U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-20-2017, 08:58 PM
 
Location: RVA
2,172 posts, read 1,270,926 times
Reputation: 4492

Advertisements

Thank goodness we will never have to give ACA a thought.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-20-2017, 09:08 PM
 
Location: Upstate NY
35,621 posts, read 10,546,076 times
Reputation: 33741
Why in the world would anyone consider that to be "gaming the system?" Same with taxes--the idea is to pay what you owe, and no more. And it's not a "loophole" when filers take advantage of established tax provisions to lower their tax liability.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2017, 11:15 PM
 
1,074 posts, read 521,136 times
Reputation: 1830
Quote:
Originally Posted by skycaller23 View Post
The way I set up my retirement "lucked" me into being able to get an ACA subsidy. My portfolio though does not fully fund my retirement.
I also have a company pension.

When I retired I had 1 year's spending in my bank account. That was the full 1 year budget money without counting my pension. So right off the bat I had more money than I needed for the year. I did that on purpose to have a cash buffer so I wouldn't have to sell off securities or dip into my tax deferred accounts at a moment's notice and could also splurge.

So I get my pension and supplement with cash. During the course of the year I take profits on some investments and replenish the bank account to get back to the yearly balance. I pay tax on pension and cap gains on what I sold. If the market were to tank I also have a Roth that I could withdraw from while leaving my taxable account alone.

Along comes ACA. Well since I don't spend all that money in the bank account I now just replenish every other year so only my pension is taxed and I can qualify for the subsidy. I don't get as big a subsidy as the OP but it's still considerable and I end up paying what I payed before ACA ended my previous plan.

It's only temporary though and I have no debts which really lowers the amount of money you need to live on annually.

I don't do anything with dividends or bond interest.
Maybe rethink the strategy and sell "losers" or "when the market tanks" in your taxable accounts....

You can always find a way to buy back these positions, while still enjoying the benefits of a capital loss.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2017, 12:00 AM
 
6,649 posts, read 3,761,413 times
Reputation: 13726
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundapeanut View Post
Boy are you full of it. I will bet you have never bought health insurance and was an employee your whole life. Do you know you can buy a medicare supplement?

All the ACA insurance is not crap. you get what you pay for. I pay $919.00 per month(gold plan) for mine and have no issues getting a good doctor. Where do you live that you spew such BS.
You may want to seek therapy to learn to control your anger and vitriol against people who have a different experience with health ins. than you do. I'm a factual person. Here are the facts, as I stated:

Fact: My premium is $980/month. I have silver OBAMACARE...which means I get a subsidy, which is what the OP is talking about.

Fact: Only HMOs are sold where I am.

Fact: Only 2 ins. cos. sell Obamacare where I am, and one is so ridiculous that really there's only one.

Fact: I have not found a dr. to take it.

Fact: I could not find a dr. to take it last year, in a different state.

Fact: When I moved, I was unable to cancel the policy in state #1, even though I had gotten a new one in state #2. The ins. is between the govt & ins. co. The insured has no authority to cancel the policy, change your address, or anything except pay your part of the premium. I cont'd to get invoices for the first for the whole year, including notices of cancellation. I did everything possible to correct the situation, to no avail.

Fact: Dr. office I spoke to here suggested I try the doctors who take Medicaid, that they may take Obamacare.

Fact: I haven't been to a dr. since 2013, ever since I've been on Obamacare, because of either the huge deductibles or the lack of providers to take it.

Fact: I had a private ins. policy in 2012 and 2013, and for a while a couple of years before then.

I would not recommend to anyone they get involved in Obamacare (individual policies sold thru the exchange, involving subsidies).

Fact: The Republicans are doing all they can to repeal Obamacare or the biggest parts of it. This makes the future of it and usefulness of it questionable for the future.

Even if they are unable to do that, I think providers will start dropping it more than they have, since their getting paid on it is more questionable, since everyone knows the Republicans want to do away with it entirely.

This is not a good time to get involved in the ACA exchange insurance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2017, 12:02 AM
 
6,886 posts, read 7,297,903 times
Reputation: 9791
Quote:
Just to add to the above post. Other reasons for the US having high health care costs are: fee for service system, which means docs are paid based on the number of procedures and tests, rather than outcomes. Moe tests, more procedures = more $$ for docs.
There's no real solution -- but to be honest the first thing I think every time I hear that "outcomes based" mantra is -- paying people based on "outcomes" is why VA officials had underlings cook the books on VA wait times for veterans medical appointments and we see what happened with that.

Actually it was greed. But did no one at the VA, no lawmaker, no policy and pencil pusher, think of that? Now "outcome based" is the new buzz word for health care. Good Lord.

I think the situations are very analogous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2017, 01:58 AM
 
71,769 posts, read 71,875,234 times
Reputation: 49321
i had 2 aca insurers fail and it is a big hassle each time .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2017, 03:33 AM
 
10,604 posts, read 14,220,217 times
Reputation: 17203
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
Isn't the ACA about lowering health cost for folks? If so even if it does that for millionaires shouldn't that be ok? On the other hand if it is about wealth redistribution and making the affluent pay more just to make them pay more I can see how this thread has kept going.
No and it was never pushed as lowering health care costs.

The promise was it would save each family $2500 per year on INSURANCE. That's why the single payer crowd was mad at Obama for supporting the insurance system. They called him a sell-out.

Yes, of course it's about wealth distribution. That's never been in dispute.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_o65vMUk5so

https://www.google.com/search?q=obam...hrome&ie=UTF-8
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2017, 09:04 AM
 
Location: Haiku
4,163 posts, read 2,595,608 times
Reputation: 6130
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
Isn't the ACA about lowering health cost for folks? If so even if it does that for millionaires shouldn't that be ok? On the other hand if it is about wealth redistribution and making the affluent pay more just to make them pay more I can see how this thread has kept going.
No, ACA is about increasing accessibility of insurance.

For those of you complaining about the rise in premiums from a few hundred dollars to $900 (or whatever), those premium increases are the cost of no longer excluding groups of people from insurance. Before ACA, people with health issues, even minor ones, were excluded from insurance. That is why your premiums were so low - the insurance companies refused to insure people who would actually need insurance.

If anyone wants to go back to pre-ACA, essentially you are saying that you want to see people with health issues to not have health insurance. That does not seem fair to me. The government could pay for those people but then your taxes would cover it. So you can pay with premiums, or pay with taxes, but somehow the $3.2 trillion annual US health bill has to be paid.

BTW, those subsidies you are "gaming" the system to get, those are paid for by taxes the rest of us pay. So you are really gaming me. You are asking me to pay what you don't want to pay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2017, 09:37 AM
 
2,215 posts, read 744,904 times
Reputation: 1376
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour View Post

BTW, those subsidies you are "gaming" the system to get, those are paid for by taxes the rest of us pay. So you are really gaming me. You are asking me to pay what you don't want to pay.
ACA was written with no asset test. Do you ever wonder why ?
Without an asset test subsidies are available to everyone..both rich and poor if you can meet the income requirement.

I'm breaking no laws here. I payed plenty of taxes over my working career and very little of them came back to benefit me. Making use of tax laws is not gaming the system.

And maybe ACA was designed to fail right from the start.
Maybe ACA was the transition to single pay.
Maybe the Dems in Congress played a long game.

We can't go back to what we had before.
What we currently have is becoming unaffordable to many more than what we had before.

The next step is single payer. Even the Dems that championed ACA are now calling for "reform" and pushing single payer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2017, 09:48 AM
 
Location: Haiku
4,163 posts, read 2,595,608 times
Reputation: 6130
I am in favor of single payer but don't delude yourself that it will somehow make things more affordable. The average annual consumption of health care services in the USA is about $10k per person, which is pretty close to ACA premiums. That number won't change, just the way it is paid will change. Rather than paying with premiums, you will pay with taxes. And rather than getting subsidies to cover premium costs, those with high incomes will pay more and those with low incomes will pay less, just as taxes work now.

Single payer is a greatly simplified system, but the total cost will be about the same as it is now. It just shifts around where the money comes from, your right pocket or your left pocket.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top