Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i agree across the board , except using medicaid health insurance has been a big part of planning for many with considerable assets when they want to retire early .
there are many forums where they promote it . if they can't get it low enough for medicaid then they shoot for a nice subsidy on an aca plan .
hey if the law says they qualify ,they qualify , my point was that there are lots that want medicaid by choice
i agree across the board , except using medicaid health insurance has been a big part of planning for many with considerable assets when they want to retire early .
there are many forums where they promote it . if they can't get it low enough for medicaid then they shoot for a nice subsidy on an aca plan .
hey if the law says they qualify ,they qualify , my point was that there are lots that want medicaid by choice
Then it seems it would be a simple fix of just including assets when qualifying. I think those people will find as soon as the first serious illness strikes that they made a mistake, however. But I will continue to say I don't think the system should be changed in a way that punishes those who truly need it because some people cheat.
they didn't count assets because of the fact that someone who has a million dollars is no better off income wise than someone with a 40k pension and zero assets . that pension can have the same value income wise as that 1 million in assets . both would qualify for the same subsidy .
or someone with a house that after 30 years grew to a million dollar house but they have a small income and can't pay premiums without a subsidy . .
so they decided to leave out the confusing world of assets when it came to health insurance .
Last edited by mathjak107; 12-30-2017 at 05:33 PM..
they didn't count assets because of the fact that someone who has a million dollars is no better off income wise than someone with a 40k pension and zero assets . that pension can have the same value income wise as that 1 million in assets . both would qualify for the same subsidy .
or someone with a house that after 30 years grew to a million dollar house but they have a small income and can't pay premiums without a subsidy . .
so they decided to leave out the confusing world of assets when it came to health insurance .
They do count assets for food stamps, can't have more than (something like) $3,000 (seniors/disabled) or $2,000 (everyone else). In many markets today, that much is required up-front just to rent housing (esp subprime people who need larger deposits).
Owner-occupied homes are never considered "countable resources" Homeowners really are special snowflakes in this country.
they didn't count assets because of the fact that someone who has a million dollars is no better off income wise than someone with a 40k pension and zero assets . that pension can have the same value income wise as that 1 million in assets . both would qualify for the same subsidy .
or someone with a house that after 30 years grew to a million dollar house but they have a small income and can't pay premiums without a subsidy . .
so they decided to leave out the confusing world of assets when it came to health insurance .
I find it hard to believe that there are many people with a million in assets and a low income at the same time. Most with that much saved also have other valuable assets and have the option of downsizing their home. Also $40,000 is, IMO a high pension, and most who get pensions like that are government workers, teachers, cops and other union folks who get health care in retirement provided with their pension.
No one said you shouldn't have to make any sacrifices in retirement, and I do think assets should count. No one with a million dollars or a $40,000 pension needs charity, what they (we) need is truly affordable health insurance for everyone. It shouldn't be the cost of a mortgage to get insurance, and if it weren't so out of control (mine is close to $700 a month for the cheapest Blue Cross plan, with a $3,000 deductible) then there wouldn't be so many trying to get it by cheating.
There are millions of people who are going to struggle just to survive when they can no longer work. There already are, I work with them every day. My concern is for them, and I hate that so many want to trash programs that help those people who need it because of their anger at those few who find the loopholes and take advantage of them.
In your high-cost area, how do you find good doctors who take Medicare? There are essentially none in my area, although of course all hospitals do (but there is nothing wrong with me that involves hospitalization, yet).
Mathjak lives in an area where Medicare reimburses at the full 100% rate. The farther you live from the Washington DC/Miami strip, the lower reimbursement rates fall. In my state, Medicare only pays 75% of the reimbursement rate, and doctors will not accept new patients who only have Medicare. We have to pay for a supplemental policy, which can cost hundreds of dollars a month.
I don't see that, why do you think that? Medicaid is for the poor, and you have to prove your income. It took a year to get my mom's long term Medicaid approved, which is slightly different but still as full of rules and regs. No one who had any choice at all would want Medicaid, and I don't believe anyone would try to get it when they have means for decent insurance. Who wants to have to drive 70 miles to get to the closest ortho who accepts Medicaid if they don't have to? Even here at my rehab, Medicare patients might get 2 or 3 hours a day of therapy, but a Medicaid patient would get 15 minutes 3 times a week. Trust me, no one is on Medicaid by choice.
My county has it's own version called Alameda Alliance... it has a better acceptance rate... most Docs will not touch medicaid... and the calls come in all the time asking.
i guess you have not been on the MISTER MONEY MUSTACHE FORUM . quite a few fully intend to plan around medicaid as part of their retiring early plan ...
To me, the most baffling thing about the MMM lifestyle is how he manages health-insurance. Everything else... part-time ad hoc work, self-reliance, investment, churning his own butter, etc. - can be more or less figured out. But health insurance? Somebody who earns too much for an ACA subsidy, who is far too young for Medicare, and who doesn't have an employer-provided subsidy... well, what does that person do? If it's for a couple of years, yes, perhaps there are accounting-gimmicks to reduce apparent income so forth. That's great if you're retiring at 62. But what if you're 42? Isn't that MMM's approximate age?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl
I find it hard to believe that there are many people with a million in assets and a low income at the same time. Most with that much saved also have other valuable assets and have the option of downsizing their home.
This all hinges upon how we define "income". A $1M portfolio invested in a stock/bond mix likely produces over $40K in annual growth, but (1) this growth is uneven (in some years it's negative!), and (2) do we regard these gains as income in the proper sense, or just as the natural thing that the portfolio is supposed to do?
The scenario of somebody with high assets and low income, is exactly what happens to well-compensated professionals for retire early - voluntarily or involuntarily. Take the case of say a corporate executive who's in his 50s. One day, he loses his cool in a meeting, lashes out, punches somebody in the face, and ends up with an assault conviction... and loses his job. Yeah, he still has perhaps several million dollars in net-worth. But now his only employment-option is Wal-Mart. And that lavish company pension won't kick in for another 10 years.
I find it hard to believe that there are many people with a million in assets and a low income at the same time. Most with that much saved also have other valuable assets and have the option of downsizing their home. Also $40,000 is, IMO a high pension, and most who get pensions like that are government workers, teachers, cops and other union folks who get health care in retirement provided with their pension.
No one said you shouldn't have to make any sacrifices in retirement, and I do think assets should count. No one with a million dollars or a $40,000 pension needs charity, what they (we) need is truly affordable health insurance for everyone. It shouldn't be the cost of a mortgage to get insurance, and if it weren't so out of control (mine is close to $700 a month for the cheapest Blue Cross plan, with a $3,000 deductible) then there wouldn't be so many trying to get it by cheating.
There are millions of people who are going to struggle just to survive when they can no longer work. There already are, I work with them every day. My concern is for them, and I hate that so many want to trash programs that help those people who need it because of their anger at those few who find the loopholes and take advantage of them.
first off having low taxable income is NOT the same as low income . had i known more about retirement planning i could have designed a 100k plus income while delaying my ss and letting my ss grow . that income would have been made up of roth , cash set a side for living on , over funded life insurance , zero capital gains brackets and pulling up to 22k out of ira's tax free using the standard deduction and exemptions .
that income by design could be low enough for medicaid or by keeping it higher by design i could maximize a subsidy on an aca plan . it is done regularly by those who are smart enough to take what is legally allowed .
we have posters right in this forum doing just that . pop on over to just about any early retirement oriented forum and you will find most employing or working towards using a health insurance strategy that is legally allowed . so you are pretty much commenting from a position of what you think rather than how financially savvy folks plan . if you are healthy few who do this care about how good or bad the healthcare is since they rarely use it , as long as they have some protection and are covered in a pinch .
you can't live on 40k pretax here in nyc without living an impoverished lifestyle or some gov't assistance so 40k aint rolling in the dough . you can get in a low income housing project with 69k in income and you would not want to live in one .
whether you have a 40k pension , bought an annuity with a million bucks that pays 40k or created your own pensionized 40k income investing on your own ,at the end of the day all 3 cases are the same 40k income level so the aca and medicaid requirements treat them all the same .
many gov't workers are not getting healthcare . . my wife gets a 20k taxable pension and no healthcare from the nyc retirement fund .
Last edited by mathjak107; 12-31-2017 at 04:02 AM..
To me, the most baffling thing about the MMM lifestyle is how he manages health-insurance. Everything else... part-time ad hoc work, self-reliance, investment, churning his own butter, etc. - can be more or less figured out. But health insurance? Somebody who earns too much for an ACA subsidy, who is far too young for Medicare, and who doesn't have an employer-provided subsidy... well, what does that person do? If it's for a couple of years, yes, perhaps there are accounting-gimmicks to reduce apparent income so forth. That's great if you're retiring at 62. But what if you're 42? Isn't that MMM's approximate age?
This all hinges upon how we define "income". A $1M portfolio invested in a stock/bond mix likely produces over $40K in annual growth, but (1) this growth is uneven (in some years it's negative!), and (2) do we regard these gains as income in the proper sense, or just as the natural thing that the portfolio is supposed to do?
The scenario of somebody with high assets and low income, is exactly what happens to well-compensated professionals for retire early - voluntarily or involuntarily. Take the case of say a corporate executive who's in his 50s. One day, he loses his cool in a meeting, lashes out, punches somebody in the face, and ends up with an assault conviction... and loses his job. Yeah, he still has perhaps several million dollars in net-worth. But now his only employment-option is Wal-Mart. And that lavish company pension won't kick in for another 10 years.
many on MMM plan around medicaid and aca subsidies once they stop working at say 42 but they usually go part time keeping income low enough ..
it can be a lot harder funding 20 years until medicare with almost tax free income but quite a few find ways . you know many work off the books a bit too . or they live very low end lives .
when you want something bad enough you will always find a way.
i stopped frequenting that forum a long time ago . i found them to be a lot of very nasty posters , and very closed minded and i don't agree with a lot of their moral ethics .
Last edited by mathjak107; 12-31-2017 at 03:02 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
