[election] Are ER plans still good to go?

[MRG]

Yes and no. I agree to an extent - but not all states had risk pooled policies for those with pre-existing conditions. So if you were a cancer survivor, diabetic, on dialisys, had been treated for depression 20 years ago.... whatever... you were uninsurable unless your state had a high risk pool.

That's the BIGGEST change of the ACA, IMO, as far as ER - the ability to get insurance, outside an employer, prior to medicare age.

Yes I was told by a broker I couldn't insure my c-spine or anything it was attached to. That's after 6 months of no insurance. No thanks.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Early Retirement Forum mobile app

 

[Live And Learn]

My guess is that most of the folks here were retired before ACA and the "opportunities" it now affords are considered 'gravy' by most of us.

Not to be blunt, but if one's retirement plan hinges on whether ACA remains/changes/goes away might be an indicator that you're shaving things a bit too close.

ACA did two things for me (a) made sure that I could get insurance as I am otherwise uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions and (b) added a bit of "comfort" to help me get over OMY syndrome and not work longer than I need to. My 3% WR includes 28k / year for HC for 2 people. I would not retire if my costs were going to be more than that - which could very well happen if ACA changes dramatically.

Perhaps that is cutting it too close - but when do you draw the line in the sand and say "enough" ?

 

[audreyh1]

My guess is that most of the folks here were retired before ACA and the "opportunities" it now affords are considered 'gravy' by most of us.

Not to be blunt, but if one's retirement plan hinges on whether ACA remains/changes/goes away might be an indicator that you're shaving things a bit too close.

As other mention - it's the re-existing conditions waiver that makes all the difference for many folks over 50 trying to retire.

 

[heeyy_joe]

This country is going to pot. Right Oregon?

 

[scrabbler1]

My guess is that most of the folks here were retired before ACA and the "opportunities" it now affords are considered 'gravy' by most of us.

Not to be blunt, but if one's retirement plan hinges on whether ACA remains/changes/goes away might be an indicator that you're shaving things a bit too close.

Here in New York, the individual market is very hostile. I did not count on my my low-end HI plan's premiums to rise nearly 50% in my first 2 years (2010-2011) of ER. At that super-high pace, I'd be paying $1,600 a month in 4 years from now, and that would start busting my budget. I would have to pay it or buy a policy which would leave me very much underinsured. (I had that underinsured policy from 2011-2013 until the ACA's exchanges went into effect.)

But thanks to the exchange, I was able to buy a reasonable HI plan which was affordable (as in Affordable Care Act) and cost less than the 2009 premium I was paying when I first ERed.

 

[ERhoosier]

The possible impact, in article form:



GOP gains won’t have much impact on ACA | Managed Healthcare Executive

Article is rather limited in scope. It does not even consider the impact of the new Congress reducing ACA funding, which a very real possibility. Only half of ACA spending is mandatory, and half is "authorized" but still "discretionary" and subject to the annual Congressional appropriations process.

http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/8301.pdf

 

[Jaded salami]

This is sort of a tangent, but I remember reading in Money Magazine years and years ago where they did a study of how the stock market did depending on which party held the White House and which party controlled Congress, or if Congress was divided. I seem to remember that the best scenario by far for stocks was with a divided government - one party had WH and the other had Congress. Wonder if anyone here can elaborate on this and bring it up to date, as it must have been 20 years ago since I read this.

Not surprising, stock market likes certainty, gridlock has pretty certain outcomes (lack of rule changing).

Yes, I'm bumping my equity allocation up slightly, as a result.

 

[brewer12345]

V is for veto.

 

[scrabbler1]

V is for veto.

+1. Plenty of those in the next 2 years. Maybe we start a pool (or poll?) as to the date of the first one?

 

[samclem]

V is for veto.

R is for Reconciliation
N is for Nuclear Option

The tactics introduced in the Senate during the last 5 years have significantly reduced the comity of that body and also reduced the protections afforded to minority positions. Expect that what has been good for the goose will now be found suitable for the gander.

The reconciliation procedure (used to pass the ACA, among other legislation which did not enjoy fillibuster-proof support in the Senate) is likely to provide many opportunities to deny funding for programs and initiatives not favored by the legislative branch. This might include some portions of the ACA.

The CBO estimates that repealing the ACA would increase the federal deficit by $109 billion:
Letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act | Congressional Budget Office

I don't think you'll find many who take this CBO report seriously. The true budget impact is undersated considereably, especially due to the very limited timeframe considered (10 years, with a very vague estimate beyond that).

For an assessment that includes a broader view of the impacts for the first 10 years, plus a look beyond that, see analysis & commentary Health Care Reform Is Likely To Widen Federal Budget Deficits, Not Reduce Them: In part:

We examine the underpinnings of the CBO’s projection and conclude that it is built on a shaky foundation of omitted costs, premiums shifted from other entitlements, and politically dubious spending cuts and revenue increases. A more comprehensive and realistic projection suggests that the new reform law will raise the deficit by more than $500 billion during the first ten years and by nearly $1.5 trillion in the following decade.

For example the CBO estimate assumes that the Medicare "doc fix" will not be continued, despite the fact that Congress has passed this "temporary" fix every year for more than a decade.

 

[brewer12345]

My best guess is that precious little other than the bare minimum gets done in the next 2 years. In the meantime there will be ugly, in the trenches, no holes barred political nastiness on a grand scale. What else is new?

 

[daylatedollarshort]

I don't think you'll find many who take this CBO report seriously.

Their reply was in response to John Boehner asking them to analyze what would happen if the ACA were to be repealed. I am not sure why he would ask if he would not take their reply seriously. They are the Congressional Budget Office, working directly for Congress, not a partisan think tank:

Congressional Budget Office - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[samclem]

Their reply was in response to John Boehner asking them to analyze what would happen if the ACA were to be repealed. I am not sure why he would ask if he would not take their reply seriously. They are the Congressional Budget Office, working directly for Congress, not a partisan think tank:

Congressional Budget Office - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know who the CBO is, thank you. Do you know the limits they must work within? Google "CBO", "static scoring", "dynamic scoring" for a glimpse. Do you know why Speaker Boehner asked them for this estimate?

Here's a short clip on the "special sauce" that was included in the original CBO PPACA estimate--not their fault, it is just the way the legislation was written (to take advantage of the way CBO is forced to do their calculations). This is not a partisan issue--both sides play this game to optimize CBO estimates.

CBO estimate of PPACA costs explained

 

[Gumby]

A great post to bring our discussion to a close. Thanks to all for participating.

Porky Pig Cartoon Ending "That's All Folks!" - YouTube