Older Americans may have to postpone retirement under New health bill

[Ed B]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ejman Interesting take from an article in Market watch “It seems entirely plausible that the new rules would discourage older workers from retiring or going out on their own to start a new business — if it means giving up employer-sponsored health coverage,” said Tricia Neuman, a senior vice president and director of the program on Medicare policy at Kaiser Family Foundation."

So this will be a new thing?

Please......

[braumeister]

"Older" has always been a moving target.

[daylatedollarshort]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marko Now that I'm a few months away from 65, when I hear/read the words "Older Americans" I think of someone in their 70's. Of course, those folks would be on Medicare, so not sure how old you have to be to be an older American impacted by the new health bill, considering (AFAIK) nothing comes into effect for 3 more years, if at all. "Oh, those poor old people, no health insurance!" Sorry, most everyone I know who retired early never saw HC as an obstacle; before or after ACA

Before the ACA, qualifying and finding affordable health insurance was a huge topic on this and other ER forums. There are probably hundreds if not thousand of older posts on the subject on this forum alone. On the Reddit financial independence forum concerns about potential ACA changes are a game changer for many who wanted to ER.

[Fedup]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB There are experts here, I'm not one, but do know that one of the best part of being retired is all the time to read. Once in a while it pays off. Crossing state lines is "so far" part of the rhetoric surrounding the initiatives, but AFAIK is not part of either of yesterday's proposals, so there is nothing concrete to discuss. You are absolutely correct that the cost of health care needs to be affordable, and it is not.

Cross state line. I think I've heard it's on another provision so it can't be filibuster. IIRC.

[MichaelB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fedup Cross state line. I think I've heard it's on another provision so it can't be filibuster. IIRC.

Which provision? Do you have a link or reference?

[ejman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by daylatedollarshort Before the ACA, qualifying and finding affordable health insurance was a huge topic on this and other ER forums. There are probably hundreds if not thousand of older posts on the subject on this forum alone. On the Reddit financial independence forum the potential ACA changes are a game changer for many who wanted to ER.

As I've posted elsewhere, I ER'd in 2002, long before ACA. It surprised me to no end that I could not find health insurance at any price due to preexisting conditions that I thought were minor. I contacted every insurer offering policies in my area. All rejected us. I ended up having to create a business just so I could get a "group" plan for the two of us. Lousy very expensive coverage but that was the best I could do. If I had known beforehand the difficulties in obtaining health insurance I would have delayed my retirement.

[Fedup]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB Which provision? Do you have a link or reference?

I think I've heard either Price or Ryan said on TV. I found the link. Phase 3
https://www.speaker.gov/general/thre...al-and-replace

[MichaelB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fedup I think I've heard either Price or Ryan said on TV.

That's rhetoric, not a proposal under consideration. AFAIK (again) neither of the two bills under consideration include any reference to changing or allowing an exception to the McCarran-Ferguson Act.

[daylatedollarshort]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ejman As I've posted elsewhere, I ER'd in 2002, long before ACA. It surprised me to no end that I could not find health insurance at any price due to preexisting conditions that I thought were minor. I contacted every insurer offering policies in my area. All rejected us. I ended up having to create a business just so I could get a "group" plan for the two of us. Lousy very expensive coverage but that was the best I could do. If I had known beforehand the difficulties in obtaining health insurance I would have delayed my retirement.

We know people that went back to full time work for the same reason. Ironically, their conditions were the types often stress related, though managed with medication. They though they were pretty healthy for their ages, too. How many age 50+ people, even athletic ones, do not have some kind of adverse health condition past or present in their medical records?

[easysurfer]

I'm already retired and under the current ACA. I've decided to wait and wait and wait about the new health bill until the smoke clears and settles to really pay any attention to what's happening. Otherwise, that'll be like drawing conclusions to a baseball game and only after the first pitch was thrown .

[Chuckanut]

Part of the problem is that many in the press and the political world are having a screaming match rather than a good solid discussion on fixing the ACA. Thus, we the public are very confused as to what the proposed changes will do.

The British members here can correct me, but I believe their system was unpopular with many at the start and has been corrected/fixed/fine-tuned many times since it was introduced.

[photoguy]

I don't understand the interest in cross state insurance competition nor see how that would lower insurance premiums for equivalent level of coverage.

The experience at CoveredCA suggests that a big part of the problem is lack of competition at the provider level

Quote:

In July, when new 2016 rates for Covered California health care plans were announced, Northern California consumers faced additional sticker shock: Those who stay with their existing plan can expect their average premiums to jump 7 percent, compared with only 1.8 percent in Southern California.

Quote:

What accounts for the price difference between north and south? It’s simple, some experts say: lack of competition. Northern California tends to be dominated by larger hospital chains such as Sutter Health and Dignity Health, while Southern California has smaller hospital alliances and more independent doctor groups.

Two halves of California have wide gap in health costs | The Sacramento Bee

[travelover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuckanut Part of the problem is that many in the press and the political world are having a screaming match rather than a good solid discussion on fixing the ACA..........

I think that posing this as "the press" against "the political world" is not accurate.

[jimbee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by photoguy I don't understand the interest in cross state insurance competition nor see how that would lower insurance premiums for equivalent level of coverage.

I don't understand how competition between insurance companies can affect premiums much, either. The ACA requires 80% of premiums to be paid out as benefits. That leaves 20% that can be affected by insurance company competition. That 20% includes operating costs and profits. Taken to a ridiculous extreme, assume the insurance companies don't have operating costs or make any profit, the premiums drop 20%. That isn't enough to make premiums affordable for a lot of people.

The big problems are the costs of service, and the make up of the insured pool in ACA marketplace insurance. The first problem isn't being addressed, and the second can't be until the majority of health insurance can be separated from employers. I don't see that happening.

[Pilot2013]

I've said multiple times, the ACA was not in existence a few "short" years ago, yet people figured out how to ER.

I'll be more blunt. If you can't make a plan to ER without counting on other peoples money in the form of "subsidy", then you need to go back to FIRECALC, and build another plan.

[jimbee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilot2013 I've said multiple times, the ACA was not in existence a few "short" years ago, yet people figured out how to ER. I'll be more blunt. If you can't make a plan to ER without counting on other peoples money in the form of "subsidy", then you need to go back to FIRECALC, and build another plan.

I'll be blunt too. The only text in this thread using the word subsidy is yours.

[LastOfTheBoomers]

I'm trying to run the numbers for DW and I

Current ACA plan is 1103 a month or 13236 a year. We are over the cutoff by about $19k - pesky LTCG at end of year gets us.

If I divide the current premium by 3 and then multiply by 5 it becomes 1838 a month.

Multiply that by 12 and then subtract the new tax credit - the result is 14560

So the yearly cost goes up 1326

I guess this is the worst case scenario.

Has anyone else ran their numbers?

Frankly if they kept the current ACA plan and did the HSA enhancements that would work out pretty well.

[gerntz]

- That insurance companies could charge 5x for older customers doesn't mean they will; i.e., they may find it better to charge younger people 1/3 of older ones for their best miz of customers.
- No reason for young-uns to subsidize olders. Olders are the ones with $$$ by & large.

[gerntz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by photoguy I don't understand the interest in cross state insurance competition nor see how that would lower insurance premiums for equivalent level of coverage. The experience at CoveredCA suggests that a big part of the problem is lack of competition at the provider level Two halves of California have wide gap in health costs | The Sacramento Bee

IMO, it's nice to know market forces do work for health care costs. Who knew?

[Pilot2013]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbee I'll be blunt too. The only text in this thread using the word subsidy is yours.

Touche. Although I would argue ACA is synonymous with "that" word.

The point is still the same. There are multiple different topics here, all about the ACA change. I just point out that people did this whole FIRE thing before this came about.

I would have "gamed" the system just like everyone else on here (holding taxable income down to get the best "deal" on the kickback for premium coverage). So I am not giving a holier than thou statement, but I'm not going to shoot those that are trying to change it either. It has to start somewhere.

I also agree that both the ACA, and the new proposal are WAY too focused on paying for premiums through "breaks" of some kind, rather than cost control.
I'm just not smart enough to know the answer to that part of the problem.

I avoided subsidy the whole post! Oops.