Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Health Care and Employment Solution?
Old 08-31-2011, 08:09 AM   #1
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: westerville
Posts: 242
Health Care and Employment Solution?

With the Individual HC insurance today not available for many of us due to prexisting conditions or the those who can get high risk the cost is so high cant afford it. I was wondering how many of us would Retire if we could get affordable coverage today? Thus if we retired we would open up a job. Wonder what the impact of the HC reform could have on unemployemnt due to people retiring because they could get insurance and opening up jobs? People like me with High BP, High Cholesteral and Sleep AP all controlled with drugs and C-pap machine cannot in the state of Ohio get individual healthcare care and you have 6 month naked period for hi risk and would retire if we could get HCI. One thought of a solution is lower the medicare age and collect higher premiums for those who want to buy it that are younger than current medicare age to help offset the high cost of end of life medical needs. Thoughts please.
Thanks
__________________

__________________
Trawler is offline   Reply With Quote
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 08-31-2011, 08:31 AM   #2
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Midpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 11,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trawler View Post
With the Individual HC insurance today not available for many of us due to prexisting conditions or the those who can get high risk the cost is so high cant afford it. I was wondering how many of us would Retire if we could get affordable coverage today? Thus if we retired we would open up a job. Wonder what the impact of the HC reform could have on unemployemnt due to people retiring because they could get insurance and opening up jobs? People like me with High BP, High Cholesteral and Sleep AP all controlled with drugs and C-pap machine cannot in the state of Ohio get individual healthcare care and you have 6 month naked period for hi risk and would retire if we could get HCI. One thought of a solution is lower the medicare age and collect higher premiums for those who want to buy it that are younger than current medicare age to help offset the high cost of end of life medical needs. Thoughts please.
Thanks
I could walk thru this in steps, but ultimately you're proposing younger taxpayers pay significantly more to reduce the Medicare eligibility age so older folks can retire even earlier. Even though I'd benefit, it hardly seems like a fair solution to me...but AARP would agree with you.
__________________

__________________
No one agrees with other people's opinions; they merely agree with their own opinions -- expressed by somebody else. Sydney Tremayne
Retired Jun 2011 at age 57

Target AA: 60% equity funds / 35% bond funds / 5% cash
Target WR: Approx 2.5% Approx 20% SI (secure income, SS only)
Midpack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 09:02 AM   #3
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: westerville
Posts: 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midpack View Post
I could walk thru this in steps, but ultimately you're proposing younger taxpayers pay significantly more to reduce the Medicare eligibility age so older folks can retire even earlier. Even though I'd benefit, it hardly seems like a fair solution to me...but AARP would agree with you.
Thanks for the resonse to clarify a couple points:
Current medicare eligable age continue to pay the same as today.
People that are younger than Medicare age that would like to purchase medicare for higher premium could ELECT to do so and would only pay if they elected the coverage. Once they reach age 65 premium would drop to todays current rates. Want to give those with PECs an outlet to buy insurance that is not avalable today.
__________________
Trawler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 09:08 AM   #4
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Midpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 11,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trawler View Post
Thanks for the resonse to clarify a couple points:
Current medicare eligable age continue to pay the same as today.
People that are younger than Medicare age that would like to purchase medicare for higher premium could ELECT to do so and would only pay if they elected the coverage. Once they reach age 65 premium would drop to todays current rates. Want to give those with PECs an outlet to buy insurance that is not avalable today.
I think if you do the math, you'll find this doesn't work. Like SS, Medicare is another ponzi scheme paygo system. In the end, you are adding people to Medicare (folks who want to retire and go on Medicare before age 65), how do you pay for that? You either use the higher premiums from the younger payers who elect the coverage (and that's what will happen, it all gets lost in the "general fund"), or you increase deficit spending on Medicare (though it won't show outright, again thanks to the "general fund"), probably the most fiscally troubled entitlement there is.

And I seriously doubt many younger folks would elect higher premiums knowing (now or eventually realizing) the money is not being set aside for them. At best, you'd probably have people figuring out how to game eligibility by "electing" the higher premium as late (age) as possible.

If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is...
__________________
No one agrees with other people's opinions; they merely agree with their own opinions -- expressed by somebody else. Sydney Tremayne
Retired Jun 2011 at age 57

Target AA: 60% equity funds / 35% bond funds / 5% cash
Target WR: Approx 2.5% Approx 20% SI (secure income, SS only)
Midpack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 09:15 AM   #5
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
nun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trawler View Post
With the Individual HC insurance today not available for many of us due to prexisting conditions or the those who can get high risk the cost is so high cant afford it. I was wondering how many of us would Retire if we could get affordable coverage today? Thus if we retired we would open up a job. Wonder what the impact of the HC reform could have on unemployemnt due to people retiring because they could get insurance and opening up jobs? People like me with High BP, High Cholesteral and Sleep AP all controlled with drugs and C-pap machine cannot in the state of Ohio get individual healthcare care and you have 6 month naked period for hi risk and would retire if we could get HCI. One thought of a solution is lower the medicare age and collect higher premiums for those who want to buy it that are younger than current medicare age to help offset the high cost of end of life medical needs. Thoughts please.
Thanks
You're describing what we have in MA. Everyone must have insurance. Our premiums are higher than in most of the country because we don't have pre-existing conditions, MA is just an expensive state to live in and we are paying for some of the best hospitals in the world. Still as a 50 year old, single male I'm happy to pay $350 a month to get a $2k deductible and $5k out of pocket max policy as it means someone like me, but with serious illnesses can get the same policy. Actually I'd like to see those deductibles and co-pays disappear, but the way US healthcare is organized that isn't going to happen.
__________________
nun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 09:23 AM   #6
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: westerville
Posts: 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midpack View Post
I think if you do the math, you'll find this doesn't work. Like SS, Medicare is another ponzi scheme paygo system. In the end, you are adding people to Medicare (folks who want to retire and go on Medicare before age 65), how do you pay for that? You either use the higher premiums from the younger payers who elect the coverage (and that's what will happen, it all gets lost in the "general fund"), or you increase deficit spending on Medicare (though it won't show outright, again thanks to the "general fund"), probably the most fiscally troubled entitlement there is.

And I seriously doubt many younger folks would elect higher premiums knowing (now or eventually realizing) the money is not being set aside for them. At best, you'd probably have people figuring out how to game eligibility by "electing" the higher premium as late (age) as possible.

If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is...

Good points but the underlying question is how many people would retire early that cannot today. If they had an outlet to buy insurance in this case Medicare they would retire today pay more than they are today into the system but could retire and then a current unemployed person would take there place in the work force and be an additional person paying taxes ? Would this reduce the deficit ? There has to be some kind of solution to this.
__________________
Trawler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 09:31 AM   #7
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,275
It is a problem.... and insurance is a paygo system also... you and others pay into the system... somebody needs services... they pay for those services...


Young people do not like paying for the medical expenses of the old... I deal with the insurance for a small company and one of the younger guys was giving me an earful of the costs of our high deductible plan... he wanted a cheaper option... his main comment 'why should I be paying for all the medical expenses of the old folks'....

He does not understand (and I can not tell him) that a lot of the cost are actually some of the kids that people have.... some have medical conditions, some are accident prone... some young lady (the wife of an employee) got a brain tumor... sure, right now he and his family are not using the services that cost him $700 per month.... but they might...
__________________
Texas Proud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 09:40 AM   #8
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
nun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trawler View Post
Thanks for the resonse to clarify a couple points:
Current medicare eligable age continue to pay the same as today.
People that are younger than Medicare age that would like to purchase medicare for higher premium could ELECT to do so and would only pay if they elected the coverage. Once they reach age 65 premium would drop to todays current rates. Want to give those with PECs an outlet to buy insurance that is not avalable today.
The private health care industry would lobby against this as an expansion of Medicare takes patients away form them. The US healthcare system needs serious reform as it delivers some of the world's worst outcomes at the highest per capita cost. There are plenty of good solutions in other countries, but because of the current trend for fear of any regulation and vested interests I don't see change coming soon. If Market principals rather than public health principals continue to dominate the delivery of healthcare people with pre-existing conditions will also continue to die earlier in the US than they would in other countries.
__________________
nun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 09:52 AM   #9
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: westerville
Posts: 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
It is a problem.... and insurance is a paygo system also... you and others pay into the system... somebody needs services... they pay for those services...


Young people do not like paying for the medical expenses of the old... I deal with the insurance for a small company and one of the younger guys was giving me an earful of the costs of our high deductible plan... he wanted a cheaper option... his main comment 'why should I be paying for all the medical expenses of the old folks'....

He does not understand (and I can not tell him) that a lot of the cost are actually some of the kids that people have.... some have medical conditions, some are accident prone... some young lady (the wife of an employee) got a brain tumor... sure, right now he and his family are not using the services that cost him $700 per month.... but they might...
Thanks for the comments. To add I think there are many people who are willing to pay premiums but cannot get underwritten for individual health care insurance due PECs thus are chained to a job in order to be on a group plan. If they could buy IHCI they would retire thus creating a job and an additional tax payer. Medicare needs more revenue so if sell these folks who want to retire early a "Medicare Individual Health Insurance Policy" would there be enough offset from the premiums of this policy and payroll tax from the person who went from unemployed and on the dole to a taxpayer to be overal revenue nuetral or even positive??
__________________
Trawler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 10:08 AM   #10
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: anywhere usa
Posts: 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
It is a problem.... and insurance is a paygo system also... you and others pay into the system... somebody needs services... they pay for those services...


Young people do not like paying for the medical expenses of the old... I deal with the insurance for a small company and one of the younger guys was giving me an earful of the costs of our high deductible plan... he wanted a cheaper option... his main comment 'why should I be paying for all the medical expenses of the old folks'....

He does not understand (and I can not tell him) that a lot of the cost are actually some of the kids that people have.... some have medical conditions, some are accident prone... some young lady (the wife of an employee) got a brain tumor... sure, right now he and his family are not using the services that cost him $700 per month.... but they might...
Young guy like that should price an individual policy and opt out of group insurance, if he's paying $700 per month for health insurance.
__________________
pimpmyretirement is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 10:25 AM   #11
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
nun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trawler View Post
Good points but the underlying question is how many people would retire early that cannot today. If they had an outlet to buy insurance in this case Medicare they would retire today pay more than they are today into the system but could retire and then a current unemployed person would take there place in the work force and be an additional person paying taxes ? Would this reduce the deficit ? There has to be some kind of solution to this.
I think you would see more people ERing if they could get reasonable health care, particularly if they have pre-existing conditions. My ER decision doesn't depend much on health insurance as I'm guaranteed it at a reasonable cost if I leave work just by living in MA. My monthly costs would go up from $100 to $350, but that's within my budget and won't change if I get ill.
__________________
nun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 10:28 AM   #12
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,072
All insurance type systems are pay as you go systems... they may have a reserve pool. Without current premium flow they would fail quickly.

Medicare is more like a pay before you go system. You are really paying now for coverage later.

The problem is the way our system is setup. It promotes anti-selection because of a patch quilt health care system and because of certain laws, regulations and social concerns.


Probably the biggest hole in a voluntary system is this:

People can opt-out and still get coverage. They can later opt in when the probability raises that they need care (even for young people... start a family.... I want it now). I mean if you really wanted to be completely nit picky about it, one could say that single people subsidize families.


The system forgives anti-selection.

People only choose to opt-out because they think they will be forgiven (financially) if a catastrophe happens and can enter a system when they may need coverage.


In fact, that is what happens.


But our formal system is setup where one can participate in it all of their life and lose their coverage through no fault of their own and be black listed.
__________________
chinaco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 10:49 AM   #13
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by chinaco View Post
But our formal system is setup where one can participate in it all of their life and lose their coverage through no fault of their own and be black listed.
Well, "the system" itself doesn't allow folks to lose coverage just because they get sick or develop a condition. But if someone loses their job and can't afford COBRA, yes, then a preexisting condition can screw them royally. Seriously, the linkage between health insurance and full-time employment needs to be severed. I think that one change would free many people from needing to work, and free others from corporate shackles.
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 11:37 AM   #14
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggy29 View Post
Well, "the system" itself doesn't allow folks to lose coverage just because they get sick or develop a condition. But if someone loses their job and can't afford COBRA, yes, then a preexisting condition can screw them royally. Seriously, the linkage between health insurance and full-time employment needs to be severed. I think that one change would free many people from needing to work, and free others from corporate shackles.

There are way to fall through the cracks after the COBRA ends if one has a problem.


I agree with severing health insurance from the job. There are quite a number of employers that do not offer coverage.
__________________
chinaco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 12:08 PM   #15
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by chinaco View Post
There are way to fall through the cracks after the COBRA ends if one has a problem.
Yes, if you don't properly jump through all the hoops that HIPAA requires. If you do use all your COBRA and don't allow a lapse in coverage for 63 days or more, you won't have to deal with pre-existing condition exclusions (even if costly and even if in a state risk pool). The cost may make a practical barrier to continued coverage, but not a legal one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chinaco View Post
I agree with severing health insurance from the job. There are quite a number of employers that do not offer coverage.
There are also plenty of people who would retire or accept part-time w*rk if full-time employment wasn't required to keep health insurance. That would improve their quality of life and perhaps create a few job openings for those who still need to w*rk.
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 12:23 PM   #16
Recycles dryer sheets
Blackwoodt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Kearney
Posts: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trawler View Post
I was wondering how many of us would Retire if we could get affordable coverage today?
I would be retired today if I had health coverage, however I am lucky enough to work for a company that offers retiree health insurance.

My plans are to stay until after my 55th birthday next September to have health coverage for myself and DH.
__________________
Not all who wander are lost - J. R. Tolkien
Blackwoodt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 12:50 PM   #17
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by pimpmyretirement View Post
Young guy like that should price an individual policy and opt out of group insurance, if he's paying $700 per month for health insurance.

That is what I told him... opt out... but then he wanted to get his salary increase for what the company pays... I said 'you can choose to have insurance or not, but can not get more pay'... we pay 100% of the cost of insurance for our employees... they only pay for the family part...
__________________
Texas Proud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 12:55 PM   #18
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Midpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 11,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trawler View Post
Good points but the underlying question is how many people would retire early that cannot today. If they had an outlet to buy insurance in this case Medicare they would retire today pay more than they are today into the system but could retire and then a current unemployed person would take there place in the work force and be an additional person paying taxes ? Would this reduce the deficit ? There has to be some kind of solution to this.
I'm not going to do the math for you, but you seem to be forgetting that Medicare is heavily subsidized by general revenue. The Medicare premiums are far less than the cost of the underlying health care, so adding people at a big discount (what Medicare does) just adds to the deficit. If early retirees would be willing to pay Medicare premiums that reflected the real costs of health care it would probably be about $1,000/month - about the same as private insurance, or Obamacare.

If the math was workable, it would have been done long ago.

Your generational job swap proposition just confuses the issue, the underlying Medicare revenues/spending proposition just doesn't work.

We'll probably have universal care in my lifetime, but it will ultimately cost a lot more than today. Public health care is subsidized by general revenue (income taxes) and private insurance by employers. It's sad that people think their Medicare or employer health care premiums/contributions cover the costs - not even close. I'm afraid that misconception underlies your premise.

I'll excuse myself from this thread...
__________________
No one agrees with other people's opinions; they merely agree with their own opinions -- expressed by somebody else. Sydney Tremayne
Retired Jun 2011 at age 57

Target AA: 60% equity funds / 35% bond funds / 5% cash
Target WR: Approx 2.5% Approx 20% SI (secure income, SS only)
Midpack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 01:07 PM   #19
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
nun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackwoodt View Post
I would be retired today if I had health coverage, however I am lucky enough to work for a company that offers retiree health insurance.

My plans are to stay until after my 55th birthday next September to have health coverage for myself and DH.
I'm 50 and if I stay with my employer until 55 I'll be able to retire on their plan and pay exactly the same premium as I pay now which is $100 a month. However, as I can get a good "Bronze" plan for $350 through the Massacusetts Connector I could easily retire before 55. My employer's plan is more generous and obviously costs me less as they cover 75% of the cost, but the availability of reasonable health insurance irrespective of pre-existing conditions by state law means than it isn't a big driver in my retirement date planning. Also it means that 98% of MA residents have health insurance.
__________________
nun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 02:31 PM   #20
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: anywhere usa
Posts: 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
That is what I told him... opt out... but then he wanted to get his salary increase for what the company pays... I said 'you can choose to have insurance or not, but can not get more pay'... we pay 100% of the cost of insurance for our employees... they only pay for the family part...
100% coverage for the employee cost is pretty sweet. You'd think the obvious answer would be to get his insurance through the company and then buy his family health insurance on the individual market.

My wife and I bounce between insurance co's, depending on which of our employers have the better offering. Open enrollment and qualifying life events are good things to get familiar with, if someone is trying to maximize their insurance benefits. A few sick people at a small company can really put their insurance costs out of line with the market.
__________________

__________________
pimpmyretirement is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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 08:31 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.