This topic contains 9 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by  popper 2 years, 8 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #33553
     Rattlesnake Charlie 
    Participant
    • Gold
    • ★★★
    • Posts: 152
    • Comments: 679
    • Overall: 831

    OK, I am always a bit suspect of what AARP puts out. Has anyone explored this legislation in-depth? If so, pleas provide a brief summary her for us.

    http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/02/16/aarp-age-tax-means-healthcare-price-hikes-for-older-americans.html

  • #33556
     eeyore 
    Participant
    • Bronze
    • Posts: 4
    • Comments: 22
    • Overall: 26

    Rattlesnake:

    It looks like this is only for folks that don’t have employer provided insurance or elect to retire at say 59-1/2 or at 62 before they have Medicare. Basically oh I don’t know 50 – 64 years old that need to buy insurance on the open market. So if a fellow is on Medicare it doesn’t affect them.

    Before Obamacare the premium ratio from old to young was, IIRC, 6:1. Obamacare made it 3:1 which means old folks with open market insurance wouldn’t pay more than 3 times the premiums for insurance than say a 30 year old for the same coverage. In effect redistributing younger folks out of pocket earnings to subsidize older folks insurance. The proposed legislation puts the new ratio at 5:1.

    This will affect my decisions to retire in 3 years at 62 or wait until 65 so I’m eligible for Medicare.

    It seems reasonable, but I’m not much for the redistributive way of thinking…

  • #33560
     GhostHawk 
    Participant
    • Silver
    • ★★
    • Posts: 2
    • Comments: 258
    • Overall: 260

    Well I am 64, retired at 62.4 but my wife being 4 years younger is still working. (and very jealous)
    There is no way we can afford her medications and visits without insurance so she is probably stuck working until she can go on Medicare.

    I should be able to go on Medicare this fall when I turn 65 which would let her drop me from her work health coverage which will save us some money.

    When it comes to health care we are opposites. You can’t get me to take a pill until I am half dead. My wife is on 14 perscriptions and at least 5 or 6 supplements.

  • #33563
     Butch Wax 
    Participant
    • Silver
    • ★★
    • Posts: 22
    • Comments: 158
    • Overall: 180

    All I have is the VA. It is my opinion that all us old vets don’t count. They’d rather we die off so they can experiment on the troops now with body parts missing. Treatment for us old vets is like a geriatric clinic where as they can play doctor more with fitting artificial limbs. Old guys? Why bother? They’d rather we die off quickly.

    And it sucks out in the civilian world just as bad and costs more. Our country’s health care is a joke.

  • #33564
     popper 
    Participant
    • Silver
    • ★★
    • Posts: 1
    • Comments: 293
    • Overall: 294

    Kind of a 2 edge sword. Pay me now or pay me later. Most Med $ are spent for those > 45. congress sets the procedure $ rates paid for medicare/medicaid – somewhat the rates for not on Gov. H.C. AARP is primary the sales force for medicare plans.. The actual Ins. Co. get hit and lose money from the 3:1 rate as many didn’t have ins previously. or cheap no benefit plans. Or payed the Tax for no ABA. Basically insurers are strapped for $ and AARP gets paid bulk for enrollees. I can see why AARP gripes, maybe valid. Wait till you get on medicare and find the ‘donut’ hole. Yes, employer insurance is negotiated on the basis of workers age and medical expenses. IIRC in the 60s it got away from major medical to total coverage, so it’s not really insurance anymore, more like a gov run co-op underwritten by insurance..

  • #33568
     eeyore 
    Participant
    • Bronze
    • Posts: 4
    • Comments: 22
    • Overall: 26

    Rattlesnake:

    Did you get your concerns satisfied?

  • #33570
     Rattlesnake Charlie 
    Participant
    • Gold
    • ★★★
    • Posts: 152
    • Comments: 679
    • Overall: 831

    eeyore;n14309 wrote: Rattlesnake:

    Did you get your concerns satisfied?

    Not really. I wonder if what I pay through work costs me more than a younger person. I know I must work until I can get on Medicare. Could not afford health insurance any other way.

  • #33571
     popper 
    Participant
    • Silver
    • ★★
    • Posts: 1
    • Comments: 293
    • Overall: 294

    Ins. Co. Used your co. Med costs, workforce age is factored in per increased expense. Younger typically have pregnancy and like expenses. Occupational is by workers comp.

  • #33573
     eeyore 
    Participant
    • Bronze
    • Posts: 4
    • Comments: 22
    • Overall: 26

    Rattlesnake:

    What popper said. ^^^

    Company coverage is usually insulated from post 65 medical costs as most over 65 are on Medicare. It’s the old 80/20 rule. 80% of medical expenses are paid out in the last 20% of your existence on the planet. Rattlesnake, if your workforce retirement age is pinned at 65 then you’ll likely not see any change in premiums due to this regulation. You and your co-workers retire with high blood pressure meds (cheap) and a bypass or chemo here and there. Your employer negotiates coverage and premiums based on the workforce. If your employer is on top of it they will shop for the best insurance for your workforce.

    After 65 is when the big bills come in! Hip, knee, quad bypass, COPD, full on chemo, visit the Dr. every month stuff. Covered by Medicare. BTW Medicare is subsidized by your private insurance which popper eluded too further above as well.

    This nation all ready has a perfect model of EXTREMELY successful non-gov’t universal completely private market based health care that works and is cheap. It’s so cheap that even welfare people use it and pay (your) cash for it. We should look at it for direction.

    Any ideas what I’m talking about here? High Five to the first correct guess. Has to be a rancher or farmer that knows what I’m talking about.

  • #33581
     popper 
    Participant
    • Silver
    • ★★
    • Posts: 1
    • Comments: 293
    • Overall: 294

    Rand Paul has a plan that he claims will fix everything – NOT. The plan before ACA was decent but then the SCOTUS decided it was to ba available for everyone. Previous ER use by those without insurance got paid by Fed & state funds. ACA intent was to get them to buy insurance – didn’t work. ACA turned out to be a tax bill to fund ‘single payer’ system but so many ‘rules’ it is not effective. Only getting the kid with $200 shoes and Iphone to sell them before getting free clinic immunization will solve the problem, or pay for service system. We are too used to our public ‘services’ being provided by ‘someone else’s’ $$.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© 2017 Goodsteel Forum. Designed by Covalent Designs, LLC.