I keep hearing that people in the 50-64 year old range will

[6packofun]

have a hard time with higher healthcare costs a la GOP plan.  This is NOT a political post; I'm simply framing my question about earning over a lifetime because that's what sparked it.  

 

I always thought that the way it should work is that we make less in our 20's and then as we grow older we make more and more and maybe hit a peak in our late 50's/60's and then we retire.  Why would it NOT make sense that people in this age range, generally, with children mostly grown (typically?) are more able to afford things like healthcare than people in younger age ranges?  I get that they USE healthcare more, but wouldn't they be making more?

 

I can think of many scenarios, I guess, for which this doesn't hold water.  My own mom, who was a nurse and then got tired of it and then DECIDED to leave that and move on to working in a warehouse that was actually less physically demanding but required many financial sacrifices.  Her decisions, though.  (My father, however, has done just what my expectations were: move up through his life and sort of level off in his early 60's, taking a risk starting a restaurant that paid off and he has plenty for retirement.  My stepmom likewise.)  I know many women raise their children and go back to work in their 50's starting behind where they'd be if they'd worked all along, etc.

 

Do you think this is mainly a female issue based on my examples and people you know? Do people typically lose jobs in this age range?  Or am I generally correct about earning more as one ages but there are just many different exceptions?

[mommaduck]

Many people don't "move up". Few people do. There will always be more people on bottom and many people find themselves shuffled right back to the bottom just before retirement or as the economy and businesses change. Some of us have been SAHM's, worked for ourselves, etc. 

[Laura Corin]

 Do people typically lose jobs in this age range?  Or am I generally correct about earning more as one ages but there are just many different exceptions?

 

One of my brothers (60) is on disability.  The other brother (58) is working part time, having been given the choice of that or no job at all.  He has had no success in finding other work.  My husband was laid off in his mid-fifties, has not found work despite being willing to work away from home/take a big pay cut (50% or more).  He has found some free-lance work, but I now earn more as a secretary than he does after decades of experience in a serious financial career.

[Daria]

I'll definitely make more as a 50 year old than I did in my 20's.  But I'll also have lots more expenses.

 

-- College tuition

 

-- Eldercare

 

-- Housing (in my 20's I rented a room in a group house or lived with my mom, now I need to provide housing for myself and likely for my son who won't be ready to live independently)

 

-- Retirement savings

[zoobie]

Maybe in the upper echelons that holds true, but I don't think it really does for the typical person. You used to see an increase in "white collar" jobs, but even those are only rising at upper levels and only a small percentage get to those positions. My dad (in a technical role at a Fortune 500 corporation) isn't making significantly more than he was 20 years ago except for COLA increases. Rural and manufacturing areas are especially depressed.

[SparklyUnicorn]

That has not held true for anyone I know. 

 

I don't know a ton of people.  But yeah....

 

 

[maize]

Agreeing with others that many people do not make significantly more in those decades.

 

Deteriorating health being one thing that can prevent them from doing so. My uncle was a plumber but as he approached 50 it got harder and harder to do the physical work that that job required. He went back to school and became a teacher but as a beginning teacher makas significantly less than he did as a plumber.

[Twigs]

…  I get that they USE healthcare more, but wouldn't they be making more? …

This is an incorrect assumption.

 

In today's job market, NO job is guaranteed to last, through no decision making of the employee.

 

I was laid off a few years ago as one of the most senior employees in my department. I always had great reviews, but I was one of the highest paid in my department. I am in that 50-64 age group and when I finally found a job, it was 60% of what I had been making. This has happened to other friends of mine.

[Twigs]

… My dad (in a technical role at a Fortune 500 corporation) isn't making significantly more than he was 20 years ago except for COLA increases. …

:iagree:

I've had very few non-COLA raises. Some of my employers made wage adjustments to correspond so that employees were at the mid-range of their pay tier. That means there are no significant wage increases beyond COLA.

[Sneezyone]

My mother made good money in her 30s and 40s but became too expensive to employ in her 50s. No one would hire her. She did a combo of self-employment, couch surfing and part-time gigs to bridge the gap from 55 to 62 when she could draw social security. She could not afford to pay 10K+ for insurance and, until ACA, had none. She turns 65 this year and can finally access Medicare.

[Paige]

If you're going to have an insurance model for healthcare, then it makes sense that those over 55 pay more. It doesn't matter if they can afford it (I doubt they can) anymore than it matters that a 16yr old can't afford his astronomical car insurance. What I don't understand is people who support having an insurance based healthcare system and then complain that the insurance companies price based on risk. 

[Pawz4me]

Age discrimination in employment, likely due to the rise in health care costs, has become very much a real thing. I'm seeing more and more people in the 50+ range who've been downsized/laid off struggle to find comparable paying jobs (or any job at all, really). At the same time they're trying to help their kids with college expenses and take care of elderly parents.

[Arcadia]

I always thought that the way it should work is that we make less in our 20's and then as we grow older we make more and more and maybe hit a peak in our late 50's/60's and then we retire.

It depends on the pay scale. Engineers can max out on non-COLA by late 30s if they didn't get promoted to a higher pay scale. Job security is not there anymore too. My husband went from probation to engineer to senior engineer and the only possible promotion left is engineering manager which he doesn't want because he hates management jobs. His senior engineer post is the end of the promotion line for the technical path. In the tech companies my husband worked in, women are less likely to be layoff unless it is an entire department or mass layoffs. They don't want a gender discrimination suit so they try to transfer women (in the affected dept.) to another dept.

 

For people in my social circle who have their firstborn in their early 30s, it would be college paying years as well as teen car insurance years.

[umsami]

Absolutely, this faces women more for a variety of reasons...including the wage gap...which doesn't go away.... the tendency for men to be promoted over women (look at the percentage of women in the c-suite of major companies.... having to be the go-to person for child emergencies even if both are working full-time, etc.

 

But in today's economy it can easily affect men as well.

 

There is a earlier ageism for women in hiring, but it still exists for men.

 

Still think that the only health plan that makes sense is Medicare for all.  Time for the US to join the rest of the civilized world in that regard. 

[Wheres Toto]

I think I've seen a mix. 

 

My dad owned a store that did okay.  At a certain age, he decided he wanted a more normal schedule and got a job working for a company in the mailroom.   Hard to say how his actual salary changed but he wasn't doing that well in those years.

 

My mother definitely moved up over time.  She got her GED when I was around 10, took college classes over the years, learned new skills, and was able to do well.  She started as a waitress and finished up a fairly high paid admin.  She was able to work until she chose to retire.

 

Dh is 60.  He has a great job and makes decent money right now.  I think he's held positions in the past where he made more but he also took breaks to try his own company, has had a few layoffs, took a few breaks.   He doesn't seem to run into the age discrimination in his field, but he has very specific skills and experience that are valuable.

 

I'm turning 48 this year.  When I've worked, I've had steady increases in income but mostly from jumping from job to job in my younger years.   When I returned to work a few years ago, it was to a salary slightly higher than my highest previous salary doing the same kind of work.  Now I'm home again, work a few part-time jobs including one where I freelance for my last position.  I could easily return there at the same salary if I wanted to.  One of my co-workers who is still there is in her mid-60's and they kept her on despite a rash of recent lay-offs/reorganization.  She's been there 16 or more years.

 

ETA:  The way employment works these days, I think Medicare for all is the way to go.  I know VERY few people who stay at the same job for decades, which means those 30 or 90 day gaps in insurance during a job change can really screw things up majorly.  COBRA costs so much it's a ridiculous joke.  When I returned to work, it was 95% for the medical benefits.

Edited March 14, 2017 by Where's Toto?

[Barb_]

It's mostly because the age-based premiums are going to be so high, most won't afford them regardless of salary. Some will see their premiums increase 750%

[Pam in CT]

Even if average or median incomes do tend to rise by that 50-64 yo cohort, there's a question of whether the income rise is sufficient to absorb very substantially increased premiums.  If income rises by a little, and premiums by a lot, then higher premiums won't be absorbable.

 

The ACA limits the difference between young-age cohorts vs older-age cohorts to 1:3; the new AHCA bill would loosen that to 1:5, which would mean that companies could charge older people premiums as much as five times those charged to younger cohorts.  

 

Such a 5:1 premium difference might be absorbable by somewhat-higher-income older cohorts if the absolute cost is a relatively small % of total household expenses, but healthcare is very often a fairly high % of total household expenses.  Particularly given that the Medicaid cost-sharing subsidies would be scaling back at the same time.  

 

FWIW the AARP has come out against the AHCA for just these reasons:

 

 

We estimate that the bill’s changes to current law’s tax credits could increase premium costs for a 55-year old earning $25,000 by more than $2,300 a year. For a 64-year old earning $25,000 that increase rises to more than $4,400 a year, and more than $5,800 for a 64-year old earning $15,000. When we examined the impact of both the tax credit changes and 5:1 age rating, our estimates find that, taken together, premiums for older adults could increase by as much as $3,600 for a 55-year old earning $25,000 a year, $7,000 for a 64-year old earning $25,000 a year and up to $8,400 for a 64-year old earning $15,000 a year. In addition to these skyrocketing premiums, out-of-pocket costs could significantly increase under the bill with the elimination of cost sharing assistance in current law. 

 

[elegantlion]

I'm almost in that age range and that has not held true for many of the people I know. Anecdotally, I've seen SAHMs trying to go into the work force after kids are raised, failed businesses that went well for a while, then failed in their 40s, 2008 recession. Job stability has not been good for the last 20 years, so that security is not around, so people have had to move where jobs are. This increases expenses, including the idea of a paid off mortgage by age 50 or 55 or even 60. 

 

So increased premiums are just going to add to already stretched expenses. 

[Barb_]

I'm almost in that age range and that has not held true for many of the people I know. Anecdotally, I've seen SAHMs trying to go into the work force after kids are raised, failed businesses that went well for a while, then failed in their 40s, 2008 recession. Job stability has not been good for the last 20 years, so that security is not around, so people have had to move where jobs are. This increases expenses, including the idea of a paid off mortgage by age 50 or 55 or even 60.

 

So increased premiums are just going to add to already stretched expenses.

You have a good point. The stock market and housing crashes hit us hard too, but we were in our late thirties and still had some time to turn things around. It's ten years later and we're just pulling out of it. Not as easy if we had been 50 when things collapsed.

[SparklyUnicorn]

In fact, what sometimes happens with that age set is they were doing a job that becomes obsolete or irrelevant and they have a tough time shifting gears towards another career.  That happened with my father in law.  This would have happened with my father except he went on disability a few years before retirement age.

 

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

And if you are talking about women, this may be even less likely if they spent time out of the workforce. 

 

 

[Ali in OR]

Though the official policy at dh's company is that there is no age discrimination, there is no doubt it happens. At the same time that they laid off experienced engineers over 50 years old they opened requisitions for college hires. It's an aging company and they would like a younger workforce for all the positive reasons (new ideas, kids raised on technology, etc), but the only way for them to accomplish that since they're not growing is by getting rid of expensive old engineers and hiring cheaper young engineers. No other company is anxious to hire the experienced older engineers either.

[Lanny]

I saw that on the 6 P.M. EDT news from the USA tonight, just before our Internet/TV began having horrible problems.  Yes, I saw something tonight, where someone in that age group who is currently paying about USD $1700 for ObamaCare, in 2026 (?) would pay approximately USD $14K per year, which they pointed out, is impossible, for someone receiving approximately USD $25K per year, from Social Security.  They will need to fix that... That also applies to people over 65 years of age, from what I remember.  If our Internet is working at all, I will send this post now.

 

This is still in the very early stages on "The Hill", and it is a catastrophe, because ObamaCare is imploding.  Humana will not participate in ObamaCare after 2017.  Anthem may also withdraw at the end of 2017. Fewer and fewer policies are available on the Exchanges and the premiums are rising and there are fewer people participating.  

 

Hopefully, the Congress will eventually be able to figure out a system that is viable.

 

 

[SamanthaCarter]

That's held true for my dad and my father-in-law, and from what I can tell, everybody in their 50s and 60s that I go to church with. I can see it isn't holding true for those slightly younger.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest]

I have lots of friends in this age, and the premise is either REALLY true or really NOT true.  An awful lot depends on what has happened in their lives until now.  Some have become ill earlier in life and have not had a chance to save up the boatload of money you need to have to go into the post-64 times but they also don't have as much energy as they would have earlier.  Some have divorced and done badly out of it, financially.  Some have had unexpected problems with kids, or been in the sandwich generation and so have both elderly parents they have to care for (who often did not save a stinkin' dime, so my friends are footing THOSE bills...and helping their own offspring get launched.  

 

Another one, mid - fifties, whose husband died after an extended illness, and pretty much consumed all they had saved in the process.  And this gal isn't so healthy, so her rates are high...and she doesn't have a nearly-paid-off house, which was what they had planned for.

 

But I also know people who have made a boatload of money early on, been smart with it, paid off houses and so on, and they have far lower expenses than those who didn't make the boatload or did but didn't pay-as-they-went and then lost a lot.  

 

And I know others who are just working the plan and the plan has worked, through both good luck and good discipline, and their expenses have indeed dropped quite a bit, AND they have stayed healthy, so the insurance rates have stayed low.  

 

For the most part, those who I see who fit the profile most closely are those with parents who planned ahead, had smaller families (less education expense), kept their houses and paid them off, have spent carefully, been generous in giving and have had stable marriages, and good health, with one or both of the partners working until at least 62.  That pretty much describes about 1/3 of the people I have been thinking about for this exercise.  

[Mergath]

Hahahahahahaha! Yeah, right. Maybe in a sitcom from the fifties, that's how it works. But in real life? Not for most people. I mean, this board is fairly self-selecting for the upper middle class, and even here it doesn't appear to be the norm, or even all that common.

 

We'll be lucky if we've paid off our current load of medical debt by the time dh is in his late fifties to early sixties. When you have one person with asthma, COPD, and bipolar disorder, another person with epilepsy and OCD, and a child with a rare genetic disorder, the idea of having buckets of extra money by retirement age is laughable. And while dh will certainly make more as he gets older, it's not going to be a huge amount more- maybe ten thousand dollars a year between now and retirement. Not nearly enough to absorb a massive increase in health insurance premiums. And that's if he remains healthy enough to continue doing his very labor-intensive job.

 

I'll probably be reentering the workforce in my early fifties. I'm sure that after something like two and a half decades of being a SAHM, I'll be making right around minimum wage. Probably just enough to pay for a second car and maybe have a bit left over.

 

My mom and stepdad are in that demographic. She works three days a week at a hospital that, thankfully, provides her with insurance for a low premium. If her health deteriorates further and she has to retire now, there's no way they could pay a huge amount for her insurance. And my stepdad is lucky enough to receive a pension alongside his SS. Even adding in her SS when she retires, they'll be living under the poverty line.

 

Now that I think about it, I don't know anyone in their fifties or sixties who could afford the kind of premiums they're talking about with this new health care bill.

[Tap]

I have had the same pharmacy technician job for 20 years.  There is no opportunity for advancement in my company.  I make wayyyy less per hour now relative to living costs  than I did 10 years ago. It continues to go down each year, not up. Taking  medical insurance rates increasing and less coverage, and I now pay out almost 20% of my total income in medical costs for my family. 

Edited March 15, 2017 by Tap

[Guest]

Housing is priced so high and taxes are so high that its not possible for most to make that kind of annual insurance payment combined with a sky high deductible. I wouldn't, I would self insure and buy a catastrophic. I already pay in more than I ever get back, and have done all my working life. Silly me, I thought I would get a payout when my turn comes, just like with auto insurance.

 

Final solution is going to involve a tax for the 1%, the most expensive cases,.and a rebalance between supply of medical professionals and demand. Folks cannot afford these rates. You know its cheaper in the long run to go the Angelina Jolie route right? The surgery is less expensive than the years of diagnostics to come.

 

Most of my friends are forced to retire after twenty five years, just as the last child is in college. the ones with pension that includes medical are doing well. The others are losing houses if they can't go into business for themselves. No one wants to hire an older person right now. There is no tax break on the home for an under sixty five. And zoning rules mean they can't rent out the empty bedrooms.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Heigh Ho

[foxbridgeacademy]

My father's (age 59) job is physically taxing and he can't work as quickly as he used to so he doesn't make as much.  My FIL's (age 62) position was made redundant since they could get a younger guy to do two jobs for the price of one at the corporate level.  Luckily FIL's boss loved him and lobbied to get him back (took a year) but he had to come back at a much lower wage (still better than Walmart). My mom's husband is getting cranky and that doesn't sit too well in an industry that is quickly dying.  He's lost his job as foreman and had to go back to working the machines (age 59).  My mom on the other hand was smart and moved into pharmaceutical/specialized type maintenance so her pay has gone up but nothing compared to DH who is in the same field but different specialization.  For all of them bad health, divorce (or spouse died), adult children needing financial help (one sister is in jail the other is getting divorced, brother is much younger and just graduated College) or deferred home maintenance has also hurt their worth and savings.  Luckily none of them have to take care of aging parents (dead or don't speak to them) otherwise they may never be able to actually retire (my mom's counting the days, literally).  

 

 

[FaithManor]

 

Final solution is going to involve a tax for the 1%, the most expensive cases,.and a rebalance between supply of medical professionals and demand. Folks cannot afford these rates. You know its cheaper in the long run to go the Angelina Jolie route right? The surgery is less expensive than the years of diagnostics to come.

 

 

This. I know a guy whose treatments to save his leg from being amputated have cost over $100,000. He has good insurance but he is willing to admit that if he had poor coverage and a high deductible, he would have had it amputated right from the start.

 

Given that a friend is going through medical bankruptcy now from ovarian cancer caught early,I can honestly see women having ovaries taken before anything happens because the preventative surgery is far cheaper than treatment.

 

The way this is going is very scary!

 

The baby boomer generation experienced, for the most part, regular pay raises that exceeded inflation, and much lower healthcare costs as a percentage of income.

 

Successive generations are not having the same experience.

 

In top which, for the most part, the boomers parents died younger, while they themselves married young and had children right away because good jobs were available you young adults. They did not experience "the sandwich" of raising children and caring for elderly at the same time. Now being squashed in between both sets of responsibilities and expenses is crushing the life out of many in my generation.

 

My parents don't get it. We have two in college and a third entering in 2018, and Dh can't leave the workforce until he is 65 or older so that we can make sure we have enough savings after helping the kids with college. They still seem to think we have a money tree out back and can finance their medical debts, housing expenses, and everything else. My cousins on both side are experiencing this as well, and as we compare notes, have discovered all of their friends are too! It may be anecdotal but I have read numerous scholarly articles indicating this is a growing problem.

 

Something has to give.

Edited March 15, 2017 by FaithManor

[TechWife]

I saw that on the 6 P.M. EDT news from the USA tonight, just before our Internet/TV began having horrible problems.  Yes, I saw something tonight, where someone in that age group who is currently paying about USD $1700 for ObamaCare, in 2026 (?) would pay approximately USD $14K per year, which they pointed out, is impossible, for someone receiving approximately USD $25K per year, from Social Security.  They will need to fix that... That also applies to people over 65 years of age, from what I remember.  If our Internet is working at all, I will send this post now.

 

This is still in the very early stages on "The Hill", and it is a catastrophe, because ObamaCare is imploding.  Humana will not participate in ObamaCare after 2017.  Anthem may also withdraw at the end of 2017. Fewer and fewer policies are available on the Exchanges and the premiums are rising and there are fewer people participating.  

 

Hopefully, the Congress will eventually be able to figure out a system that is viable.

 

People over 65 years of age qualify for Medicare. They aren't impacted by the GOP plan (yet). 

 

I don't think Obamacare is "imploding." I think the system is moving toward single payer. I don't like that private companies are the benefitting from the system, I would rather see the money put back into paying healthcare costs for others. Maybe we will get there one day. 

[StephanieZ]

People at the low end of the wage spectrum generally don't move up much after a few years. Think nurses' aides, cleaning people, low end service workers, etc. They get to 10/hr and they stay there, forever. Until their body wears out, which often is well before age 60. Then they just go broke, totally. 

 

Professional people often follow the path you outline. Lawyers, doctors, etc. often make do more later in their career -- after they've paid their dues, etc.. If they're like me, then they're desperately trying to save for retirement and pay for college, etc. I can afford to pay more now, and I do . . . However, others, even professionals, get struck with illness and/or disability and/or the double whammy of caring for aging parents while also putting kids through college. 

 

 

I think the trouble with this issue is the variability in ability to pay. I could pay more. I don't want to, but I could. But, I'm already paying 23k this year for my family of 5 (plus deductibles, etc.) Dh just hit 50. I'm 46. We're all healthy. We are on an employer-based plan with pretty decent rates (about 25% less than a comparable but inferior ACA individual plan) . . . Just how much more can *we* afford . . . ? Ummm, not a whole lot more. How many people could afford, say, double that? 50k? After tax? Uh, huh, not many people, I'd wager.

 

 

I mean, each kid costs 10k/yr +/- for public schools to educate them . . . Should only those who have kids (and use the schools) pay for them? 10k/yr per kid? Family of 6? Sure, 60k/yr . . . after tax, how about . . . Oh, and if your kid is special needs and will cost 50k/yr to educate, well then, cough it up, or keep him in a closet?? Of COURSE NOT. Whether we have kids, or don't, have one, have ten, hate kids, love kids, have healthy kids, have sick kids, whatever, we all pay for schools to educate *all* of our nation's children. That's how it should be because that's the only way it can work. . . . 

 

IMHO, health care is the same way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[foxbridgeacademy]

This. I know a guy whose treatments to save his leg from being amputated have cost over $100,000. He has good insurance but he is willing to admit that if he had poor coverage and a high deductible, he would have had it amputated right from the start.

 

Given that a friend is going through medical bankruptcy now from ovarian cancer caught early,I can honestly see women having ovaries taken before anything happens because the preventative surgery is far cheaper than treatment.

 

The way this is going is very scary!

 

The baby boomer generation experienced, for the most part, regular pay raises that exceeded inflation, and much lower healthcare costs as a percentage of income.

 

Successive generations are not having the same experience.

 

In top which, for the most part, the boomers parents died younger, while they themselves married young and had children right away because good jobs were available you young adults. They did not experience "the sandwich" of raising children and caring for elderly at the same time. Now being squashed in between both sets of responsibilities and expenses is crushing the life out of many in my generation.

 

My parents don't get it. We have two in college and a third entering in 2018, and Dh can't leave the workforce until he is 65 or older so that we can make sure we have enough savings after helping the kids with college. They still seem to think we have a money tree out back and can finance their medical debts, housing expenses, and everything else. My cousins on both side are experiencing this as well, and as we compare notes, have discovered all of their friends are too! It may be anecdotal but I have read numerous scholarly articles indicating this is a growing problem.

 

Something has to give.

I asked my last OBGYN if I could have it done, ovaries, uterus, cervix (I had severe squamous cells removed 10 years ago) all of removed.  She looked at me like I was nuts.  I didn't even mention the fact that I'd take a breast removal too  (brca1 gene runs in my maternal family).  It would possibly save me a lot of money and my family a lot of heartache.  She said the insurance would never cover it, they would consider it elective. 

[MomatHWTK]

This article includes a chart of the mean and median incomes by age:

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/01/02/americans-average-income-by-age-how-do-you-compare.aspx

 

Here's some data on medical expenditures by age:

http://kff.org/medicare/report/the-rising-cost-of-living-longer-analysis-of-medicare-spending-by-age-for-beneficiaries-in-traditional-medicare/

 

Also, see page 6 of this PDF

http://www.healthcostinstitute.org/files/2015%20HCCUR%2011.22.16_0.pdf 

 

Edited March 15, 2017 by MomatHWTK

[Reefgazer]

I agree with your analysis. Elderly people as a group are much wealthier than younger people, and sicker, so it makes sense that they should carry a bigger burden of their healthcare costs.

[Barb_]

I agree with your analysis. Elderly people as a group are much wealthier than younger people, and sicker, so it makes sense that they should carry a bigger burden of their healthcare costs.

 

Whose analysis? It's hard to tell who you are talking to without a quote. 

[Sneezyone]

Whose analysis? It's hard to tell who you are talking to without a quote. 

 

Or data. It is true that incomes rise and then fall with the peak earning years between 35-50 but that doesn't mean those earnings will support hefty outlays for healthcare. The post above (by MomatHWTK) is illuminating. With median earnings at or below 40K/year, there's not a lot of wiggle room and certainly not enough to support $10-20K/year for health insurance.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Sneezyone

[DawnM]

Just what I want when I finally become financially solvent, to pay more for health insurance.

 

I am 50.  So, I have been paying a lot for health insurance, and as soon as I turn 50 they decide I should pay MORE, while those younger get to pay less, less than I have been paying for the last 30 years.

 

Yay me.

 

I can't comment without getting political, but I am not a fan of EITHER healthcare system.  

I just went back to work.  Already 1/3 of my check is taken out for taxes, SS, medicare, and healthcare.  I am mad enough.

[Carrie12345]

My parents, who are in their early 60s, struggled with finding jobs after layoffs in their 50s, right when their investments (and everyone else's) were tanking.  They had to settle for much lower paying jobs.  They're still trying to catch up on what they had expected to be building upon.

 

We expect dh's income to continue increasing in his 40s, but we've learned that the best laid plans don't necessarily work out.  And ours could be greatly impacted by other political aspects that I probably shouldn't get into here.  It's nice to believe that we'll have the house paid off, kids launched, retirement funded, and therefore the means to pay a boat load more for health insurance, but any one little glitch (including losing our health care in the near future) could ruin the whole thing.

[Lanny]

What I saw on the 6 P.M. EDT news last night, before our ISP had horrible problems, about the projected rise in premiums, for people 50+, in 10 years being 10X higher than they currently pay, that is not going to fly. The people in that age range are the most apt to vote in elections. And, if they are  65+, or approximately that age, there is no way if they are receiving about $25K in Social Security benefits, they can pay $14K for health insurance each year. Impossible.  Pigs cannot fly and that won't either. And how does that affect Medicare for people receiving Social Security Retirement benefits?

 

They seem to have 2 possible paths in DC. The first would be to do nothing at this time and let ObamaCare continue to disintegrate. They do not want to do that (do nothing at this time) and that would be irresponsible.  The second path is to try to come up with a way to fix or replace ObamaCare, so it is viable. Hopefully, they can come up with something that works well.

 

If they make it optional, obviously, many younger people will not purchase Health insurance. It has always been that way, over many years. How to get young healthy people to buy some kind of Health insurance, is something they will probably spend a lot of time   working on.  Without a Mandate/Penalty/Tax, young healthy people are not going to buy insurance they do not think they will need to use.

[Pawz4me]

What I saw on the 6 P.M. EDT news last night, before our ISP had horrible problems, about the projected rise in premiums, for people 50+, in 10 years being 10X higher than they currently pay, that is not going to fly. The people in that age range are the most apt to vote in elections. And, if they are  65+, or approximately that age, there is no way if they are receiving about $25K in Social Security benefits, they can pay $14K for health insurance each year. Impossible.  Pigs cannot fly and that won't either. And how does that affect Medicare for people receiving Social Security Retirement benefits?

 

They seem to have 2 possible paths in DC. The first would be to do nothing at this time and let ObamaCare continue to disintegrate. They do not want to do that (do nothing at this time) and that would be irresponsible.  The second path is to try to come up with a way to fix or replace ObamaCare, so it is viable. Hopefully, they can come up with something that works well.

 

If they make it optional, obviously, many younger people will not purchase Health insurance. It has always been that way, over many years. How to get young healthy people to buy some kind of Health insurance, is something they will probably spend a lot of time   working on.  Without a Mandate/Penalty/Tax, young healthy people are not going to buy insurance they do not think they will need to use.

 

 

Obamacare isn't disintegrating, although some politicians and news outlets sure want people to think that.The CBO report states on page 2 that "In CBO and JCT’s assessment, however, the nongroup market would probably be stable in most areas under either current law or the legislation." Stable does not equate in any way to "continue to disintegrate."

 

The CBO report also says:

 

 

 

Under current law, most subsidized enrollees purchasing health insurance coverage in the nongroup market are largely insulated from increases in premiums because their out-of-pocket payments for premiums are based on a percentage of their income; the government pays the difference. The subsidies to purchase coverage combined with the penalties paid by uninsured people stemming from the individual mandate are anticipated to cause sufficient demand for insurance by people with low health care expenditures for the market to be stable.

 

Again . . . per the non-partisan agency tasked with evaluating these things the ACA is NOT disintegrating. Not by any means. Now the argument could certainly be made that it needs tweaking/improving or that it's not working well for a lot of people. But to say that it's disintegrating just isn't supported by facts.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Pawz4me

[Lanny]

The State of Vermont was moving towards a Single Payer/Universal Health Care plan. I believe that was a few years ago, but am not sure when that happened.  The staggering increase in State taxes that would have been required to pay for it caused them to drop the idea.  

 

1/3 of the counties in the USA at this time (15 March 2017) only have one company offering policies to them on the Exchanges. I suspect the number of counties will increase, after Humana stops participating in the Exchanges, which will begin in January 2018.  If Anthem follow Humana, the situation will be exacerbated even more.

 

ETA:   Some counties may not have any policies available to them on the Exchanges during 2018?

Edited March 15, 2017 by Lanny

[TechWife]

What I saw on the 6 P.M. EDT news last night, before our ISP had horrible problems, about the projected rise in premiums, for people 50+, in 10 years being 10X higher than they currently pay, that is not going to fly. The people in that age range are the most apt to vote in elections. And, if they are 65+, or approximately that age, there is no way if they are receiving about $25K in Social Security benefits, they can pay $14K for health insurance each year. Impossible. Pigs cannot fly and that won't either. And how does that affect Medicare for people receiving Social Security Retirement benefits?

 

They seem to have 2 possible paths in DC. The first would be to do nothing at this time and let ObamaCare continue to disintegrate. They do not want to do that (do nothing at this time) and that would be irresponsible. The second path is to try to come up with a way to fix or replace ObamaCare, so it is viable. Hopefully, they can come up with something that works well..

Medicare is not part of this legislation at all. I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. They will probably get to that later, but they aren't doing it now.

 

They ARE trying to "fix" the ACA. That's what this is legislation is all about. They are doing a poor job of it, but they are trying.

[Butter]

It would be totally amazing and wonderful if it really did happen that people 50-64 made more money and had more disposable income to spend.  Unfortunately, in real life, it doesn't work that way.

 

Our health insurance costs a little over $25,000 a year (just did taxes yesterday so I know exactly how much lol).  We pay something like 28% and my husband's employer (which happens to be the federal government) pays the rest.  Because of how little his pay increases each year, we literally could not absorb a 5x increase.  And my husband has a *good* job making *good* money.  And never mind we'll be putting two kids through college in our 50s and definitely won't have the house paid off by 60 (we bought our first house in mid- and late-30s).

 

The funny thing is given how much medical care my daughter uses (chronic illness; hit our deductible for the year on February 4th) at 17, once she's off our insurance, they'll probably be paying out less than they are now.  With the exception of when my dad had prostate cancer at 62 (which was taken care of through surgery only and actually only cost about as much as my hysterectomy), my parents did not start using more insurance benefits until after they were on Medicare.  Among their friends and family it's been similar.  I'm not convinced 50-64 years rack up quite the tons and tons of costs compared to under 50 year olds that people assume they do.  Over 65, yes.  My 17 year old daughter has already cost our insurance company more this year than my 70 year old mom has cost hers lol

[Granny_Weatherwax]

My husband works in an industry where everyone, no matter how long employed, earns the same amount of money. In other words, that inexperienced 21 year old new hire is bringing home the same money as the 60 year old guy with 35 years experience. It's great for the young guys, not so great for the older ones. DH will not receive an increase in pay between now and when he hopes to retire in twelve years; honestly, we're just hoping the retirement plan he pays in to every month is still solvent by the time he retires. Every increase in expenses, whether from taxes, union dues, insurance premiums, etc has no chance of being recouped through raises.

 

Our state, and our county in particular, is still in an economic depression. Everyone I know, no matter their industry, education or experience levels, is concerned about insurance premiums and affordability.

 

 

Edited March 15, 2017 by Scoutermom

[FaithManor]

I asked my last OBGYN if I could have it done, ovaries, uterus, cervix (I had severe squamous cells removed 10 years ago) all of removed. She looked at me like I was nuts. I didn't even mention the fact that I'd take a breast removal too (brca1 gene runs in my maternal family). It would possibly save me a lot of money and my family a lot of heartache. She said the insurance would never cover it, they would consider it elective.

Difference in policies and doctors. If I had the gene, my insurance and OBGYN would absolutely go for it.

[historically accurate]

I asked my last OBGYN if I could have it done, ovaries, uterus, cervix (I had severe squamous cells removed 10 years ago) all of removed.  She looked at me like I was nuts.  I didn't even mention the fact that I'd take a breast removal too  (brca1 gene runs in my maternal family).  It would possibly save me a lot of money and my family a lot of heartache.  She said the insurance would never cover it, they would consider it elective. 

 

If you know the exact gene that runs in your family, you can get the test just for that specific gene. It only costs a couple hundred dollars (or did 5 years ago when my mom tested for my gene - $400 or so IIRC) to test for a specific gene. The panel, that I had, runs a few thousand; the panel runs through all of the known BRCA genes. Since you know that BRCA runs in your family, your insurance may cover the testing.

 

Most insurances will cover the breast and ovary removal if you have tested positive for the gene. If cancer just runs in your family, I doubt they would cover it. My surgeries were covered because I had breast cancer. I was informed that most insurances would cover my girls' surgeries if they were BRCA positive as well and choose the surgical route as an adult. 

 

It might be worth looking into the genetic testing since you are interested in the surgeries. Unfortunately, it is the only known way to reduce your risk if you do have BRCA. If I were you, I'd talk to my insurance company as well as your OBGYN; you are a good candidate for the surgeries.

Edited March 15, 2017 by beckyjo

[SKL]

Yes, I believe that on average the earning ability is greater at those ages, and also, for many, the cost of raising kids tapers off.  Also the need to be flexible or home for young kids tapers off.

 

It should surprise nobody that health care costs increase between those ages.  That is natural and nothing new.  Most people have insurance but also copays, deductibles, and costs the insurance does not cover at all.  Health issues tend to increase as we age.

 

I assume we are not talking about people who are disabled, as their health insurance is handled a different way.

[SKL]

https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2016/09/16/median-household-incomes-by-age-bracket-1967-2015

[Guest]

I know two people that followed the path in the OP.

 

One is a retired Colonel-an officer for his entire career. The other stayed single his entire life, was given land in someone's will, lucked into a blue collar job in a tech company (moving up through management) and is relatively healthy.