Join Early Retirement Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04-06-2013, 11:28 AM   #321
Full time employment: Posting here.
Silver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Orlando, Fl
Posts: 580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brat View Post
Nothing wrong with Nurse Practitioners for routine health care. Many have specialties as well (obstetrics, cardiac re-hap, geriatrics). They are trained to listen.
They are also licensed and capable of doing 75-85% of what a physician does. Surgery is one of the very few things NP's cannot perform.
__________________

__________________
You're only crazy if you're poor. If you have money, you're eccentric.
Silver 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 04-06-2013, 12:09 PM   #322
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
photoguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midpack View Post
If 16.1% of drivers are uninsured, and (subsidized) health care will be more expensive, it's reasonable to assume more than 16.1% will be ACA "miscreants." "Outnumber" is probably correct, but over 16% is quite a drag on ACA if that's how it shakes out. Time will tell...
CBO published some estimates on how many people will decline health care and pay the tax.

Quote:
Of the remaining 11 million to 12 million uninsured people, ... CBO and JCT now estimate that about 6 million people will pay a penalty because they are uninsured in 2016 (a figure that includes uninsured dependents who have the penalty paid on their behalf )
http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/c...te_Penalty.pdf

Note there are another 20M people who won't get insurance but are not subject to the tax because they are say unauthorized immigrants (can't receive subsidy etc.) or have other issues.

They estimate 1.8M people who above the 400% FPL who will decline healthcare and pay tax. This seems surprising to me since I believe you don't have to pay the tax if healthcare would be > 8% of income and 400% FPL is quite a decent amount of income. I guess these are strategic defaulters?
__________________

__________________
photoguy is offline  
Old 04-06-2013, 01:59 PM   #323
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bUU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midpack View Post
but over 16% is quite a drag on ACA if that's how it shakes out. Time will tell...
There will always be non-compliance. Heck, I've made a career out of compliance assurance - no - two separate careers, built around compliance assurance. You wouldn't think compliance would be so difficult to arrange for, but as selfishness has increased, the need for compliance assurance has increased. However, that's a societal trend - not anything unique to health care or ACA. It appears in practically every aspect of society, financial and non-financial. It's the underlying drag on everything in society.
__________________
bUU is offline  
Old 04-11-2013, 09:29 AM   #324
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 559
I found ct. new exchange page.

their calculator asks the persons in family who need coverage differently.

california does not ask how many people in family need coverage. ct. does

if there are 2 people in your family and one of them is on medicare then whole familys amount of money is used but just one person covered hard to get subsidy.

How to save | Access Health CT


compare to californias calculator and how questions phrased


http://www.coveredca.com/calculating_the_cost.html


this calculator mirrors california but not CT.


http://www.coveroregon.com/calculator.php
__________________
gerrym51 is offline  
Old 04-11-2013, 09:57 AM   #325
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
FinanceDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver View Post
They are also licensed and capable of doing 75-85% of what a physician does. Surgery is one of the very few things NP's cannot perform.
We also will see an increase in PA's (physician assistants)
__________________
Consult with your own advisor or representative. My thoughts should not be construed as investment advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results (love that one).......:)


This Thread is USELESS without pics.........:)
FinanceDude is offline  
Old 04-11-2013, 10:20 AM   #326
Recycles dryer sheets
fisherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerrym51 View Post
Cover Oregon


cover Oregon is up with their obamacare exchange some info

Very nice site and easy to use. Thanks for the link. The calculator says my premiums will drop about $300 per month with the subsidy and my out of pocket max will drop almost 60%!!!
__________________
Worked the plan and now living the Dream!
fisherman is offline  
Old 04-11-2013, 12:33 PM   #327
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,423
I tried the CT calculator and if I need insurance for two the payment is $250/mo. If I need insurance for just one of us the payment is $301.

That does not make sense. It must be assuming that the income I put in is just for the one person needing insurance and it's not, it's for both of us, with only one of us needing insurance.

I'm not in CT so I guess it's not relevant.
__________________
Married, both 62. DH retired June, 2010. I have a pleasant little part time job.
Sue J is offline  
Old 04-11-2013, 01:00 PM   #328
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue J View Post
I tried the CT calculator and if I need insurance for two the payment is $250/mo. If I need insurance for just one of us the payment is $301.

That does not make sense. It must be assuming that the income I put in is just for the one person needing insurance and it's not, it's for both of us, with only one of us needing insurance.

I'm not in CT so I guess it's not relevant.
IT MIGHT be relevant if all the other state calculators that don't ask how many actually need insurance did

Ct. retirements calculator makes you enter all family income. it asks how many in your family need insurance.(corrected)

it appears to then default to single coverage parameters if you say 1.

say 2 of you have income of 55000. but only 1 of you need coverage-it uses the 45,700 cap for single but still uses your total 55000 income.

the reason i bring this up is the california and oregon calculators don't ask this. it just assumes if you have 2 in household you both need insurance and give this calculation.

my wife is on medicare but i am not. i can get my magi down to
based on joint return but cannot get to less than 47,000


i.m wondering if this would happen in all calculators if it asked the same ct. question
__________________
gerrym51 is offline  
Old 04-11-2013, 03:31 PM   #329
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerrym51 View Post
IT MIGHT be relevant if all the other state calculators that don't ask how many actually need insurance did

Ct. retirements calculator makes you enter all family income. it asks how many in your family but then asks you how many require insurance.

it appears to then default to single coverage parameters if you say 1.

say 2 of you have income of 55000. but only 1 of you need coverage-it uses the 45,700 cap for single but still uses your total 55000 income.

the reason i bring this up is the california and oregon calculators don't ask this. it just assumes if you have 2 in household you both need insurance and give this calculation.

my wife is on medicare but i am not. i can get my magi down to
based on joint return but cannot get to less than 47,000

i.m wondering if this would happen in all calculators if it asked the same ct. question
Where do you see the Ct retirement calculator? I only saw one for individuals or businesses and the one for individuals didn't have the options you mentioned.
__________________
Married, both 62. DH retired June, 2010. I have a pleasant little part time job.
Sue J is offline  
Old 04-11-2013, 03:38 PM   #330
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue J View Post
Where do you see the Ct retirement calculator? I only saw one for individuals or businesses and the one for individuals didn't have the options you mentioned.
2/3 of the way down click on individuals and family

How to save | Access Health CT


i t words it differently-you have to list all family income-then asks how many in family will get insurance

the other calculators give you just choice of single or family-and if you use family minimim of 2 and uses 2 as the number of members who need insurance automatically

i worded my prior post incorrectly

i guess the simplest way to say it is if your 2 in a family but only one needs insurance then your goverend
by the single calculation even if you need to base it on all family income.
__________________
gerrym51 is offline  
Old 04-25-2013, 05:38 PM   #331
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Mulligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,369
I couldn't help myself and finally called Blue Cross today, to see if they had any information about what they were doing with their "grandfathered plans" or whether we were going to get dumped into the health insurance exchange on our rears. They are still keeping a tight lid on the matter. All the lady would say was information on the matter would be sent out later in the year. I tried to ask it in a different manner a few times and she kept reading from the same cue card, so they definitely aren't willing to share any information yet, or possibly don't know either. I definitely know the customer service agent knows nothing about it.
__________________
Mulligan is offline  
Old 04-26-2013, 12:23 AM   #332
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Katsmeow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerrym51 View Post
i guess the simplest way to say it is if your 2 in a family but only one needs insurance then your goverend
by the single calculation even if you need to base it on all family income.
Yes, this seems to be flawed. It is almost like none of these calculators can envision a household where there is one person on medicare and then another person or persons not on medicare.

Right now the kids and I are on DH's retiree coverage but I don't know if it will survive so I'm curious about the exchanges. DH just went on medicare so it is 2 adolescents and me that need coverage. I might be able to get our income into the family of 4 parameter to get a subsidy (around $92k) but I couldn't get down to the family of 3.

Once calculator said our premium would be almost $2k a month with no subsidy (putting in income of $92k) because they were counting our full income but then for subsidy were treating us like a family of 3....
__________________
Katsmeow is offline  
Old 04-26-2013, 07:38 AM   #333
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
grasshopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,669
How long before the subsidies get taxed.
__________________
For me experiences are not good or bad, just different
grasshopper is offline  
Old 04-26-2013, 07:42 AM   #334
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bUU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,902
They probably won't ever be.
__________________
bUU is offline  
Old 04-26-2013, 08:42 AM   #335
Full time employment: Posting here.
SumDay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 799
I saw this in today's New York Times:

NYT: Health Chaos Ahead

Obviously, it's an OpEd, but still interesting.
__________________
SumDay is offline  
Old 04-26-2013, 08:58 AM   #336
Moderator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky Inlets
Posts: 24,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by SumDay View Post
I saw this in today's New York Times:

NYT: Health Chaos Ahead

Obviously, it's an OpEd, but still interesting.
David Brooks OpEd about difficulties implementing the PPACA.
__________________
MichaelB is online now  
Old 04-26-2013, 09:12 AM   #337
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
travelover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
David Brooks OpEd about difficulties implementing the PPACA.
Thought provoking article. The most salient point that he makes, IMHO, is that the ACA doesn't address the cost issue.

I don't see any movement there under current circumstances.
__________________
Yes, I have achieved work / life balance.
travelover is offline  
Old 04-26-2013, 09:26 AM   #338
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by SumDay View Post
I saw this in today's New York Times:

NYT: Health Chaos Ahead

Obviously, it's an OpEd, but still interesting.

A very interesting article.... and I do not see him with an ax to grind (I think he is liberal, but not sure... he does have good opinions when on the talk shows)...


I think the telling paragraph is this (my bold):

"Then there is the cost cascade. Nearly everybody not in the employ of the administration agrees this law does not solve the cost problem, and many of the recent regulatory decisions will send costs higher. A study in California found that premiums could increase by an average of 20 percent for people not covered by federal subsidies. A study by the Society of Actuaries found that by 2017 costs could rise by 32 percent for insurers covering people in the individual exchanges, and as high as 80 percent in states like Ohio."


Not trying to bring bacon... just pointing out that Obamacare does not solve the problem that Obamacare was supposed to solve...
__________________
Texas Proud is offline  
Old 04-26-2013, 09:53 AM   #339
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bUU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,902
Also not trying to bring bacon, and keeping this completely factual, based on the actual wording of the law... ACA is supposed to solve the problem of lack of affordability of health coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, with conditions that otherwise would exceed a lifetime cap, etc., as well as with regard to the working poor, in general. Not for everyone.

And it definitely does those things.

If the objective was to lower health care costs overall, then there was a completely different approach available. That just simply wasn't the objective that we decided to pursue as a nation.
__________________
bUU is offline  
Old 04-26-2013, 10:17 AM   #340
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
travelover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,871
And with an eye on Porky - there are two elements of health care under discussion. One is cost shifting among the insured to benefit the previously uninsurable, the second is the general high cost of healthcare in general in the US, as compared to other western nations.

I'm sure that no one would try to take political advantage over confusion between the two.
__________________

__________________
Yes, I have achieved work / life balance.
travelover 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


 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:42 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.