Join Early Retirement Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-07-2017, 01:26 PM   #101
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikubak View Post
This will be a good thing for many ERs. It's a challenge to maximize your benefit when the rules of the game keep changing, but I'm in favor of simplifying the product. I had worked out a plan to keep MAGI low and get insurance for less than 1200/year for a couple. If this new plan goes through, I can get a 7500 tax credit and then shop for whatever plan makes the most sense. I won't have to work at keeping my MAGI low. I'll be able to convert to Roth in the lowest tax brackets and reduce my exposure to RDMs later in life. This could be good.
But you assume premiums won't rise a lot more.

Insurers will be allowed to charge older insureds up to 5 times more than the youngest ones, compared to 3 times now.

Plus the penalty for not having continuous coverage doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent to free riding, not paying for insurance until needed. So as the rolls shrink from all young, healthy people not enrolling, premiums for older people go up even more.
explanade 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 03-07-2017, 01:26 PM   #102
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
audreyh1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rio Grande Valley
Posts: 38,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
It's section 133 of the Energy and Commerce Bill http://energycommerce.house.gov/site...mary_Final.pdf
That section doesn't say pre-existing conditions won't be covered. It just mentions the 30% surcharge.
Quote:
Section – 133 Continuous Health Insurance Coverage Incentive
The continuous coverage incentive is designed to limit adverse selection in health care markets. Beginning in open enrollment for benefit year 2019, there will be a 12-month lookback period to determine if the applicant went longer than 63 days without continuous health insurance coverage. If the applicant had a lapse in coverage for greater than 63 days, issuers will assess a flat 30 percent late-enrollment surcharge on top of their base premium based on their decision to forgo coverage. This late-enrollment surcharge would be the same for all market entrants, regardless of health status, and discontinued after 12 months, incentivizing enrollees to remain covered. This process would being for special enrollment period applicants in benefit year 2018.
Sorry, DH had to run off, I'll get the reference as soon as I can.

It is possible he misinterpreted the pre-existing conditions not covered after lapse, because I haven't been able to find any reference to his comment. Or perhaps he read something that was published before yesterday's release, not realizing that it wasn't current.

OK - DH was reading a current 3/7 article, but it linked to a 1/24 article about pre-existing that is now out of date. http://time.com/money/4644137/obamac...ng-conditions/
__________________
Retired since summer 1999.
audreyh1 is online now  
Old 03-07-2017, 01:34 PM   #103
Administrator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 40,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by audreyh1 View Post
That section doesn't say pre-existing conditions won't be covered. It just mentions the 30% surcharge.

Sorry, DH had to run off, I'll get the reference as soon as I can.
Right. Neither of the bills proposes any change to coverage of preexisting conditions, guaranteed availability, coverage of adult children up to age 26, limits on out-of-pocket expense limits, prohibitions agains health status underwriting, elimination of lifetime and annual limits. Were these were forgotten, left for another time, or accepted as desirable requirements? My guess is they stay.
MichaelB is offline  
Old 03-07-2017, 01:41 PM   #104
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by burch64 View Post
I would think you would have to spend at least $8,000 on premiums to get the $8,000 credit.

Someone posted that they would buy a high deductible plan and put the difference (of the $8,000) in a HSA.


Got to love the ER crowd: already scheming to maximize!
LARS is offline  
Old 03-07-2017, 01:46 PM   #105
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by molly312 View Post
I totally agree with GTFan & pb4uski -"there is no attempt to rein in HC costs in the new proposal which is by far the biggest issue here". All that is happening is that cost is being shifted away from the government and leaving more people without health insurance. NOBODY has proposed changes to lower the COST.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW-Bound View Post
Count me in among those who are disappointed to see no cost control measures. If it were not for the huge cost increase, ACA would have been fine too.
+100 here. Just another case of kicking the can down the road. The real choice Congress will be making is whether to act quickly (and make a new mess structure of winners/losers), or defer action now in order to work on a solution that actually lowers the cost of HC, and thus, costs of HI) and Medicare!). With today's politics, I expect they'll choose to act quickly if possible---because it solves a political problem----not because it solves the HC or HI cost problem.

Also, watch out for the medicaid/innovation funds....longer-term, these are clearly a target for reduction. Another new mess set of winners/losers. Reducing the Federal contribution towards costs over time would certainly help Congress....but without lower HC costs, it will ultimately push a decision to the States/Local Govts to either tax more or deny care to the poor.

Getting costs down can be such a huge win, but Congress seems determined to ignore it.
Nature Lover is offline  
Old 03-07-2017, 01:48 PM   #106
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 526
Quote:
Originally Posted by LARS View Post
Got to love the ER crowd: already scheming to maximize!
HEY! I resemble that remark. Oh, and get off my lawn
zedd is offline  
Old 03-07-2017, 01:51 PM   #107
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 7,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodguy00 View Post
I'm not seeing anything in either bill that refers to purchasing policies across state lines. Am I missing it or is that something that would need to be handled in completely separate bills?
No, it is not there. This is intended to be a budget reconciliation bill. The competition issues will be in separate bills.
Montecfo is offline  
Old 03-07-2017, 01:54 PM   #108
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
SecondCor521's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boise
Posts: 7,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by burch64 View Post
I would think you would have to spend at least $8,000 on premiums to get the $8,000 credit.

Someone posted that they would buy a high deductible plan and put the difference (of the $8,000) in a HSA.
That was me. From the link in the OP:

"SECTION_15: REFUNDABLE TAX CREDIT FOR HEALTH INSURANCE
This section creates an advanceable, refundable tax credit for the purchase of state-approved, major medical health insurance and unsubsidized COBRA coverage."

I was reading the word refundable to mean that if you didn't use all of the credit to cover the cost of insurance, you would get the balance back as a tax refund.

That's similar to how it works with other refundable tax credits (such as the dependent tax credit - this year mine wipes out all of my tax liability and then some, which I'll be getting back). But you're right to point out there could be limitations.
__________________
"At times the world can seem an unfriendly and sinister place, but believe us when we say there is much more good in it than bad. All you have to do is look hard enough, and what might seem to be a series of unfortunate events, may in fact be the first steps of a journey." Violet Baudelaire.
SecondCor521 is online now  
Old 03-07-2017, 01:57 PM   #109
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,008
This is very interesting but I don't see how the new plan will work for some places like Alaska.

We were thinking of becoming Alaskan residents, taking our RV up there for a number of years but the insurance for a silver or bronze plan is insane. For it to be affordable to lowish income folks, the subsidies right now are on the order of $1500 a month for a couple around age 50. That is $18,000 a year in subsidies, now being replaced with $7,000. The $11,000 difference is just too much to handle, so we won't be moving there.

Now that is our situation, which is flexible. What about someone who is already in Alaska? Feel a bit sorry for them, hope they can find a job.
Fermion is online now  
Old 03-07-2017, 01:57 PM   #110
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
Neither of the bills proposes any change to coverage of preexisting conditions, guaranteed availability, coverage of adult children up to age 26, limits on out-of-pocket expense limits, prohibitions agains health status underwriting, elimination of lifetime and annual limits. Were these were forgotten, left for another time, or accepted as desirable requirements? My guess is they stay.
I agree generally (I think there is a provision somewhere allowing some health status underwriting..in the form of higher premiums only..not denial of coverage). I think the big ticket items in the list became somewhat "untouchable" with all the public feedback. That being said, without changing these big cost provisions, then for all but the young and healthy participants, we might need to expect higher premiums...maybe much higher. That, combined with the lesser "subsidy" provided by the credits to many, means potentially more "personal responsibility" than people were already up in arms about. We'll have to see how the discussion progresses in DC.
Nature Lover is offline  
Old 03-07-2017, 02:01 PM   #111
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Red Rock Country
Posts: 1,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
Right. Neither of the bills proposes any change to coverage of preexisting conditions, guaranteed availability, coverage of adult children up to age 26, limits on out-of-pocket expense limits, prohibitions agains health status underwriting, elimination of lifetime and annual limits. Were these were forgotten, left for another time, or accepted as desirable requirements? My guess is they stay.
I think the reason is that none of those items can be dealt with via reconciliation which only require 51 votes in the Senate but rather would have to overcome a filibuster i.e. get 60 votes which is unlikely to happen.
Ian S is offline  
Old 03-07-2017, 02:01 PM   #112
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 9,358
We have a Bronze plan now. The catastrophic plans listed on the exchange site were not much less in premiums for our area compared to the Bronze plans. $8K subsidy wouldn't cover much unless the prices come down, which seems highly unlikely with the 3 to 1 age band limit being lifted. I don't see how switching to a catastrophic plan would make much of a difference for us going forward if this bill becomes law.
__________________
Even clouds seem bright and breezy, 'Cause the livin' is free and easy, See the rat race in a new way, Like you're wakin' up to a new day (Dr. Tarr and Professor Fether lyrics, Alan Parsons Project, based on an EA Poe story)
daylatedollarshort is offline  
Old 03-07-2017, 02:13 PM   #113
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 35,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fermion View Post
This is very interesting but I don't see how the new plan will work for some places like Alaska.

We were thinking of becoming Alaskan residents, taking our RV up there for a number of years but the insurance for a silver or bronze plan is insane. For it to be affordable to lowish income folks, the subsidies right now are on the order of $1500 a month for a couple around age 50. That is $18,000 a year in subsidies, now being replaced with $7,000. The $11,000 difference is just too much to handle, so we won't be moving there.

Now that is our situation, which is flexible. What about someone who is already in Alaska? Feel a bit sorry for them, hope they can find a job.
Ah, you youngsters of 50 get off easy. Wait till you are older, and I am sure everybody wants to get older (as the alternative really sucks). I found what I posted a couple of months ago, on 12/3/2016 (it is faster than playing with healthcare.gov all over again to get the numbers).

The premium for a Silver plan for a couple of 60 is $44,808 in Anchorage!

Quote:
Originally Posted by NW-Bound View Post
Y'all think it is absurd? You have not seen anything yet. As I said, the number varies from place to place. If a cliff of $19,536 is bad, look at what I found in Anchorage. The following is for a couple of the age of 60.

Joint MAGI = $80,079, annual premium for Silver plan = $6,558 + $6,000 deductible
Joint MAGI = $80,080, annual premium for the same = $44,808 + $6,000 deductible

One dollar more in income, and you pay an additional $38,250 for insurance!
__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky (1879-1940)

"Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities Can Make You Commit Atrocities" - Voltaire (1694-1778)
NW-Bound is offline  
Old 03-07-2017, 02:19 PM   #114
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by LARS View Post
I was quick to answer someone on this thread that basically, if passed as proposed, my read was that subsidies of ACA (nonMedicaid) are in place until 2020. So effectively no substantive change for 2017, 2018 and 2019.

I must say that today in the Press I've seen nothing confirming outright this view (just dates on various bits and bobs of ACA). Do others concur with this conclusion of plan as proposed?
The individual responsibility (your portion of the premium) was capped at 9.66% MAGI in 2016 and is capped at 9.69% in 2017 for all age ranges. During the 2018-2019 transition period, age bands will be added as shown in the chart on page 78. Persons over age 59 could have an individual responsibility up to 11.5% MAGI in 2018.

Silver Plan CSR for 2018-2019 is dependent on the outcome of the 'House v Burwell' case.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue J View Post
Regarding HSAs, I'm glad to see them considering HSA contributions which correlate with actual high deductible plans. I would also like to see HSAs available to users of any kind of policy, not just the defined HDHPs.

Currently even silver plans have huge deductibles and max out of pocket costs but are excluded from being HSA eligible due to having office visit co-pays or Rxs paid before the deductible is met.

I read the Ways and Means summary so if I missed that, let me know.
The qualifying criteria for an HSA eligible plan is not changed in this proposed bill.
MBSC is offline  
Old 03-07-2017, 02:33 PM   #115
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fermion View Post
This is very interesting but I don't see how the new plan will work for some places like Alaska.

We were thinking of becoming Alaskan residents, taking our RV up there for a number of years but the insurance for a silver or bronze plan is insane. For it to be affordable to lowish income folks, the subsidies right now are on the order of $1500 a month for a couple around age 50. That is $18,000 a year in subsidies, now being replaced with $7,000. The $11,000 difference is just too much to handle, so we won't be moving there.

Now that is our situation, which is flexible. What about someone who is already in Alaska? Feel a bit sorry for them, hope they can find a job.
Yup. The new subsidies are independent from the local cost of care, so people in high cost states are going to see dramatic sticker shock.

This seems more likely to end up in an insurance death spiral than the current ACA. The higher spread allowed for older folks, combined with the lower subsidy levels and modest penalty that you only pay if you get sick will make it much more likely for an older healthy person to try and run without insurance.

It's not clear to me that any insurance companies will be interested in entering a market with this setup unless they price for the worst case.
Hamlet is offline  
Old 03-07-2017, 02:37 PM   #116
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by MBSC View Post
The individual responsibility (your portion of the premium) was capped at 9.66% MAGI in 2016 and is capped at 9.69% in 2017 for all age ranges. During the 2018-2019 transition period, age bands will be added as shown in the chart on page 78. Persons over age 59 could have an individual responsibility up to 11.5% MAGI in 2018.

Silver Plan CSR for 2018-2019 is dependent on the outcome of the 'House v Burwell' case.


The qualifying criteria for an HSA eligible plan is not changed in this proposed bill.
How?
If your income is 15k a year and your premiums are 1k a month under the new plan with the 4k tax credit your paying 8k a year which is 53% of income. How does the 11.5% figure in?

If your income is 47K and your premiums minus credits are the same 8k then I see it closer to the that 11.5%

Or does it mean if your income is 15k the insurance companies must offer a plan for $5725 which would make your responsibility $1725 or 11.5%?
Refresher is offline  
Old 03-07-2017, 02:37 PM   #117
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Big_Hitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Les Bois
Posts: 5,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by LARS View Post
Got to love the ER crowd: already scheming to maximize!
hey at least that 10% tanning tax is gone
__________________
You can't be a retirement plan actuary without a retirement plan, otherwise you lose all credibility...
Big_Hitter is offline  
Old 03-07-2017, 02:39 PM   #118
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet View Post
It's not clear to me that any insurance companies will be interested in entering a market with this setup unless they price for the worst case.
It definitely will be interesting. We had insurance companies pulling out of markets where people were getting $15,000 or more of subsides if you include cost sharing. Exactly how fast are they going to run for the door when the subsidy drops to $6000?
Fermion is online now  
Old 03-07-2017, 02:45 PM   #119
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,595
Back in the old days (before Obamacare), health insurance companies provided their policyholders with indemnification only against future adverse medical events. They worked aggressively to avoid covering existing medical conditions. I went through this medical underwriting process many times - unpleasant, to be sure, but I considered it a necessary evil in order to keep insurance premiums reasonable.

My personal preference would be to return to the old days, where health insurance companies sold only indemnification against future adverse medical events, and allow some other mechanism to help pay the medical cost of existing conditions. Insurance companies shouldn’t be allowed to deny all coverage to someone with existing conditions, but they should be allowed to exclude existing conditions from coverage and let some other mechanism help pay for them.

So, what might this other mechanism to help pay for existing conditions look like? Who would pay the taxes to provide this benefit? How would this program be administered? Would we need to create a new health care bureaucracy, or can an existing bureaucracy be adapted? I have no idea - I’m not an expert in health policy matters, just a guy trying to avoid being financially ruined by the American healthcare system.
socca is offline  
Old 03-07-2017, 02:57 PM   #120
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by socca View Post
Back in the old days (before Obamacare), health insurance companies provided their policyholders with indemnification only against future adverse medical events. They worked aggressively to avoid covering existing medical conditions. I went through this medical underwriting process many times - unpleasant, to be sure, but I considered it a necessary evil in order to keep insurance premiums reasonable.

My personal preference would be to return to the old days, where health insurance companies sold only indemnification against future adverse medical events, and allow some other mechanism to help pay the medical cost of existing conditions. Insurance companies shouldn’t be allowed to deny all coverage to someone with existing conditions, but they should be allowed to exclude existing conditions from coverage and let some other mechanism help pay for them.

So, what might this other mechanism to help pay for existing conditions look like? Who would pay the taxes to provide this benefit? How would this program be administered? Would we need to create a new health care bureaucracy, or can an existing bureaucracy be adapted? I have no idea - I’m not an expert in health policy matters, just a guy trying to avoid being financially ruined by the American healthcare system.


Well luckily very few seem to agree with you. And I say that as someone who had to jump through multiple state medical underwriting hoops to get HI pre ACA as we moved about the country in ER. And, I again say this as someone who is an incredibly light user of HI (knock on wood going forward).
LARS is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
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
Proposed SS means-testing (by income)... LARS FIRE Related Public Policy 35 04-16-2015 11:52 AM
The Beatles Bootleg Recordings 1963 "Album" Released Today... Midpack Other topics 7 12-18-2013 02:49 PM
Summary of tax law changes thru 2010 Nords FIRE and Money 7 07-08-2005 10:07 PM

» Quick Links

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:48 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.