Older Americans may have to postpone retirement under New health bill

Status
Not open for further replies.

ejman

Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Joined
Feb 19, 2007
Messages
2,526
Interesting take from an article in Market watch “It seems entirely plausible that the new rules would discourage older workers from retiring or going out on their own to start a new business — if it means giving up employer-sponsored health coverage,” said Tricia Neuman, a senior vice president and director of the program on Medicare policy at Kaiser Family Foundation."
Older Americans may have to postpone retirement under Republican health bill - MarketWatch
 
Last edited:
There will always be someone wronged and some righted whenever somebody tries to come up with a plan to control someone else's wealth, health and well being.

Employer healthcare came about when the gov't put price and wage freeze around WWII. Employers gave HI instead of increasing wages. By the time the '90's came around, newborn infants were expecting to see a bevy of doctors at their beck and call as soon as they exited the birth canal. And free, of course. I don't know what the answer is.

With car insurance, I pay a premium to pay for catastrophic loss and damage. My insurance does not pay for inspections, mechanical repairs, oil and filter changes. or gas fill ups. [mod edit]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The three elements of health care are
Universal
Accessible
Affordable
No country has gotten more that 2 of the three. Why do Canadians come across the border? because they do nt want to wait to get treated
 
From the article: "Given that possible change, experts say pre-Medicare workers are likely to stay in their jobs longer to keep their employer-sponsored health insurance, even though they may be ready to retire in other ways — financially and emotionally, for instance — to retire."

This is the first time I have ever heard/read that someone might need to be emotionally ready to retire. I think I was emotionally ready to retire at 18. I just didn't have the money.
 
More speculation.

Wait until the (negotiated by both houses) bill becomes law.
Then, adjust your income accordingly. (Live off your home equity, start a small business for the deductions, live off your (already taxed) non-qualified savings, etc.)

Should you have far more income than the threshold for tax credits, you are obviously part of the evil rich and deserve to be punished...(insert smiley emoji here)
 
Postpone retirement?

Many workers don't have that luxury when employers lay off workers 50+ simply because they are too expensive.

Or how about actually being able to find a job that offers medical insurance at 50+?
 
The three elements of health care are
Universal
Accessible
Affordable
No country has gotten more that 2 of the three. Why do Canadians come across the border? because they do nt want to wait to get treated
I had no problem with any of these when I lived in Belgium and use the system there and in the Netherlands.
 
My DIL has no problem with health care in Poland when they go to visit. My son has to pay but it costs a fraction of the price here so they try to do all medical/dental when visiting.
 
Why do Canadians come across the border? because they do nt want to wait to get treated.
+2, thanks for correcting the record. People love to trot out the 'long wait times' argument, mostly out of date by as much as 30 years...my former Megacorp had an Ontario location, and I compared notes with them on healthcare all the time.
I don’t deny that some well-off people might come to the United States for medical care. If I needed a heart or lung transplant, there’s no place I’d rather have it done. But for the vast, vast majority of people, that’s not happening.
 
Last edited:
There will always be someone wronged and some righted whenever somebody tries to come up with a plan to control someone else's wealth, health and well being.
Exactly. We can't have it all, and to be fair we should all be willing to bend, not on generation vs another.

The fundamental problem with healthcare is the underlying cost in the US, about double the rest of the developed world and much higher than any other country. Most of what the "coverage" focuses on is just shifting costs, pitting some patient groups against others - we have to get at the underlying cost to make it more affordable.

Although almost none of the "coverage" mentions it, the proposal includes allowing/promoting competition across state lines and negotiating pharma prices. IMO those are crucial elements, to get at underlying costs, though special interests will vigorously buck it.

“It seems entirely plausible that the new rules would discourage older workers from retiring or going out on their own to start a new business — if it means giving up employer-sponsored health coverage,” said Tricia Neuman, a senior vice president and director of the program on Medicare policy at Kaiser Family Foundation.
Unfortunately this may be the older generations concession. If we can't reduce underlying costs, younger generations may have to pay more, their concession. But we can't just expect younger generations to pay whatever more it costs no matter what.
 
Last edited:
Although almost none of the "coverage" mentions it, the proposal includes allowing/promoting competition across state lines and negotiating pharma prices. IMO those are crucial elements, to get at underlying costs, though special interests will vigorously buck it.

This sounds like a good idea until you realize that insurance is regulated at the state level. What will happen is a race to bottom of regulations on insurance providers so that the state with the crappiest protections for insurees has all the insurance providers.
 
Although almost none of the "coverage" mentions it, the proposal includes allowing/promoting competition across state lines and negotiating pharma prices. IMO those are crucial elements, to get at underlying costs, though special interests will vigorously buck it.
Which provision is this? Do you have a link?
 
Well with your far superior expertise on this subject I knew I was in trouble... :blush:

I swear I saw a summary the first night with all the basic points and "my" other two re: competition, but of course I can't find that now. I did find a couple sources (tweets don't count right :D), but this is the only reputable source I can find today:
A spokesman for Donald Trump sought Monday to elaborate on the president-elect’s plans to replace the Affordable Care Act, vowing that the new administration would lower health-care costs by infusing more competition into the marketplace, including by allowing insurers to sell health plans across state lines.

Trump’s goal is “to get insurance for everybody through marketplace solutions, through bringing costs down, through negotiating with pharmaceutical companies, allowing competition over state lines," Sean Spicer, the incoming White House press secretary, said during an interview on NBC’s “Today” show.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rketplace-competition/?utm_term=.ce426fb410d7

I quickly read through the new proposal (very hard to find) and didn't see the competition references. I hope I overlooked them, but probably not. So I may be ahead of myself. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/4f82iy7d92u0c3a/AmericanHealthCareAct.pdf?dl=0

But I still contend unless we can get at the underlying costs of healthcare in the US, it can't actually be made affordable. And unfortunately I know special interests will do everything they can to preserve hidden pricing and prevent competition.
 
Last edited:
Well with your far superior expertise on this subject I knew I was in trouble... :blush:

I swear I saw a summary the first night with all the basic points and "my" other two re: competition, but of course I can't find that now. I did find a couple sources (tweets don't count right :D), but this is the only reputable source I can find today:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rketplace-competition/?utm_term=.ce426fb410d7

I quickly read through the new proposal (very hard to find) and didn't see the competition references. I hope I overlooked them, but probably not. So I may be ahead of myself. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/4f82iy7d92u0c3a/AmericanHealthCareAct.pdf?dl=0

But I still contend unless we can get at the underlying costs of healthcare in the US, it can't actually be made affordable. And unfortunately I know special interests will do everything they can to preserve hidden pricing and prevent competition.
There are experts here, I'm not one, but do know that one of the best part of being retired is all the time to read. Once in a while it pays off. :)

Crossing state lines is "so far" part of the rhetoric surrounding the initiatives, but AFAIK is not part of either of yesterday's proposals, so there is nothing concrete to discuss. You are absolutely correct that the cost of health care needs to be affordable, and it is not.
 
Last edited:
Now that I'm a few months away from 65, when I hear/read the words "Older Americans" I think of someone in their 70's.

Of course, those folks would be on Medicare, so not sure how old you have to be to be an older American impacted by the new health bill, considering (AFAIK) nothing comes into effect for 3 more years, if at all.

"Oh, those poor old people, no health insurance!"

Sorry, most everyone I know who retired early never saw HC as an obstacle; before or after ACA
 
Last edited:
Now that I'm a few months away from 65, when I hear/read the words "Older Americans" I think of someone in their 70's.

Many years ago, we overheard a conversation between several high school aged girls.

"I work with an older woman at <clothing store>. She is sorta different, but I guess she is OK."

"How old is she? She sounds nice."

"Oh, she's old, probably something like 28."
 
Interesting take from an article in Market watch “It seems entirely plausible that the new rules would discourage older workers from retiring or going out on their own to start a new business — if it means giving up employer-sponsored health coverage,” said Tricia Neuman, a senior vice president and director of the program on Medicare policy at Kaiser Family Foundation." http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ol...ement-under-republican-health-bill-2017-03-07



So this will be a new thing?

Please......
 
Now that I'm a few months away from 65, when I hear/read the words "Older Americans" I think of someone in their 70's.

Of course, those folks would be on Medicare, so not sure how old you have to be to be an older American impacted by the new health bill, considering (AFAIK) nothing comes into effect for 3 more years, if at all.

"Oh, those poor old people, no health insurance!"

Sorry, most everyone I know who retired early never saw HC as an obstacle; before or after ACA

Before the ACA, qualifying and finding affordable health insurance was a huge topic on this and other ER forums. There are probably hundreds if not thousand of older posts on the subject on this forum alone. On the Reddit financial independence forum concerns about potential ACA changes are a game changer for many who wanted to ER.
 
Last edited:
There are experts here, I'm not one, but do know that one of the best part of being retired is all the time to read. Once in a while it pays off. :)

Crossing state lines is "so far" part of the rhetoric surrounding the initiatives, but AFAIK is not part of either of yesterday's proposals, so there is nothing concrete to discuss. You are absolutely correct that the cost of health care needs to be affordable, and it is not.
Cross state line. I think I've heard it's on another provision so it can't be filibuster. IIRC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom