Join Early Retirement Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 06-26-2015, 10:02 AM   #41
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 204
^^ Yes. The "retail price" of our policies is now $11K. The subsidy is $10K . If the retail price goes to $13K and I have to pay $3K rather than $1K, well OK. I can shop a bit harder. So the subsidy serves as a pretty big insulator to policy increases, at least in our case.
__________________

__________________
.................................
A life without beer is not worth living
Nunthewiser 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 06-26-2015, 10:06 AM   #42
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Big_Hitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: In the fairway
Posts: 4,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by DFW_M5 View Post
I am surprised at how costly this plan is for a 23 yo
the reason these plans are so expensive for young people is the ACA 3 to 1 rule - you can't charge someone more than 3 times what another pays so young people pay more
__________________

__________________
Swing hard, look up
Big_Hitter is offline  
Old 06-26-2015, 10:09 AM   #43
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrabbler1 View Post
Before the ACA, trying to buy an affordable individual HI policy here in New York was impossible. I had used ehealthinsurance to find my first policy in 2009. That's the one whose premiums rose nearly 50% in 2 years. It was either that or the policy which left me vastly underinsured. Let's say there was no ACA and I stayed with that policy instead of dropping it in early 2011 when I was paying nearly $700 per month (1 person, me). If the premiums rose only 7% per year over the next 4 years, bringing me to this year. I'd be paying about $900 per month (again, for ONE person only).

This makes the ACA a bargain even without any subsidies. Anthem had filed for a 14% increase this year but the NY Insurance Dept. cut it back to about 7%. They are filing for another 14% for 2016 but who knows if the NYID will cut that back, too. But, unlike the days before the ACA, I have lots more choices now than I had in 2011. I can change the type (i.e. metal) of my plan from Silver to Bronze. There are many more companies selling insurance now than there were in 2011 I can switch to.

The ACA has been a godsend for me, making insurance affordable without being underinsured.
Can you explain this? Im still really confused about the whole ACA thing. If you're not eligible for a subsidy, is there any difference between an ACA policy and buying a policy using ehealthisurnace or healthsherpa?
__________________
utrecht is offline  
Old 06-26-2015, 10:19 AM   #44
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Big_Hitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: In the fairway
Posts: 4,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by utrecht View Post
Can you explain this? Im still really confused about the whole ACA thing. If you're not eligible for a subsidy, is there any difference between an ACA policy and buying a policy using ehealthisurnace or healthsherpa?
shouldn't be
__________________
Swing hard, look up
Big_Hitter is offline  
King v Burwell (ACA Subsidies) Decision Announced
Old 06-26-2015, 10:24 AM   #45
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Mulligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,381
King v Burwell (ACA Subsidies) Decision Announced

Quote:
Originally Posted by utrecht View Post
Can you explain this? Im still really confused about the whole ACA thing. If you're not eligible for a subsidy, is there any difference between an ACA policy and buying a policy using ehealthisurnace or healthsherpa?

New York pre ACA had guarantee issue like ACA. However it did not have the subsidies and such to help bring in a healthier pool of insured to keep premium costs down. If you were healthy and not a high income person it wasn't worth the cost of the insurance. NY had at one point only 15,000 or so population in the individual market out of 20 million people. It just cost too much. MO where I live had 4-5 times the amount of people with individual insurance despite being a quarter of the population. Of course its insurance was way more affordable, but they underwrote the policies so they could reject unhealthy people applying.
As far as today....There really isnt a meaningful difference in where you get your plan now if you don't get a subsidy. I went through ehealth to avoid all the hassle of .gov.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
__________________
Mulligan is offline  
Old 06-26-2015, 10:25 AM   #46
Moderator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky Inlets
Posts: 24,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_Hitter View Post
the reason these plans are so expensive for young people is the ACA 3 to 1 rule - you can't charge someone more than 3 times what another pays so young people pay more
Actually, ACA pricing makes policies for younger people less expensive. Large group policies offered by employers do not charge for age, the rate is the same for all employees. The premium for a 30 year old is higher for the employer policy compared with an individual plan. The introduction of age based pricing was intended to make policies for young people less expensive, thus encouraging them to enroll.
__________________
MichaelB is online now  
King v Burwell (ACA Subsidies) Decision Announced
Old 06-26-2015, 10:36 AM   #47
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Mulligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,381
King v Burwell (ACA Subsidies) Decision Announced

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
Actually, ACA pricing makes policies for younger people less expensive. Large group policies offered by employers do not charge for age, the rate is the same for all employees. The premium for a 30 year old is higher for the employer policy compared with an individual plan. The introduction of age based pricing was intended to make policies for young people less expensive, thus encouraging them to enroll.

In my state anyways, individual insurance was always charged in relation to age. Compared to group plans I imagine you are correct. Especially if your company was all 50 year olds and you were the only 25 year old.
But in the individual market pre ACA you were always charged in relation to your age band. I am going off total memory and could be faulty. But there was a minor uproar when rules were being set that the young were in effect subsidizing the older at 3-1. I could have sworn in traditional pre ACA individual market the ratio difference was closer to 5-1.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
__________________
Mulligan is offline  
Old 06-26-2015, 10:37 AM   #48
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Big_Hitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: In the fairway
Posts: 4,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
Actually, ACA pricing makes policies for younger people less expensive. Large group policies offered by employers do not charge for age, the rate is the same for all employees. The premium for a 30 year old is higher for the employer policy compared with an individual plan. The introduction of age based pricing was intended to make policies for young people less expensive, thus encouraging them to enroll.
that's certainly an issue for employers to consider, I was talking about individual plans on the exchanges

if someone jumps the company ship and goes to an exchange to get a subsidy then there is a penalty involved
__________________
Swing hard, look up
Big_Hitter is offline  
Old 06-26-2015, 10:39 AM   #49
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Big_Hitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: In the fairway
Posts: 4,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulligan View Post
I am going off total memory and could be faulty. But there was a minor uproar when rules were being set that the young were in effect subsidizing the older at 3-1. I could have sworn in traditional pre ACA individual market the ratio difference was closer to 5-1.

Your memory is correct. The true cost is closer to 5-1 so the 3 to 1 rule sticks it to the young uns.
__________________
Swing hard, look up
Big_Hitter is offline  
Old 06-26-2015, 10:45 AM   #50
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_Hitter View Post
that's certainly an issue for employers to consider, I was talking about individual plans on the exchanges

if someone jumps the company ship and goes to an exchange to get a subsidy then there is a penalty involved
I do not think you qualify for a subsidy if you are working and offered a plan....

OR, do you mean actually quitting a job just to get on an exchange to get a subsidy That does not make much sense to me....
__________________
Texas Proud is online now  
Old 06-26-2015, 10:57 AM   #51
Moderator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky Inlets
Posts: 24,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_Hitter View Post
that's certainly an issue for employers to consider, I was talking about individual plans on the exchanges

if someone jumps the company ship and goes to an exchange to get a subsidy then there is a penalty involved

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulligan View Post
In my state anyways, individual insurance was always charged in relation to age. Compared to group plans I imagine you are correct. Especially if your company was all 50 year olds and you were the only 25 year old.
But in the individual market pre ACA you were always charged in relation to your age band. I am going off total memory and could be faulty. But there was a minor uproar when rules were being set that the young were in effect subsidizing the older at 3-1. I could have sworn in traditional pre ACA individual market the ratio difference was closer to 5-1.
Most insured 30 year olds in the US were, and still are, in group plans. The rate for them is higher than in the individual market. It doesn't matter who pays, the rates are still higher.

Individual policy premiums for some 30 year olds in the pre-ACA days were lower. That is an artificial point of comparison, however, because so many were excluded and insurers regularly rescinded policies after the fact.

Introducing age into insurance pricing was, and still is, a way to exclude individuals from groups and keep costs artificially low.
__________________
MichaelB is online now  
Old 06-26-2015, 11:08 AM   #52
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Big_Hitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: In the fairway
Posts: 4,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
I do not think you qualify for a subsidy if you are working and offered a plan....

OR, do you mean actually quitting a job just to get on an exchange to get a subsidy That does not make much sense to me....
I think you can still qualify if your employer coverage isn't "affordable" (exceeds 9.5% of agi) and you are under the 400% fpl
__________________
Swing hard, look up
Big_Hitter is offline  
Old 06-26-2015, 11:17 AM   #53
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Mulligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
Most insured 30 year olds in the US were, and still are, in group plans. The rate for them is higher than in the individual market. It doesn't matter who pays, the rates are still higher.

Individual policy premiums for some 30 year olds in the pre-ACA days were lower. That is an artificial point of comparison, however, because so many were excluded and insurers regularly rescinded policies after the fact.

Introducing age into insurance pricing was, and still is, a way to exclude individuals from groups and keep costs artificially low.

Not really disagreeing with you, just commenting. If we are talking insurance, age is prevalent in many forms of insurance so it isn't that unusual. It can also work the opposite way such as auto. Mentally I am still caught in the middle. If we are going to call it insurance its cost is usually based on age, usage factor, and sometimes financial condition. Make the system "national healthcare" instead of insurance and I can clear my brain of the confusion!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
__________________
Mulligan is offline  
Old 06-26-2015, 11:20 AM   #54
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
Most insured 30 year olds in the US were, and still are, in group plans. The rate for them is higher than in the individual market. It doesn't matter who pays, the rates are still higher...
This is a valid point. Group insurance has to provide coverage without individual underwriting, so they have to make it up somehow.

The healthy people always pay for the sick. I guess that's what it boils down to.
__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky
NW-Bound is offline  
Old 06-26-2015, 11:39 AM   #55
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,268
Dont take this as meaning I want subsidies taken away or anything, but...

This Supreme Court decision seems like its kind of bogus to me. The Supreme Court is supposed to look at issues and decide the case on its merits. In this case it seems to me that they said "Hmmm...there's no way we can overturn the ACA. Its too big and too important to too many people. If we overturn it, it will take forever for those lawmakers to come up with a new plan that satisfies everyone, so lets dig thru it and find a way to interpret the wording to make the law able to stay in effect". That bothers me a bit, although I agree that overturning it would've been a nightmare.
__________________
utrecht is offline  
Old 06-26-2015, 11:49 AM   #56
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
travelover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by utrecht View Post
Dont take this as meaning I want subsidies taken away or anything, but...

This Supreme Court decision seems like its kind of bogus to me. The Supreme Court is supposed to look at issues and decide the case on its merits. In this case it seems to me that they said "Hmmm...there's no way we can overturn the ACA. Its too big and too important to too many people. If we overturn it, it will take forever for those lawmakers to come up with a new plan that satisfies everyone, so lets dig thru it and find a way to interpret the wording to make the law able to stay in effect". That bothers me a bit, although I agree that overturning it would've been a nightmare.
Unlike some constitutional interpretations, the people that wrote the ACA were on hand to explain what their intention of the law was.
__________________
Yes, I have achieved work / life balance.
travelover is online now  
Old 06-26-2015, 11:58 AM   #57
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
brewer12345's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 16,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by utrecht View Post
Dont take this as meaning I want subsidies taken away or anything, but...

This Supreme Court decision seems like its kind of bogus to me. The Supreme Court is supposed to look at issues and decide the case on its merits. In this case it seems to me that they said "Hmmm...there's no way we can overturn the ACA. Its too big and too important to too many people. If we overturn it, it will take forever for those lawmakers to come up with a new plan that satisfies everyone, so lets dig thru it and find a way to interpret the wording to make the law able to stay in effect". That bothers me a bit, although I agree that overturning it would've been a nightmare.
Frankly, who knows what they really thought. And aside from what the ruling actually says, who cares? We live in a country that is well into the transition from a republic (SPQR, represent) to an imperial kleptocracy. The big boys do as they please and the rest of us like it or lump it.
__________________
"There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest have to pee on the electric fence for themselves."



- Will Rogers
brewer12345 is offline  
Old 06-26-2015, 12:00 PM   #58
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
easysurfer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,895
I don't use a subsidy for my HI. But next year, I may have to go back to a cheap bronze plan where my doctor is not even covered. At least there's a 6K deductible per year limit.
__________________
Have you ever seen a headstone with these words
"If only I had spent more time at work" ... from "Busy Man" sung by Billy Ray Cyrus
easysurfer is online now  
Old 06-26-2015, 12:06 PM   #59
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by travelover View Post
Unlike some constitutional interpretations, the people that wrote the ACA were on hand to explain what their intention of the law was.
Are they still all there? I thought some got voted out.
__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky
NW-Bound is offline  
Old 06-26-2015, 12:17 PM   #60
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,268
Lots of people have been charged with crimes or sued for things that judges have acknowledged weren't the intention of the laws and the judge says "Im sorry my hands are tied".

How about someone who gets life in prison for a drug charge and then 2 months later the penalty for the same charge is changed to a max of 2 yrs? The lawyer files for an appeal or a hearing before a judge to lesson the sentence and the judge says "I agree your clients sentence is excessive but that was the law at the time. My hands are tied". There are all kinds of injustices like this in our country, but this time the Supreme Court searched high and wide to find to find a way to interpret the law the way they wanted to fit their predetermined outcome. That's my opinion, although like I said I agree with the result.
__________________

__________________
utrecht 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
Tax Question: Downsizing vs. ACA Subsidies daylatedollarshort Health and Early Retirement 7 02-20-2014 07:01 PM
Website for ACA Options, Premiums, and Subsidies jflynn4 Health and Early Retirement 7 11-11-2013 03:52 PM
Federal Exchange - ACA subsidies in jeopardy shotgunner Health and Early Retirement 13 10-25-2013 10:30 PM
Poll: Who's going to try to get ACA subsidies by staying under the threshold? explanade FIRE and Money 200 04-24-2013 07:46 PM
Healthcare ACA subsidies appear to depend on multi-year income pixelville FIRE and Money 21 03-14-2013 10:01 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:53 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.