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.
what i said is correct , correct once the irma surcharges for medicare kick in the higher you are the bigger the percentage of costs you pay via your premium . i don't have a 2019 chart but 2018 has the top end paying 80% of the medicare costs and gov only 20% .
lower end pays 25% and gov 80%. the percentage of the actual costs you pay are based on your taxable magi ...sell an asset and you can get hammered for a year .
Thanks. I didn't realize that the upper-income pay that much. So in effect, it's like Obamacare..... premiums are subsidized significantly depending on income. And I'm fine with that: people have paid into Medicare for 40 years, with the understanding that the government would help with insurance costs at age 65. Obamacare, OTOH, gives someone earning $40,000 an (almost) free plan, and they've paid in nothing, while charging someone earning $50,000 up the wazoo.
(The most obvious flaw with the Obamacare subsidy structure is that there's a cliff, rather than a phase-out. If I were earning $48,000 and was offered a $2,000 raise, I'd say...."thanks but no thanks.")
I agree with you that Obamacare is unaffordable for the middle-class: a person around 60 earning $50,000 (take home maybe $3500) has to pay $1,000 a month for a high-deductible plan. The problem is that Obamacare went TOO FAR in giving free or highly-subsidized plans to lower-income folks, who pay $0 for a bronze plan or maybe $30 for a silver (depending on how low their earnings are).
IOW, Obama shifted too much of the costs onto the middle income while giving a pass to the lower-income, and we need to "rebalance" that - and shift a little of the costs back onto the lower-income. I have a couple of ideas, starting with the low-income people's abuse of the ER, but it would hijack the thread.
That is definitely part of the problem. However, I don't subscribe to the contention that the private insurers are inherently better than Medicare. I have a HDHP plan with a major insurer and constantly need to call to correct problems with coding, billing, and uncovered expenses. I shouldn't have to go to the doctor for my annual physical (which is supposed to be at no additional cost to me) and ask a hundred questions about every part of the exam that took place or the details of the blood work being done to try and avoid getting a surprise in the mail to pay an unexpected balance. Conversations such as, 'Well he looked at a mole on your back and that is diagnostic not preventative so you need to pay' or 'Oh that kidney function subtest is not part of the allowable preventable blood work screening.' How would I know what actual test is necessary or not? My doctor looks for things that give him a picture of my on-going functions to identify problems and advise me of dietary and lifestyle changes to maintain good health based on his knowledge of my health history. The mantra that the HDHP gives the patient control of costs is ludicrous because that would assume we are medical experts. Since people will be paying for uncovered expenses out of pocket many are cutting costs for screening/treatment that prevents/avoids significantly more expensive interventions down the road.
Insurers are most concerned with paying the least amount. If given the opportunity they will utilize whatever means necessary (regulations/lack of, exclusions, deductibles, etc.) to ensure that they don't have to pay for something. We need a better plan. It is my contention that eventually we will need to have a national plan like most highly-developed countries. It could be a benefit to our economy because it would free up people to move jobs, even the playing field for all levels of business by putting insurance with the individual not the company, and allowing people who are ready to leave the workforce make that decision based on retirement income not healthcare coverage concerns.
I didn't originally support this route but I am not impressed with the direction private insurers have gone as they, like most other large organizations, are more beholden to share holders than the insured.
I'm not sure where you would pay $1000's a month for a HC plan. Mine, with no subsidies, would be $500 a month (Minimal co pays, $300 deductible, one person, age 62). With subsidies I pay a lot less. I am staying in the state I am in at least until age 65, because they have a record of good healthcare policy (they are working toward single payer).
If you want to retire early, take a leap of faith and go for it. My dad was a gov't worker his whole life and retired at 55. Good thing too because he was dead by 66. He had 10 years to enjoy himself, and he did.
here is 2019...they added a new level for high incomes who now pay 85% of the costs and the gov 15% . the surcharges get added to the base rate of 134.00
this is no drugs no supplement included
Last edited by mathjak107; 05-03-2019 at 06:59 AM..
here is 2019...they added a new level for high incomes who now pay 85% of the costs and the gov 15% . the surcharges get added to the base rate of 134.00
this is no drugs no supplement included
I have yet to meet someone over 65 (other than a gov't employee with $5 copay for life) that isn't happy they are on Medicare. How is your experience?
Just wanted to chime in to say that the main reason my husband is waiting to retire until he is 63.5 years old is because of healthcare insurance concerns. (He can then go on COBRA until he is old enough for Medicare unless by that time -- February 2020 -- he can find a plan with the same coverage for less. About two years ago, when we were on COBRA for both of us with excellent coverage, it was "only" $800 a month. However, I am now on Medicare, as I am 65, so I don't know what the cost would be for him alone.)
Many young people (rightfully, imo) complain because older people are loathe to retire and pass on good jobs to them, but I think one of the reasons for this is because of the healthcare insurance issue. If government would address this, perhaps the "more good jobs for college graduates" issue would then improve.
Just wanted to chime in to say that the main reason my husband is waiting to retire until he is 63.5 years old is because of healthcare insurance concerns. (He can then go on COBRA until he is old enough for Medicare unless by that time -- February 2020 -- he can find a plan with the same coverage for less. The last time we were on COBRA for both of us, it was "only" $800 a month. However, I am now on Medicare, as I am 65.)
Young people (rightfully, imo) complain because older people are loathe to retire and pass on good jobs to them, but I think one of the reasons for this is because of the healthcare insurance issue. If government would address this, perhaps the "more good jobs for college graduates" issue would then improve.
I am in full agreement with you on this as are many economists. Older people often like to complain about millennials not bucking up, putting in their dues but that is an unfair generalization in my opinion. I know many young people who are educated, trying very hard to advance within their careers, and can't get ahead. Employers are demanding advance degrees and yet, for many positions, the pay is not commensurate with the degree and experience requirements. Many organizations are very lopsided with a disproportionate number 50 and older with a considerable number over 60. Some love what they do but many do not and are only hanging on to get to 65 for Medicare. Allowing people to join Medicare earlier provides many opportunities for companies to become more competitive while providing their senior employees the ability to move on to new opportunities and interests.
Except as Mathjak states above, the total premium for Medicare is $10k a person, or around $800 a month (if not shared by Medicare, which pays around 75%). Are you suggesting that people 50+ buy in at that rate? How is that better than Obamacare?
There are a lot more doctors accepting Medicare than the crappy HMO options in my state. There is no PPO plan here for ACA.
I'm not sure where you would pay $1000's a month for a HC plan. Mine, with no subsidies, would be $500 a month (Minimal co pays, $300 deductible, one person, age 62). With subsidies I pay a lot less. I am staying in the state I am in at least until age 65, because they have a record of good healthcare policy (they are working toward single payer).
If you want to retire early, take a leap of faith and go for it. My dad was a gov't worker his whole life and retired at 55. Good thing too because he was dead by 66. He had 10 years to enjoy himself, and he did.
Your cost depends on the county you live in. I just ran this calculator: https://www.kff.org/interactive/subs...&child-count=0 The subsidy is $0 and the cost for two people who are 62 is a little over $2000 per month. Add in a deductible of $6500 and max OOP of $7900 and you can go broke very quickly.
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.
