[election] Are ER plans still good to go?

[gauss]

My ER plan is based on the assumption of continued access to ACA health plans, if necessary, and the $60,000 per year at age 70 that DW and I have accrued under Social Security. Actually I have discounted SS by 1/3 but I would hate to see that buffer margin disappear so early in the retirement life cycle (we are currently age 49).

Other items possibly at risk could be laws regarding corporate pensions and PBGC.

My current WR is less than 2% but this would change if there are material changes to the fixed income streams/expenses that I have alluded to above.

FWIW, I am viewing this filtered through an INTP personality type.

Thoughts?

-gauss

 

[MichaelB]

Mod note: let's avoid a discussion about the partisan outcome of yesterday's elections and what they mean for future elections. How they impact specific topics, like ACA, and how specific changes will impact our early retirement plans, are topics for discussion.

 

[Fermion]

No change to ACA (it would get a veto)

SS will never change significantly (too many old people vote)

Possible that some work may be done now to repatriate corporate profits at a lower tax rate. If they indeed do bring back a trillion or so and some of it goes into the US economy, expect DOW 20,000 shortly after. That might advance your ER plans?

 

[easysurfer]

The biggies of the ACA like no pre-existing condition exclusion, and keeping someone on the policy until 26 years old aren't gonna change any time soon.

 

[brewer12345]

The big thing I think is at risk is ACA reforms. My suspicion is that there will be two years of solid gridlock on this, followed by . There may be tweaking around the edges of some provisions, but it would be hard to believe that would not be the case regardless of who won what election.

 

[ziggy29]

I see no way that ALL of the ACA is repealed. Too many of the provisions of the law are very popular, even as some of them are rather unpopular in many circles.

 

[easysurfer]

The possible impact, in article form:

While Republicans picked up seven seats in the U.S. Senate on Nov. 4 to assume a majority, recent good news surrounding the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will likely safeguard major aspects of it from GOP repeal.

Three of the nation’s largest insurers - Aetna, WellPoint and UnitedHealth Group –recently posted third quarter profits that exceeded Wall Street expectations, and all will be maintaining or adding to plan offerings during the next ACA open enrollment cycle, which begins Nov. 15.

That news, along with the drop in the country’s uninsured rate, could help protect major parts of the ACA from a targeted GOP appeal.

One element of the law that could be challenged is the medical device tax, which has triggered intense lobbying from the healthcare industry and has bipartisan repeal support, according to the Washington Post.

On the Medicaid expansion front, Republicans governors lost in six key states where party changes were possible, leaving the future of expansion in doubt.

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

 

[Live And Learn]

I am 52 and my WR is 3% so I have less cushion than the OP. Like the OP I have discounted my SS estimate by 1/3rd. I'm not to worried about SS changing much.

Due to the newness of ACA my budget is based on non-subsidized HC but in my heart I was counting on the subsidy to ease my fears associated with my "high" 3% WR.

I struggle with OMY syndrome and potential ACA changes will probably have me searching for a PT job once I ER.

 

[unclemick]

Hmmm - savings /investing period 1966 to 1993. ER 1993 to present.

Not recommended but I went 12 years with zero health insurance and some expense cutting that went 'beyond frugal.'

So 1966 to 2014 there were some political changes. However hindsight says don't overreact.

heh heh heh - 401k, health insurance in a different state and much cheaper much later post Katrina,ROTH, and index funds(1977?). Now I notice my Target Retirement Fund is shifting more international as time rolls on.

? Politics. Or just slowing adjusting to the times?

 

[pb4uski]

My ER plan is based on the assumption of continued access to ACA health plans, if necessary, and the $60,000 per year at age 70 that DW and I have accrued under Social Security. ....Other items possibly at risk could be laws regarding corporate pensions and PBGC.

My current WR is less than 2% but this would change if there are material changes to the fixed income streams/expenses that I have alluded to above.
....

I don't see any substantial changes to ACA. For one thing, the changes to pre-existing conditions is very popular and would not be changed.

I don't see any changes to SS that will affect near-retirees other than perhaps chained-CPI which isn't a really significant change.

Ditto with pensions and the PBGC.

If your WR is less than 2% I don't think you have anything to fret about.

 

[Chuckanut]

Most likely would be a fix to the 30 hour a week problem that keeps many people stuck in part-time jobs earning less than they should. Or having to cobble together two part time jobs to earn a full time income.

As long as they don't do something stupid, like returning to the days of pre-existing condition exclusions, I think improvements will be welcome.

 

[Senator]

A few things might change in the medical insurance arena.

Letting insurance companies do business across state lines
Tort reform would save medical costs
Less emphasis on subsidies, more emphasis on controlling costs and increasing competition

 

[MichaelB]

I continue to believe the greatest risks to our retirement and early retirement are our own health and ability to enjoy. Very little can happen in DC or elsewhere that comes close in magnitude, most of the legislative things we can react or adapt to. What will catch us mostly unprepared and be more difficult to react to are accidents, terminal disease, and lifestyle choices that lead to debilitating old age.

 

[REWahoo]

I continue to believe the greatest risks to our retirement and early retirement are our own health and ability to enjoy.

+1

Plus those pesky asteroids...

 

[ShokWaveRider]

It would be nice if they made it better (ACA that is). To benefit more of the people who need it most rather than the insurance companies. Repeal is futile IMHO, so band together and give us a plan that comparable to other free civilized nations. I wonder what those chances are?

 

[scrabbler1]

Two things in the ACA which were/are in teh courts can be fixed through rather simple legislation:

(1) Make sure that those who signed up for the ACA through the federal (not state) exchanges be eligible for the federal subsidies (i.e. end the pending lawsuits which to me lack any merit to begin with).

(2) Allow those in states which stupidly rejected the Medicaid expansion but would have been eligible for that be allowed to apply through an exchange (federal or state) and receive a federal subsidy anyway (see #1) instead of getting caught the the law's glitch in this area.

 

[David1961]

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.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

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 am ramping up the part-time hours a bit even though our retirement budget has pad already. We could live another 50 years so as long as we don't have to have heart attack inducing jobs, a little extra income isn't going to hurt, may help to keep the brains functioning as well as help cover any unexpected increases in health care costs along the way.

I was not mentally prepared when our COBRA premiums went from around $900 a month in December of the first year to around $2300 January of the next year, so I guess in this crazy health care system in the U.S. maybe I need to plan for premiums to go back that high or even higher again some day.

 

[marko]

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.

Looking at a 20 year chart of the Dow, I can't really see where one could identify a particular party or congressional combination that had a direct influence.

There's an ebb and flow and short term spikes, but it really seems to be about allocation, a mix of good companies and long term investing vs 'trading'. And let's remember that downturns are 'bargain buying time'.

IMHO

 

[ERhoosier]

I continue to believe the greatest risks to our retirement and early retirement are our own health and ability to enjoy. Very little can happen in DC or elsewhere that comes close in magnitude, most of the legislative things we can react or adapt to. What will catch us mostly unprepared and be more difficult to react to are accidents, terminal disease, and lifestyle choices that lead to debilitating old age.

Agree, but most may not realize the extent to which legislation & regulations (Fed/state/local) can significantly affect this. Folks need to stay involved in the process (like VOTING, contacting legislators, etc.). Recent legislative changes to HI have had obvious impacts, good or bad depending on individual circumstances. And many of my older relatives are STILL PO'ed about the Fed's change to start taxing SS benefits 25+ yrs ago. Who knows what health, tax, and other issues could negatively affect our 'generation' of retirees?

Stay [-]thirsty[/-] informed my friends

 

[marko]

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.

 

[Corporateburnout]

In MA where I live we had "Romney care" which was fully implemented and effective with a 97% of residents with health insurance before we had to switch to the ACA. So if the law is repealed the state will go back to the old system with the only difference being subsidies started @300% of poverty level as opposed to 400% under the ACA.

 

[rodi]

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.

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.

 

[travelover]

I see no way that ALL of the ACA is repealed. Too many of the provisions of the law are very popular, even as some of them are rather unpopular in many circles.

That's very true. Even though Kentucky never actually adopted Obamacare, McConnellcare is very popular.

Mitch McConnell’s puzzling claims on insurance in Kentucky, post-Obamacare - The Washington Post

 

[Hamlet]

I wouldn't be surprised if they agreed to just scrap the employer mandate entirely.

They keep pushing it off anyway, and at the end of the day it isn't critical to the ACA.

Most likely would be a fix to the 30 hour a week problem that keeps many people stuck in part-time jobs earning less than they should. Or having to cobble together two part time jobs to earn a full time income.

As long as they don't do something stupid, like returning to the days of pre-existing condition exclusions, I think improvements will be welcome.