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 know a person in my neighborhood that got a large inheritance two years ago. She has over $2 million dollars and possibly closer to $3 million.
She recently quit her job but said she "retired". She is 60 yrs old. She does have pre-existing conditions that are manageable.
She went on Obamacare and is only paying $100 per month but there is a $6500 deductible. She said she is going to get government subsidies as well.
How can she get such a great policy when she has so much money in the bank? And she is getting subsidies as well.
I can see a poor person who has nothing but she lives in a beautiful home and nice neighborhood, drives a nice car, goes to Europe for vacation. She can afford more than just $100 per month and she doesn't need subsidies. I feel like I as a taxpayer, am going to be paying for her insurance.
Obamacare subsidies are based on income, not savings or investments. She is taking advantage of the system but it isn't illegal. Keep in mind that without insurance, if something catastrophic should happen to her, it could easily wipe out a large portion of her inheritance.
I believe that if she has pre-existing conditions, in the individual insurance market she can be excluded regardless whether it's managable or not. She is no longer working so she's no longer in a group plan, so the ACA is where she may be forced to use until 65 years of age. What surprises me, at 60 her premium is $100 per month. At that age and depending on which state she lives in, sounds low. I would think at 60 $300-500 a month (the bronze plan) sounds about right. If I were her I'd pick up the silver or plantimum plan instead.
I believe that if she has pre-existing conditions, in the individual insurance market she can be excluded regardless whether it's managable or not. She is no longer working so she's no longer in a group plan, so the ACA is where she may be forced to use until 65 years of age. What surprises me, at 60 her premium is $100 per month. At that age and depending on which state she lives in, sounds low. I would think at 60 $300-500 a month (the bronze plan) sounds about right. If I were her I'd pick up the silver or plantimum plan instead.
I agree. Seems very low. The last year I was on the ACA, I was paying over $700 a month (after the subsidy) for a platinum plan, with a $5000 deductible. And that was on an income below $40K. But I was happy to have it as I did have pre-existing conditions. I was thrilled to turn 65 and get on Medicare.
I know a person in my neighborhood that got a large inheritance two years ago. She has over $2 million dollars and possibly closer to $3 million.
She recently quit her job but said she "retired". She is 60 yrs old. She does have pre-existing conditions that are manageable.
She went on Obamacare and is only paying $100 per month but there is a $6500 deductible. She said she is going to get government subsidies as well.
How can she get such a great policy when she has so much money in the bank? And she is getting subsidies as well.
I can see a poor person who has nothing but she lives in a beautiful home and nice neighborhood, drives a nice car, goes to Europe for vacation. She can afford more than just $100 per month and she doesn't need subsidies. I feel like I as a taxpayer, am going to be paying for her insurance.
Does this make sense to anyone?
She probably has her investments set up so that she's making a low income, to be paying such a low monthly premium. I'm 61, make about $28k, and pay $160/month for my ACA Silver plan, with a $3,000 deductible.
It does seem unfair that someone can take advantage of the ACA subsidies this way.
She probably has her investments set up so that she's making a low income, to be paying such a low monthly premium. I'm 61, make about $28k, and pay $160/month for my ACA Silver plan, with a $3,000 deductible.
It does seem unfair that someone can take advantage of the ACA subsidies this way.
I could be wrong about this but I think it's predicated on employment income not investment income, but I could be wrong.
I just read an article that there is this loophole for people like her. They have money but very little income. The only income she has now is alimony and she pays taxes on that. She said she will make $18k next year in alimony and will be paying taxes on that (but she has over $2 million in the bank!!!).
She is using the system to her benefit and it's not illegal. What bothers me is that she really could afford $300 per month and she doesn't need government subsidies which I as a working tax payer, have to pay for. She has much more money than me and I"m helping her pay for health insurance. I don't think that's fair but of course, life is not fair.
She quit her job and called it "retirement" because she hated her boss. Retirement is just a work she uses for unemployed.
Under the ACA, no one can be excluded because of a pre-existing condition.
The ACA is not the only game in town. One can acquire health insurance outside of the ACA. There, pre-existing conditions do count.
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.
