fedup Yeah, but it’s not the retirees that will be paying if we have free health care. Probably those young millennials who have not get a chance to amass millions from their jobs yet. Here we have a system that people can earn more and save more, then they turn it around and want free healthcare.

I don’t feel that I need free health care. I am willing to pay for freedom but if DH leaves his job, goes on an ACA plan and then loses his coverage because insurers no longer have to cover pre existing conditions, we would be in a very bad place.

If my DH could retire someone under him could move up to his job and a new, very well paid technical job with great benefits would open for a millennial. Sure, employment is currently high, but many of the jobs are low paying and have no benefits. He is gumming up the works by not getting out of the way when he financially is able and has the desire to do so.

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImaCheesehead I don’t feel that I need free health care. I am willing to pay for freedom but if DH leaves his job, goes on an ACA plan and then loses his coverage because insurers no longer have to cover pre existing conditions, we would be in a very bad place.

FWIW, the last time the legislature considered major changes to the US health insurance "system", every major proposal included protections for those with pre-existing conditions. The proposals varied in how they would accomplish this, but the objective was standard across the board.

In the short term, I don't think government action will be the source of any changes in the availability or cost of insurance through the ACA marketplace. IMO, changes will be due to the already-in-place policies and resulting dynamics that are at work. These will influence decisions by insurers (whether to offer ACA marketplace plans) and care providers (whether to participate in those plans).

From recent history, we have seen that the ACA marketplace has produced better results in some regions/types of areas than others, so it wouldn't be possible to give a guess about the future that applies everywhere ("Don't worry, you'll find cheap coverage and it will be great!" or "Worry! This thing is falling apart and no one will be spared!")

As USGrant1962 points out, the ACA marketplace insurance is a small part of the total US health insurance "system." It appears to be the most "fragile" part. If a person presently has insurance through an employer and if maintaining their present healthcare costs and access to care is of high importance, then the course of action with the lowest risk is to stay under that present coverage method. Costs and coverage could still change, so keep an eye open for that.

[HtownRose]

In case anyone's interested in joining me:

Today, October 10, at approximately 3 PM Central, the Customer Rep position will post on Southwest.com for New Hire classes in Chicago, Houston, Oklahoma City, and Phoenix in January.

If you have a passion for helping others, a smile in your voice, and would like to join a Company with a Heart, you can apply at careers.southwestair.com.

[gauss]

Not me!

Once the 2012 Presidential election results were known, I had a strong feeling that the ACA was safe and that I could proceed with resigning from my employer of 22 years.

Having access to Community Rated premiums under the ACA is a huge hedge in case one gets really sick.

People often talk about Guarantee Issue with regards to pre-existing conditions, but I feel that the Community Rating of premiums is necessary for this to be of any use. Otherwise medically underwriting of premiums based on health history could effectively price you out of the market.

-gauss
p.s. I have never actually had an ACA policy in that my DW has employer sponsored health insurance.

[Gumby]

In a sense, I guess I have been working for health care. We probably could have retired a few years ago, but I was not eligible for retiree health care until this year. It is a gigantic benefit - $27 per month for the same gold-plated Point of Service group plan I have as an active employee, for both me and the young wife. That is worth almost $20,000 per year in avoided premiums.

Now, we can retire when the current school year ends (the young wife is in her 30th year as a high school teacher).

[kimcdougc]

When DH retired in March of 2015 we had the option of taking the company health insurance as a retiree. It was $2,400 per month so we chose to go on ACA. Fast forward 3.5 years, we are still on ACA and it is horrible and we pay $1,656 per month for it. He can't go back and get the retiree health insurance. You only had that one chance to sign up for it. Live and learn I guess.

Would we go back to work for insurance if the ACA dropped off? Yes, part time I believe.

[Aerides]

Many people ER'd before the ACA, but for sure it does take some of the guess work out.

We started ER planning in the pre-ACA days, but didn't reach our goals until post-ACA. We'll see lower rates with the ACA (first full year will be 2019 for us after using cobra). But I'm going to just count that as a bonus to reduce our SWR until/unless the rates and premiums change significantly.

Depending on how early you wish to ER, vs. how much you need to rely on the stability of the ACA is going to require some extra calculus for those with challenging pre-existing conditions. I mean if I were 45 with a "Pre-aca-uninsurable" condition, yup I'd keep working in some capacity for now, regardless of what happens in the midterms as that can change very 2 years.

But if I were 60? I'd probably risk it. I'm inclined to believe the guts of the ACA will not be undone, and pre-existing is the most popular part of the law. I might be optimistic though.

[Fedup]

I don’t believe the pre-existing conditions will be undone either. But I believe some ACA plans are more expensive than others without subsidy. It also depends on the market. In Southern Cal, my sister uses ACA mostly, even though she has access to COBRA.

My kid is very happy with Kaiser, she gets no subsidy even when she was earning less than $47k.

I would still be working if my husband doesn’t have retiree health plan, except I will look for a job with shorter commute. Either that or move closer to work, eliminate the commute. Which was my original plan but my husband didn’t like the area near the work place.

[pacergal]

I worked to a certain age in order to qualify for heavily subsidized retiree health care, which will cover until medicare.

[marko]

Quote:

Originally Posted by USGrant1962 Well, it is not the most important issue for the most amount of people. 90% or so of Americans have coverage through employers, Medicare, and Medicaid. About 3% are on ACA exchanges, and the rest uninsured, though many of those are eligible for Medicaid/subsidized ACA/CHIP insurance.

Well, I'm paying $15K a year for DW so....there's another category.

[SumDay]

Yes, I WAS working for healthcare until this fall. DH is a heavy user of medical care, and he's 4 years older than I. My plan was to get him on Medicare, which happened this summer, then I retired two months later so I'd get paid for my unused vacation, which has been a nice cushion while waiting on my pension & SS, and his SS @70.

Luckily, for now, my employer offers retiree medical. As a 30+ year employee, this gives me the rate of $500 a month for my individual policy. I was relieved when I got the enrollment packet for 2019, which means I have coverage through next December. If they don't yank the rug out from under me before 2022, I'll can coast until Medicare kicks in. So, now I'm just worrying about 2020 and 2021 now and hoping congress can get their $hit together.

[FireCat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by USGrant1962 Well, it is not the most important issue for the most amount of people. 90% or so of Americans have coverage through employers, Medicare, and Medicaid. About 3% are on ACA exchanges, and the rest uninsured, though many of those are eligible for Medicaid/subsidized ACA/CHIP insurance. A pie chart from 2016 here: SHOW YOUR WORK: Healthcare Coverage Breakout for the Entire U.S. Population in 1 Chart | ACA Signups

That’s just too funny to pass up. USGrant are you kidding me? You must have a nice retirement medical plan keeping you well cared for. I worked 30 years as a fireman in a large metropolitan Fire Dept. I and my beautiful wife retired from nursing early knowing there were no affordable options for us as we don’t have any retirement medical. Oh I could have signed up for the city’s retirement medical plan at $2100 per month but that amounts to over third of our retirement income with high deductibles. Or the ACA with maybe an $18000 premium with $5000 deductibles for each of us. Still I count myself lucky that we are able to find insurance that is affordable. How you might ask. The catch is we have to live or travel outside the US for 180 days or more. We get very good coverage outside or inside the US with a reasonable $1000 deductible. Our total premium for both of us is only $3200 per year. Now that’s affordable. To say that we don’t have a huge healthcare problem with runaway costs ripping off all of us, both those who have healthcare through an employer or otherwise is putting your head in the sand. We feel fortunate that we have the means to travel outside the US and the desire because we have no options for affordable healthcare otherwise.

Peace

[ShokWaveRider]

Quote:

Originally Posted by USGrant1962 Well, it is not the most important issue for the most amount of people. 90% or so of Americans have coverage through employers, Medicare, and Medicaid. About 3% are on ACA exchanges, and the rest uninsured, though many of those are eligible for Medicaid/subsidized ACA/CHIP insurance.

I respectfully disagree, it is not just limited to those on ACA. Every year whether on employee or Medicare one still has to do something about coverage, even if it is just a rubber stamp. I for one do not relish worrying about whether there is still a plan "F" or whatever, or potentially having to go through underwriting to change a plan.

IMHO it should just be healthcare coverage for life. OLD people should not need to worry if they could or could not afford a Medigap or whatever plan.

It IS the most important thing in the USA for most people. Even those who continually have to qualify for Medicaid. I do not know what VA folks have to do annually, if anything.

[Alan]

I worked an extra couple of years to get retiree health insurance. After a few years the subsidies were removed and at $756/month in 2015 for myself and wife I looked into ACA but couldn't get a PPO plan that covered us for all the travel we do so I stuck with the retiree plan until we left the country a year later.

[IBWino]

I switched to part-time (3 days a week) in January instead of fully retiring partly due to health insurance. I still get full benefits, and with the ACA's exclusion of pre-existing conditions being threatened, it seemed prudent at the time. My wife has inherited high blood pressure and high cholesterol from her mother's side of the family and been on medication to treat it for the past thirty years. We're both 57, and based on my research, we could still afford the cost of non-ACA insurance if I fully retired, but it would be about $1500/month.

[Big_Hitter]

i'm budgeting $2K a month for medical

regarding the question, i'm not sure why i'm still w*rking

[ShokWaveRider]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan I worked an extra couple of years to get retiree health insurance. After a few years the subsidies were removed and at $756/month in 2015 for myself and wife I looked into ACA but couldn't get a PPO plan that covered us for all the travel we do so I stuck with the retiree plan until we left the country a year later.

We are seriously considering a move "Back to our Original Home" in the next few years also. Then HC will be one thing less to worry about.