Obamacare

[samclem]

Does anybody have any idea what the ACA is going to cost. It looks like my past employer (City of Chicago) is going to transition us into Obamacare possibly as soon as the exchanges open in 2014.

Well, the irony of this is just too much.

Regards your situation, you'll likely have to hang on and see what is coming like everyone else. I do wish you good luck

 

[ERD50]

Does anybody have any idea what the ACA is going to cost.

Well, the irony of this is just too much.

Why worry? After all, this is "The Affordable Care Act" we are talking about, right? So whatever it is, it has to be affordable, right? They said so.

-ERD50

 

[ripper1]

Well, the irony of this is just too much.

Regards your situation, you'll likely have to hang on and see what is coming like everyone else. I do wish you good luck

Thank you.....It sure looks like a retired empty nest couple just over the 400% FPL is going to get screwed. Well, we will just have to wait and see when it comes out. Retiring early means you have to have a plan B. I believe most people here have all their ducks in a row for these kind of situations.

 

[gerrym51]

Thank you.....It sure looks like a retired empty nest couple just over the 400% FPL is going to get screwed. Well, we will just have to wait and see when it comes out. Retiring early means you have to have a plan B. I believe most people here have all their ducks in a row for these kind of situations.

not to be contrary-I do not believe that Obamacare was created to facilitate "early retirement".

 

[ripper1]

not to be contrary-I do not believe that Obamacare was created to facilitate "early retirement".

I understand that. I have been retired for 3 years and have been getting a subsidy from the city that has been always there for a retiree. Now it just looks like it may cost me more than double at this point.

 

[Mulligan]

I understand that. I have been retired for 3 years and have been getting a subsidy from the city that has been always there for a retiree. Now it just looks like it may cost me more than double at this point.

There will certainly be "winners" and "losers" with the implementation. If my individual plan ever gets dumped, I will fall into the "loser" category big time. Having a HD, and no health expenses, I am going as cheaply as possible for the time being. The mandates are being tough on these plans, because it appears they will not count the HSA funding by the individual as part of the coverage. My policy rolled out a plan recently that will cover half your deductible if you go a certain period of time without meeting the deductible. I am hoping this is some kind of accounting gimmick, to help maintain the viability of this policy.

 

[Texas Proud]

Thank you.....It sure looks like a retired empty nest couple just over the 400% FPL is going to get screwed. Well, we will just have to wait and see when it comes out. Retiring early means you have to have a plan B. I believe most people here have all their ducks in a row for these kind of situations.

I was just thinking abou this and wonder about this thought...

Why are these people getting screwed If there was not a subsidy from the gvmt, they would have to pay the full amount they are paying... IOW, for them the cost is the same with or without Obamacare (unless it proves to either save money or cost money...)... and thinking about it more, they should be paying less money since there is a ratio insurance companies can charge etc. etc...

Sure, they are not getting money from the gvmt, but is that getting screwed Or is that just them paying their fair share

 

[Live And Learn]

If there was not a subsidy from the gvmt, they would have to pay the full amount they are paying... IOW, for them the cost is the same with or without Obamacare (unless it proves to either save money or cost money

Many of us do not have access to a retiree health care plan. I had been planning "full freight" in my calculations.

For those who were counting on an employee subsidy for retirees, there can be a huge difference.

On the other hand, I personally wouldn't have counted on the subsidy in the first place since MegaCorp can give and MegaCorp can take away at any time.

"Screwed" therefore is in the eyes of the beholder. I feel bad for folks that had a benefit that may now be gone

 

[Live And Learn]

We've talked a lot about that 400% "cliff" here. Unless it changes there will certainly be a new industry of financial professionals helping households "engineer" their income to report an AGI just below it.

Yep - I've been involved in many of those "cliff" discussions.

I know that I am starting to think about how to keep my taxable income below $60k per year, but my budget assumes my entire $87k spending budget comes from taxable sources.

Hate to think of an entire industry built around that .... but I'm sure it will happen

 

[aja8888]

Another issue with this Obamcare will be the fallout from people who have health insurance coverage from an employer and the employer drops the coverage.

I have personally know of local companies (small employers) going to put many of their current full time employees on 28 hour work status (retail businesses, but big franchises), thus removing them from eligibility from current company benefits. This will create a class of worker who lost benefits and then had to sign on to the new program.

I don't know what the cost will be to the worker in that scenario, but the employer will benefit and push costs to now what are part time employees.

It's going to be interesting going forward.

 

[samclem]

I was just thinking abou this and wonder about this thought...

Why are these people getting screwed

If the employer-provided retiree health care is viewed as deferred compensation--a part of the agreement they had with the employer during their working years-- then, yes, I think they are getting "screwed" if the employer reneges. How could it not be seen otherwise?

 

[Texas Proud]

If the employer-provided retiree health care is viewed as deferred compensation--a part of the agreement they had with the employer during their working years-- then, yes, I think they are getting "screwed" if the employer reneges. How could it not be seen otherwise?

The comment was about the gvmt subsidy, not employer provided...


I would agree that if an employer had a retiree health plan and then took it away you were being screwed... it actually happend to me... my mega decided to take it away 'in the future', so if you were not already qualified you would not get it... I was 49.5 YO at the time and you had to be 50 to qualify...

 

[ERD50]

Yep - I've been involved in many of those "cliff" discussions.

I know that I am starting to think about how to keep my taxable income below $60k per year, but my budget assumes my entire $87k spending budget comes from taxable sources.

Hate to think of an entire industry built around that .... but I'm sure it will happen

If you sell off the principal, only the gain will be taxed. Maybe this isn't an option for you, I guess it depends what you mean by 'taxable sources'. My personal accounts (non-IRA) are in a 'taxable source', but only the distributions and gains from sales.

-ERD50

 

[Mulligan]

The comment was about the gvmt subsidy, not employer provided...

I would agree that if an employer had a retiree health plan and then took it away you were being screwed... it actually happend to me... my mega decided to take it away 'in the future', so if you were not already qualified you would not get it... I was 49.5 YO at the time and you had to be 50 to qualify...

You certainly got a tough break Texas, and I would feel "screwed" if I was in same situation. If my individual plan closes and I am thrown into Obamacare, I won't feel screwed just "an economic loser". I have benefitted from an underwritten plan, and if I was on the opposite end of the spectrum being rejected and bullied by insurance companies, my opinion would be quite different. I am nowhere near the income subsidiary boundaries so I won't feel "screwed". However, the individual who goes a few hundred over the income limit and has to pay full freight, causing them to have less disposable income than somewhere tucked right under the barrier, in my opinion, has a valid right to be considered "screwed". A gradual phasing out instead of a cliff as many have mentioned before would take the sting out of it a bit.

 

[ziggy29]

I would agree that if an employer had a retiree health plan and then took it away you were being screwed... it actually happend to me... my mega decided to take it away 'in the future', so if you were not already qualified you would not get it... I was 49.5 YO at the time and you had to be 50 to qualify...

This is why creating "cliffs" in fiscal and entitlement policy is not wise, IMO -- you can find someone who "barely made it" and compare them to someone who just missed -- like someone who is 50.1 or 49.9, or someone who earns 399% of the poverty line instead of 401%. It makes it really easy for those to feel just on the other side to feel royally screwed.

It's why I don't like some of the entitlement reforms that want to draw a line and say (for example), "over 55 -- no change. Under 55 -- bear the full brunt of it" -- regardless of whether you are 24 or 54, and regardless of your financial circumstances.

 

[Texas Proud]

You certainly got a tough break Texas, and I would feel "screwed" if I was in same situation. If my individual plan closes and I am thrown into Obamacare, I won't feel screwed just "an economic loser". I have benefitted from an underwritten plan, and if I was on the opposite end of the spectrum being rejected and bullied by insurance companies, my opinion would be quite different. I am nowhere near the income subsidiary boundaries so I won't feel "screwed". However, the individual who goes a few hundred over the income limit and has to pay full freight, causing them to have less disposable income than somewhere tucked right under the barrier, in my opinion, has a valid right to be considered "screwed". A gradual phasing out instead of a cliff as many have mentioned before would take the sting out of it a bit.

I kind of agree... I was just throwing out a thought on the stmt of being screwed...

I feel that way also, but was wondering if that should be the case... the example of my mega was one.... another was the Cash for Clunker rebate... when I went to look at getting this, I was told it was gone... but they came out with more money and I used it...

But, my mom had bought the same car as I had within a month of when I bought mine... but she had a slightly smaller engine and did not qualify...

With this, I would not have felt screwed if I had not gotten the rebate... I would have felt that I just did not get in line fast enough..

 

[Texas Proud]

This is why creating "cliffs" in fiscal and entitlement policy is not wise, IMO -- you can find someone who "barely made it" and compare them to someone who just missed -- like someone who is 50.1 or 49.9, or someone who earns 399% of the poverty line instead of 401%. It makes it really easy for those to feel just on the other side to feel royally screwed.

It's why I don't like some of the entitlement reforms that want to draw a line and say (for example), "over 55 -- no change. Under 55 -- bear the full brunt of it" -- regardless of whether you are 24 or 54, and regardless of your financial circumstances.

It is a big deal if the difference is big, like we are discussing with the subsidy... (and like my mega health care)... the difference in that step is big... it is always better to have some kind of tapering of the loss.... but you almost always have to have some kind of step or end point...

 

[easysurfer]

Many of us do not have access to a retiree health care plan. I had been planning "full freight" in my calculations.

For those who were counting on an employee subsidy for retirees, there can be a huge difference.

On the other hand, I personally wouldn't have counted on the subsidy in the first place since MegaCorp can give and MegaCorp can take away at any time.

"Screwed" therefore is in the eyes of the beholder. I feel bad for folks that had a benefit that may now be gone

Another way to state it, in Superbowl terms, "One person's obvious holding call is another person's proper non-call"

I too know someone who had a promised MegaCorp retiree health-plan but got taken away when the MegaCorp filed for bankruptcy. In his case, luckily he was old enough our just around the corner to qualify for Medicare.

 

[obgyn65]

Yes - certainly more affordable than getting cancer and having to sell one's house to pay for treatments. And still having to go bankrupt eventually, like so many have.

Why worry? After all, this is "The Affordable Care Act" we are talking about, right? So whatever it is, it has to be affordable, right? They said so.

-ERD50

 

[fh2000]

Yes - certainly more affordable than getting cancer and having to sell one's house to pay for treatments. And still having to go bankrupt eventually, like so many have.

+1000

Though I may pay more premium until 65, I will not fall into the black hole of losing all my life savings.

 

[huusom]

+1000

Though I may pay more premium until 65, I will not fall into the black hole of losing all my life savings.

+1001

 

[ERD50]

Yes - certainly more affordable than getting cancer and having to sell one's house to pay for treatments. And still having to go bankrupt eventually, like so many have.

True, but then it should be called the "More Affordable For Some, Care Act". My point is, "more affordable" should refer to the overall costs, not some segment, and that is very questionable if it can achieve it's self-titled goal. Would the FCC allow that in an ad for a commercial product?

Of course I agree that I don't want to see a responsible person drowned in health care expenses. But that is separate from whether this Act will reduce overall costs or not. You are throwing in a Red Herring, and that is commonly done when one cannot address the actual issue at hand.

-ERD50

 

[easysurfer]

+1000

Though I may pay more premium until 65, I will not fall into the black hole of losing all my life savings.

+1. The logic makes plenty of sense to me.

Those catastrophes happen to everyone else until it happens to me.

 

[Live And Learn]

If you sell off the principal, only the gain will be taxed. Maybe this isn't an option for you, I guess it depends what you mean by 'taxable sources'. My personal accounts (non-IRA) are in a 'taxable source', but only the distributions and gains from sales.

-ERD50

yes, I understand that , but for planning purposes I'm assuming that everything I draw is taxable. It probably wont be in which case I'll have an extra bit of money to play with each year.

 

[Live And Learn]

yes - certainly more affordable than getting cancer and having to sell one's house to pay for treatments. And still having to go bankrupt eventually, like so many have.

+1002 !