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.
As I recall, while on SSDI, you had ACA coverage and then became Medicare eligible, but I don't remember what you finally did on Medicare enrollment. You are aware that when you reach 65, you are able to essentially "reenroll" in Medicare Part B and the penalty goes away.
If you haven't already, talk to the SHIP people in your state. Lots of people can't afford the Part B premium - there may be a Medicare savings program in your state that provides some help with that.
Many under-65s on SSDI have found the SHIP people to be very helpful:
That’s because some people may not need Part B or Part D immediately. Some may have continuing health insurance or drug coverage through work/retirement. Veterans and or/retired military may have better coverage through VA or Tricare and don’t need the Part D drug coverage. The 10% yearly penalty is to STRONGLY push healthier ppl into the Medicare risk pool. Just as we saw with the ACA, there are tax penalties if one doesn’t buy the coverage or have creditable coverag3 from another source. Sicker ppl will ALWAYS opt into Part B and/or D, whereas healthier ppl who are playing the odds WON’T. The risk pool needs healthy ppl into the mix, so that the program can sustain itself.
Yes, I know. My question is about why such a STRONG push is necessary anymore. It's very difficult for someone is part B eligible to get any other insurance. There was a time when it was easy, but not anymore. The 10% is a strong push, but there are other pushers too. A person in a situation where they have a disability, and a spouse on an ACA plan, is stuck. There's only one place to turn. However, that place charges a huge penalty if they go that way. It leaves a person stuck in a bad situation and getting worse every year. Some states do help, as Ariadne22 has pointed out. That's good, but it's a cost to that state that they shouldn't have to pay. I'm shocked that everyone thinks a 10% penalty per year is acceptable. People get confused and make the wrong decision and then find themselves with no way out of the problem.
I don't understand why you think it is so unacceptable. So you think that those that signed up for parts B and D when they were supposed to should have to pay more to cover those that did NOT sign up when they were suppose to and then want in at a later date without paying more?
I don't understand why you think it is so unacceptable. So you think that those that signed up for parts B and D when they were supposed to should have to pay more to cover those that did NOT sign up when they were suppose to and then want in at a later date without paying more?
Why is it difficult to understand that someone barely getting by on SSDI can't afford huge penalties. 10 percent times multiple years is a lot of money to someone who has little. I did not say there should be no penalty. I jest think the penalty is excessive.
Yes, I know. My question is about why such a STRONG push is necessary anymore. It's very difficult for someone is part B eligible to get any other insurance. There was a time when it was easy, but not anymore. The 10% is a strong push, but there are other pushers too. A person in a situation where they have a disability, and a spouse on an ACA plan, is stuck. There's only one place to turn. However, that place charges a huge penalty if they go that way. It leaves a person stuck in a bad situation and getting worse every year. Some states do help, as Ariadne22 has pointed out. That's good, but it's a cost to that state that they shouldn't have to pay. I'm shocked that everyone thinks a 10% penalty per year is acceptable. People get confused and make the wrong decision and then find themselves with no way out of the problem.
Can you explain what you mean when you say that “they have a disability, and a spouse on ACA is stuck. There’s only one place to turn.”?
Why is it difficult to understand that someone barely getting by on SSDI can't afford huge penalties. 10 percent times multiple years is a lot of money to someone who has little. I did not say there should be no penalty. I jest think the penalty is excessive.
If the person has a disability, getting Medicare should be a godsend, no reason why the beneficiary should refuse Part B.
Can you explain what you mean when you say that “they have a disability, and a spouse on ACA is stuck. There’s only one place to turn.”?
A person who has Medicare Part A is not allowed to get insurance through the exchange. If the spouse is on a subsidized plan, the person with a disability who has Part A' is not able to be covered by that plan. Plans outside the exchange, either won't cover that person, and if they do, the cost is way too high. The choice is a non-compliant plan, or Medicare with a huge penalty, or nothing. Just live with Part A and forget Part B, hoping you don't get sicker until age 65 (many years away) so you can finally get it without penalty (according to others on This forum).
Well you all have convinced me. Going to be signing up for part B, despite the penalty, right after the holidays.
Happy Holidays!
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.
