ibleed0range
Level 2 Member
I'm 30 now and my target retire date was before 40 but I'm pushing it up to 35 dependent on the Obama care situation 5 years from now, if I can pay my condo off by then, and how the stock market has faired.
Obamacare and retirement (split from WF)
- Thread starter ibleed0range
- Start date
My family and everyone I know personally is hoping that law gets repealed and replaced. The deductibles make it so expensive I'm better off as a cash payer and many of us no longer have coverage. The demise of WF has been a blow to all of us, but what a blessing it's been up to now. It paid for all our healthcare needs and then some, allowed us to take care of things insurance wouldn't cover anyhow (like Lasik eye surgery) and generally helped us better our health in ways insurance wouldn't. Like the rest of you, we had hoped for at least one more year but will keep up with other ways and turn more attention on less profitable cards that are still worth it. Treating old blue carefully and involving more family to spread out the volume due to cap, but strategy is key to not bring the wrong attention.
zceuxbhjutf
Panel 3 Member
Do you understand how car insurance works? We don't plan to plow into stuff, and we can't use it for new tires, or a tuneup. So really, the expenses we foresee make it completely useless.
Better off keeping cash in pocket LOL...
ibleed0range
Level 2 Member
I don't have a problem with the law changing I just need access to affordable healthcare. I would be getting the low deductible plans as I use it all the time anyway. As long as they don't price it based on your preexisting conditions I don't care. I would love to retire and take a subsidy at $0 income or close to it. The reason people want the law abolished is because they think they don't need health insurance so therefore don't want to pay for it. But they will gladly raise the red flag when they need it and can't afford to pay out of pocket. Treat me, fix me, cure me. It sucks that people have an added expense that think they are healthy but honestly get over it. At some point in time you will need it and it will have paid for itself over the course of your lifetime with one major health scare.
Actually I and many others want it replaced, as you do, for many reasons related to bad things written into it that no one got to vet since it was done behind closed doors. Congress voted on it without knowing what all was in it. Many people's wages were directly hit by this thing and it could be so much better. My brother has insurance and just found out he needs surgery. He said he would be better off without it due to the costs involved. Unless a person has really good insurance its a rip off. The amount he has to pay out of pocket PLUS the monthly premium is worse than if he had been a cash payer. He looked into payment plans for cash payers and would have been better off. The law allowed HUGE deductibles, but still bad premiums for full time workers. This is one of the big reasons so many have left the workforce and no longer looking for work. The unemployment numbers don't reflect actual unemployed people because they don't count those no longer looking. It's messed up. I think we all agree it needs fixed. But, some people with chronic conditions and family history have to have some sort of coverage. Surely they can improve the laws.
Back to WF: They're still paying out rewards to me on purchases, but still looks like they're monitoring because the purchases don't go to pending rewards as fast as they used to. They are watching my account. I'm keeping ms busy with other things, but sure miss this card. I can't attain the volume and % gain I once enjoyed, but glad I had some things in place to keep going. Will slow down soon due to much needed vacation (all on points of course).
Last edited:
zceuxbhjutf
Panel 3 Member
"better to pay cash" and "good reason to leave the workforce"
Sounds like this cash is imaginary LOL.
Sounds like this cash is imaginary LOL.
AndyP
Level 2 Member
The only reason that cash would be cheaper for surgery is if it is minor surgery that is near the out of pocket maximum for his plan. The biggest out of pocket maximums are $6300-ish. So his surgery must be right around that amount.
There are affordable plans for less that $2000/year that provide the peace of mind that if I get cancer or need major surgery, I am covered by insurance for all expenses above $6300. And if your income is low enough, the government will help pay.
There are affordable plans for less that $2000/year that provide the peace of mind that if I get cancer or need major surgery, I am covered by insurance for all expenses above $6300. And if your income is low enough, the government will help pay.
Some are turning to health sharing programs which aren't insurance but cover catastrophic, more like what used to be known as major medical. These programs are exempt from the tax mandate and are only $45/mo for the base plan. I'm currently exempt anyhow, but seriously considering it until a better plan is available to me through work. Wife and I don't need all the extras the current law makes insurance companies offer, which helped contribute to the current premiums many complain about. I know some people who left the country and now living in areas where they have decent healthcare, but are cash based. Some have renounced citizenship so they can keep more of their earned income. I'm not willing to go that far. They aren't ms'rs either. It's harder to ms outside the U.S.
Just extracted this from the WF thread (a little belated!). Obamacare is a touchy subject. For me, I believe you can't have a civilized society without social healthcare. That said, I think that Obamacare wasn't perfectly implemented, because there is too much going on at the insurance/drug manufacturer/healthcare provider level that needs tidying up.
However, it is also worth noting that if you learn how it works you can do well with it.
Obamacare is a 'pay what you want system' for those who are not employed (and people here are talking about retirement so it is pertinent). I decided to opt for the $40 a month plan ($20 each, kids are free) rather than the $0 plan in order to broaden the network of providers we had access to. Co pays are low, and often zero.
So, the implementation of it is is flawed, but to criticize it overall and seek repeal implies that you just haven't figured out how it works, once you know, if you have a 'me first attitude' (which is what many against social welfare have) then you'll probably want it to stick around
However, it is also worth noting that if you learn how it works you can do well with it.
Obamacare is a 'pay what you want system' for those who are not employed (and people here are talking about retirement so it is pertinent). I decided to opt for the $40 a month plan ($20 each, kids are free) rather than the $0 plan in order to broaden the network of providers we had access to. Co pays are low, and often zero.
So, the implementation of it is is flawed, but to criticize it overall and seek repeal implies that you just haven't figured out how it works, once you know, if you have a 'me first attitude' (which is what many against social welfare have) then you'll probably want it to stick around
Is the $40 a month plan you have one of the health share ministry programs? The lowest one I found was $45 per person. Or, did you find an actual insurance plan anyone can get that is only $40 a month? That's great! Point me in that direction please. I can't get on the Marketplace because my employer offers insurance, but it has high premiums and high deductibles, plus won't cover pre-existing for a while (my state allows pre-existing exclusion up to 12 months).Just extracted this from the WF thread (a little belated!). Obamacare is a touchy subject. For me, I believe you can't have a civilized society without social healthcare. That said, I think that Obamacare wasn't perfectly implemented, because there is too much going on at the insurance/drug manufacturer/healthcare provider level that needs tidying up.
However, it is also worth noting that if you learn how it works you can do well with it.
Obamacare is a 'pay what you want system' for those who are not employed (and people here are talking about retirement so it is pertinent). I decided to opt for the $40 a month plan ($20 each, kids are free) rather than the $0 plan in order to broaden the network of providers we had access to. Co pays are low, and often zero.
So, the implementation of it is is flawed, but to criticize it overall and seek repeal implies that you just haven't figured out how it works, once you know, if you have a 'me first attitude' (which is what many against social welfare have) then you'll probably want it to stick around
Also, can anyone here provide a link to the actual federal law section which states that insurance companies will no longer be able to exclude pre-existing conditions in the first 6 to 12 months of signup no matter what state they are in (for all employer sponsored plans including small businesses)? At this point, I'm still finding that only a few states have their own laws in place which prevent the exclusion. I thought at some point no insurance company operating in any state would be able to exclude pre-existing conditions in the first months of enrollment, but I can't find that in the federal law. Maybe I was dreaming? This exclusion is still keeping many I know from being able to afford paying premiums at the same time they're paying out for pre-existing since in many states insurance companies evidently still have grandfathered plans which allow them to not cover pre-existing conditions in the first 6 to 12 months of enrollment depending on the state you live (for employer sponsored insurance).
Last edited:
Saphira2021
Level 2 Member
I agree. my searches for healthcare on Obamacare ended up running $250-400 per person per month for waaaaay sub par policy. and it is only just for me. there must be a big difference from state to state. from the comments i read, Tx seems to be good to people while NJ sucks big time. but then again most things here are hideously expensive. take car insurance. property taxes etc. it was cheaper for me to pay Cobra than take Obamacare. and that is saying something.
I know you get much better subsidized plans when you have kids. My wife and I don't have any kids and we both work, so thus far we're in the unfavorable/unaffordable boat compared to a lot of people. The search continues.
I did some more research today to find out if insurance companies with grandfathered plans will at some point no longer be allowed to have pre-existing conditions exclusions for the first 6 to 12 months for new employer based insurance enrollees. Unfortunately, Obamacare will continue to allow insurance companies with these plans to collect premiums from new enrollees yet deny them coverage for up to the first year depending on each state's rule. There are still millions of grandfathered plans in the United States and only a very few states which prohibit, by their own state laws, pre-existing condition exclusions in the first year of so-called coverage (since those people are paying premiums yet not completely covered). This is one of the key reasons many workers, especially in small to medium size businesses, can't afford to pay monthly insurance premiums plus their current costs for medical needs related to pre-existing conditions which are not covered by these grandfathered plans in the first 6 to 12 months. They would be paying into a plan that is excluding coverage for their condition and so they have additional costs which deem them in hardship and therefore the tax mandate doesn't apply to many of them. At this point, these people are stuck in that boat.
From the ACA website:
Pre-existing Conditions: Under the Affordable Care Act, health insurance companies can’t refuse to cover you or charge you more just because you have a “pre-existing condition” — that is, a health problem you had before the date that new health coverage starts. They also can’t charge women more than men. These rules went into effect for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014.
One Exception: Grandfathered Plans
The pre-existing coverage rule does not apply to “grandfathered” individual health insurance policies.
As used in connection with the Affordable Care Act: A group health plan that was created—or an individual health insurance policy that was purchased—on or before March 23, 2010. Grandfathered plans are exempted from many changes required under the Affordable Care Act. Plans or policies may lose their “grandfathered” status if they make certain significant changes that reduce benefits or increase costs to consumers. A health plan must disclose in its plan materials whether it considers itself to be a grandfathered plan and must also advise consumers how to contact the U.S. Department of Labor or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services with questions. (Note: If you are in a group health plan, the date you joined may not reflect the date the plan was created. New employees and new family members may be added to grandfathered group plans after March 23, 2010).
I work in the media and my employer has this kind of plan and about half their employees refuse the plan and go without, mostly due to the lack of coverage for pre-existing conditions in the first year. Most of those employees have no children and therefore can't get subsidized in the Marketplace, plus don't see how it's possible for them to pay out $15,000 in out of pocket anyhow. We have a long ways to go before these workers can claim this is "Affordable". Some are turning to the health share ministry programs, which is not insurance but at least is exempt from the tax mandate, if they don't already qualify under hardship rules. The government touted that ACA would stop the pre-existing condition exclusions, but as we see they allowed the insurance companies to continue the practice in many states up to a year of initial enrollment. Plus, they still bow down to the insurance companies who don't want to compete across state lines.
From the ACA website:
Pre-existing Conditions: Under the Affordable Care Act, health insurance companies can’t refuse to cover you or charge you more just because you have a “pre-existing condition” — that is, a health problem you had before the date that new health coverage starts. They also can’t charge women more than men. These rules went into effect for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014.
One Exception: Grandfathered Plans
The pre-existing coverage rule does not apply to “grandfathered” individual health insurance policies.
As used in connection with the Affordable Care Act: A group health plan that was created—or an individual health insurance policy that was purchased—on or before March 23, 2010. Grandfathered plans are exempted from many changes required under the Affordable Care Act. Plans or policies may lose their “grandfathered” status if they make certain significant changes that reduce benefits or increase costs to consumers. A health plan must disclose in its plan materials whether it considers itself to be a grandfathered plan and must also advise consumers how to contact the U.S. Department of Labor or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services with questions. (Note: If you are in a group health plan, the date you joined may not reflect the date the plan was created. New employees and new family members may be added to grandfathered group plans after March 23, 2010).
I work in the media and my employer has this kind of plan and about half their employees refuse the plan and go without, mostly due to the lack of coverage for pre-existing conditions in the first year. Most of those employees have no children and therefore can't get subsidized in the Marketplace, plus don't see how it's possible for them to pay out $15,000 in out of pocket anyhow. We have a long ways to go before these workers can claim this is "Affordable". Some are turning to the health share ministry programs, which is not insurance but at least is exempt from the tax mandate, if they don't already qualify under hardship rules. The government touted that ACA would stop the pre-existing condition exclusions, but as we see they allowed the insurance companies to continue the practice in many states up to a year of initial enrollment. Plus, they still bow down to the insurance companies who don't want to compete across state lines.
$20 per person, kid is free, so $40 for 3.
http://info.nystateofhealth.ny.gov/sites/default/files/Essential Plan Benefits and Cost Sharing_1.pdf
Lowest we can get is $400 a month and $10,000 out of pocket, but our income is more than the cap on that chart of $31.864 for 2 people (plus not in NY). And of course, pre-existing isn't covered the first year in my state which adds to the first year. Maybe we need a section on this forum to compare state taxes, living expenses and so forth. And, to bring in the travel aspect, a country comparison on cost of living, health quality and costs. It would be quite an exhaustive research.
Last edited:
There's levels there though.. for example, living expenses are very complicated to track, and vary greatly from one person to another. Some people might have so much side gig income that they are cashflow positive before salary.
Also, it is important to note that 'income' is not what is measured by the plan I linked to, instead 'MAGI' is the metric. It is a very important distinction, because a person can have six figure income, and a MAGI at that level.
Wish certain midwest states had something like that. Is that unique to New England area states or NY?
I'm honestly not familiar with every state, but 'Obamacare' runs from MAGI everywhere.. what is offered beyond that metric is variable.
Pre-existing condition clauses only come into effect when you're going from uninsured to insured. So if someone was covered by a policy before coming to work for your company and has no lapse in coverage, there will be no pre-existing condition exclusion.
There are no states where an aca compliant plan (thus pre-existing condition exclusions) doesn't exist. If you're buying individual insurance on the exchange, it will not have pre-existing exclusion criteria. Your employer is a dinosaur that obviously doesn't care about its employees. They're locked into a plan which hasn't been updated since 2010 - doubt that's going to be a successful long term strategy.
Saphira2021
Level 2 Member
This is good for NY and only up to $23.5K. go just a little, very little up from the number and a little west/south and you are looking at 10 times that much for one. NY is "different", very different.
kodiak jack
Level 2 Member
Matt,
Is the process for having the underlined shoveling large amounts into tax-deferred accounts via self-employed retirement plans?
And, if so, one would still need to mostly live off something near the MAGI level, since money coming back out of the tax-deferred plan would flow into magi. Or is there an angle I'm missing?
Of course, a paid off house and lots of other prepaid expenses could certainly help with reducing annual cash flow needed to live.
I'd also like to learn these creative ways in order to qualify for the Marketplace subsidies, but having an employer who offers insurance, albeit an ugly grandfathered one, has been the catch that prevents us from getting into the Marketplace except at full price with HUGE deductibles.
Essentially that is a big part of it - paid off home, low living expenses due to things like travel being free etc requiring little taxable cash flow. Retirement accounts are used to divert income otherwise allocated to MAGI away, but when in retirement certain things also aren't considered, such as Roth withdrawals.
You could argue that it might get harder in the long run to sustain this, but I see the ACA as something that might change in the future anyway, so its a case of making hay while the sun shines.
There are more complex solutions out there taking the concept further, such as using entities to hold wealth (C corps, Trusts etc)
But, how do I get around one of the first questions on the Marketplace which asks "Does your employer offer insurance...?" I must not be thinking outside the box. That one answer then disqualifies any further delving into the Marketplace subsidies for me, or at least that's the way it seems to me. I'm not self employed.
You in particular, need to accept that you are screwed and move on. You want to stay with your employer, despite it not being ideal in the healthcare department, therefore the other things they offer you must outweigh it and you have to accept that.
When I'm talking about solutions and the ACA I'm talking more to the person who would retire or be self employed.
Thanks Matt for the clarification on those ACA solutions being mainly for retirees and self employed. I was being sincere about trying to figure this out. It looks like I'm not alone as there are still around 50 million grandfathered plans, although one study said 37 million. Some of the biggest companies, such as Exxon Mobile, received huge exemptions from the new law and they continue to hang onto grandfathered plans which have no sunset date. The power of lobbyist and the influence they have over many in Congress have helped contribute to a lot of this nation's problems.
I work for a charity, therefore my situation is unique in that I could get a 'better' job, but continue to feel a calling to help people. I'm hoping the charity will in the future recover from the economic crisis this nation has gone through, but it hasn't yet and the employees continue to suffer. In any other company these employees would have left, but they are committed. My wife and I are in the process of expanding our side business in order to pay for living expenses and hopefully better healthcare. That has kept us from quitting the paid charity work. Maybe we'll eventually be able to work for the charity for free, not as employees, and therefore get some decent coverage on our own. But, still hoping the charity does better and the employees will not become charity cases themselves. We've been more fortunate than our fellow employees due to our gigs, cc bonuses, rewards gained from ms and free travel. In fact, we have insurance during our travels due to good trip insurance, which we've used for medical needs.
I work for a charity, therefore my situation is unique in that I could get a 'better' job, but continue to feel a calling to help people. I'm hoping the charity will in the future recover from the economic crisis this nation has gone through, but it hasn't yet and the employees continue to suffer. In any other company these employees would have left, but they are committed. My wife and I are in the process of expanding our side business in order to pay for living expenses and hopefully better healthcare. That has kept us from quitting the paid charity work. Maybe we'll eventually be able to work for the charity for free, not as employees, and therefore get some decent coverage on our own. But, still hoping the charity does better and the employees will not become charity cases themselves. We've been more fortunate than our fellow employees due to our gigs, cc bonuses, rewards gained from ms and free travel. In fact, we have insurance during our travels due to good trip insurance, which we've used for medical needs.
Last edited:
Coldmode
New Member
Your situation isn't unique. You're choosing to put yourself at the mercy of others and "hoping" that your situation improves. Your suffering is self-imposed, and if your organization hasn't recovered after almost 10 years of economic recovery, it might be time to face the fact that it may never recover. Also, you can do good works in many different ways, you don't need to be doing paid work for a charity.
You also seem to want it both ways with regards to the ACA. You say you want a cheap plan with a low deductible, but you don't want insurance companies to exclude people with preexisting conditions. Well, those two are mutually exclusive. People with preexisting conditions are expensive. Someone has to pick up the cost, and that someone is the healthy payers. The individual mandate is the cornerstone of the law. Without that, the provision that bars insurance companies from excluding preexisting conditions would be untenable. Ideally we'd have a single payer system run by the government, but this is what we have, so you may as well make the best of it.
AndyP
Level 2 Member
churman - it's possible to claim that your employer's coverage is unaffordable. This is defined as a premium greater than 10% of your income. You would then be eligible to apply for a cheaper plan, likely with a subsidy, on the exchange.
I am trying to figure this out as well currently. My employer has offered me coverage that is nearly exactly 10% of my (declared) income. I might be able to have the numbers go either way it's so close. The employers coverage is much more expensive but they are offering a large subsidy to meet the ACA's requirement of 'affordable' (less than 10% of income). So it is better coverage, but even after my employers subsidy it is still slightly more expensive. So I have to decide if I want the much better slightly more expensive coverage, or the coverage I already have.
I am trying to figure this out as well currently. My employer has offered me coverage that is nearly exactly 10% of my (declared) income. I might be able to have the numbers go either way it's so close. The employers coverage is much more expensive but they are offering a large subsidy to meet the ACA's requirement of 'affordable' (less than 10% of income). So it is better coverage, but even after my employers subsidy it is still slightly more expensive. So I have to decide if I want the much better slightly more expensive coverage, or the coverage I already have.
zceuxbhjutf
Panel 3 Member
One can only BS so much before all their posts tend to be viewed as counter-productive LOL...
MickiSue
Level 2 Member
Agree with Matt. I have strong beliefs, politically. Which, especially in this particular election cycle, I don't share much online.
But, given that the ACA is here to stay, the challenge is, as Matt says, to figure out how to work with it. And that includes NOT buying the nonsense that our employers spew to blame the ACA for their own choice to screw over their employees. That's been going on for decades, both in the corporate and the hospital setting. Allina, one of the biggest hospital employers in the Twin Cities, is dealing with a nurses' strike right now, as they are trying to force the nurses into a much more expensive, both in terms of premiums and in terms of out of pocket expenses, plan.
As they are also planning, AGAIN, to mess with nurse/patient ratios, there seems to me, who used to work in hospital as an RN, a good cause for the strike.
But, given that the ACA is here to stay, the challenge is, as Matt says, to figure out how to work with it. And that includes NOT buying the nonsense that our employers spew to blame the ACA for their own choice to screw over their employees. That's been going on for decades, both in the corporate and the hospital setting. Allina, one of the biggest hospital employers in the Twin Cities, is dealing with a nurses' strike right now, as they are trying to force the nurses into a much more expensive, both in terms of premiums and in terms of out of pocket expenses, plan.
As they are also planning, AGAIN, to mess with nurse/patient ratios, there seems to me, who used to work in hospital as an RN, a good cause for the strike.