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

[maize]

I have an idea!

 

We allow insurance increases for folks in middle age and older, but we guarantee increased income--we'll offset the difference with government checks made out to everyone in that age bracket whose income doesn't make the premiums affordable. Then we can honestly say that the increased premiums are fair and sustainable.

 

Cause I don't see any other way that this is not a recipe for disaster for many, many folks.

 

More realistically, I'm counting on The Powers That Be to recognize that this is an important voting demographic and that throwing them under the bus may not, in fact, accord with their own self interests.

Edited March 15, 2017 by maize

[Sneezyone]

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

Household income can include two or more wage earners. Households would also have higher insurance premiums vs. individuals.

[creekland]

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 

 

Thanks you for these links.  I was about to look up the one on income.

 

Looking at the median income (numerically half earn higher and half lower - far better than the mean when high $$ earners can skew the data), it stays right around 40K from age 35 to 55 before dipping lower again.  I'm not sure at all how that jives with "older folks earn more so can pay more."  Then too, half earn less.

 

It makes FAR more sense to price healthcare like public schools - everyone pays in based upon "something" (income, property, whatever) according to what they have.  Whether one uses oodles in healthcare or not is more of a lottery than anything else, so it's not fair to punish those who draw the short stick.  We all want it there if we need it.  We all need to pay for it.  Drop for profit health insurance - esp since there's no need to pay stockholders for health situations.  Figure out a system where we all pay in and all can use (free at point of service) if needed.  Join the rest of the first world.

[6packofun]

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.

 

...

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.

 

OK, well I'm naive and/or dumb.  

 

Anyway, as to your last comment, I don't even know what the premiums are supposed to be so I was thinking of this in a sort of general way.  As far as healthcare goes, I was thinking about how the young and healthy are needed to carry the system for the older and less healthy and just remember how completely unable I was in my 20's and even early 30's to help my parents in almost ANY way.  We just did not have the money as a young family.  Kwim?  So I don't understand how it will EVER work unless people are able to pay what they CAN pay--but I'm not smart enough to know what that looks like.

 

Thank you, everyone, for kindly sharing all of these examples.  It has been eye-opening!  I know it's rough out there in the job market, but being out of it myself I only have dh's experience--and a few friends and family members--to go on.

[Pam in CT]

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

 

 

Thanks for this.  

 

If I'm reading it correctly, it shows that median income for the 55-64 yo bracket (the light blue line) is consistently lower than income for the 45-54 yo bracket (the dark blue line) and for the the 35-44 yo bracket (the green line) for every year tracked (~1968-2015).   That surprises me -- I would have guessed something more along the lines of what the OP postulated, that median incomes tend to rise with age.  (Well, it does show that, but only up to age 54 -- I guess it shows that the "peak" earning years top off much earlier than I'd expected.

[creekland]

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

 

Did you not read your own link?

 

"Households are by no means locked into the same quintile over time. Young educated households with professional skills and aspirations will typically move into the higher earning brackets during their financial life cycles. Households dependent on income from unskilled labor and non-professional service employment will not see the same financial progress over the years."

 

And even the data itself makes the point that those who are older (65+) - old system - did seem to increase household income as they aged.  All the rest - aka - those who will be paying for healthcare and not on medicare - not so much.

 

This whole idea works for some - the wealthy more educated - but not for all.  We need healthcare that works for most, esp those who don't have as much money as those who are wealthy have always been able to get what they need.  They can pay out of pocket...

[DawnM]

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.

 

Then I want a refund for the years I paid from 22-49 because it is a LOT and I barely used it.

[Sneezyone]

Thanks for this.

 

If I'm reading it correctly, it shows that median income for the 55-64 yo bracket (the light blue line) is consistently lower than income for the 45-54 yo bracket (the dark blue line) and for the the 35-44 yo bracket (the green line) for every year tracked (~1968-2015). That surprises me -- I would have guessed something more along the lines of what the OP postulated, that median incomes tend to rise with age. (Well, it does show that, but only up to age 54 -- I guess it shows that the "peak" earning years top off much earlier than I'd expected.

So true. Then u have a big gap until Medicare kicks in at 65/67.

[Twolittleboys]

OK, well I'm naive and/or dumb.  

 

Anyway, as to your last comment, I don't even know what the premiums are supposed to be so I was thinking of this in a sort of general way.  As far as healthcare goes, I was thinking about how the young and healthy are needed to carry the system for the older and less healthy and just remember how completely unable I was in my 20's and even early 30's to help my parents in almost ANY way.  We just did not have the money as a young family.  Kwim?  So I don't understand how it will EVER work unless people are able to pay what they CAN pay--but I'm not smart enough to know what that looks like.

 

Thank you, everyone, for kindly sharing all of these examples.  It has been eye-opening!  I know it's rough out there in the job market, but being out of it myself I only have dh's experience--and a few friends and family members--to go on.

I do agree that people can only pay what the CAN pay. But I think a lot of younger people would be able to pay more - lots of people don't start having kids until they are in their early thirties and so for someone getting a good job right after college (or even earlier if not attending college) the first ten years or so would be a fairly affluent time in their lives. And I think "paying more" doesn't mean that they would pay more than older people, just more than would be needed if everyone was young (as on average healthcare costs would be lower then).

[SKL]

Then I want a refund for the years I paid from 22-49 because it is a LOT and I barely used it.

 

Same for me and most people.  It makes sense for the insurance against the big stuff (though I don't know how much % of the premiums went for that).  But some of it is a transfer of wealth.

 

[SKL]

I do agree that people can only pay what the CAN pay. But I think a lot of younger people would be able to pay more - lots of people don't start having kids until they are in their early thirties and so for someone getting a good job right after college (or even earlier if not attending college) the first ten years or so would be a fairly affluent time in their lives. And I think "paying more" doesn't mean that they would pay more than older people, just more than would be needed if everyone was young (as on average healthcare costs would be lower then).

 

But that is the time people tend to be paying off student loans and/or raising young kids.

[SKL]

So ... how much "more" are we talking about?

[creekland]

So ... how much "more" are we talking about?

 

They're saying 5:1.  Older folks can pay 5 times what younger folks pay for the same policy.

 

ETA:  It's currently 3:1.

Edited March 15, 2017 by creekland

[SKL]

Did you not read your own link?

 

"Households are by no means locked into the same quintile over time. Young educated households with professional skills and aspirations will typically move into the higher earning brackets during their financial life cycles. Households dependent on income from unskilled labor and non-professional service employment will not see the same financial progress over the years."

 

And even the data itself makes the point that those who are older (65+) - old system - did seem to increase household income as they aged.  All the rest - aka - those who will be paying for healthcare and not on medicare - not so much.

 

This whole idea works for some - the wealthy more educated - but not for all.  We need healthcare that works for most, esp those who don't have as much money as those who are wealthy have always been able to get what they need.  They can pay out of pocket..

 

I focused on the 2015 data since that is most relevant to today.  It shows that the older ages (on average) are earning more than the younger ages.  Yes, it dips in the last age group before Medicare, but still not below the two youngest age brackets.

[Lanny]

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.

 

My impression is/was that most people, when they go onto Medicare, are dropped from the health insurance plan they had previously, when they were working or before they were old enough for Social Security. . I was surprised, to see last night, that people of Social Security Retirement age were included, in what they showed during that segment.

 

Medicare also needs to be saved, but that is a much more obvious issue and more of a Hot Potato issue, that few people in DC are willing to even talk about in public..

 

I agree with you that up to now they are doing a poor job. I hope they will keep trying. The real process will begin once the House sends a Bill to the Senate. I think at that point, they kick it back and forth, trying to come up with legislation both houses can pass.

[FaithManor]

I do agree that people can only pay what the CAN pay. But I think a lot of younger people would be able to pay more - lots of people don't start having kids until they are in their early thirties and so for someone getting a good job right after college (or even earlier if not attending college) the first ten years or so would be a fairly affluent time in their lives. And I think "paying more" doesn't mean that they would pay more than older people, just more than would be needed if everyone was young (as on average healthcare costs would be lower then).

Uhm no not really. With tuition/room/board outpacing wages by 415% in the last 15 years, a large portion of these young graduates have student loan payments running the range of $600-1700 per month and that is for 10-20 years.

[SKL]

They're saying 5:1.  Older folks can pay 5 times what younger folks pay for the same policy.

 

ETA:  It's currently 3:1.

 

How many dollars differential to the current situation?  And is this all-in cost or just one of multiple moving numbers?

 

Another question.  How does this interact with the fact that most working people in that age group have employers paying some significant % of their insurance?  Or is that not a thing any more?  (I've been paying 100% of mine for 9 years, so maybe I've missed something.)

[SparklyUnicorn]

This thinking is brought to you by the same people who believe that only high school students work at McDonald's so it's no big deal to pay them very little.  Who is serving up lunch there...nobody knows since high school students are in school during lunch time, but ya know...details.

 

 

[maize]

If we went to a single payer system, the funds currently going into for-profit insurance from corporations and individuals could quite possibly meet the essential healthcare needs of the entire nation. I think a more equitable distribution of costs could be achieved by stacking the tax on the highest earners (who have always benefited from an inequitable share of national and international resources and the labor of others).

 

A secondary for-profit health insurance industry may be a grand thing for those who can afford it, but I do not believe that basic health care can ever ethically be managed through a for profit model.

[maize]

How many dollars differential to the current situation? And is this all-in cost or just one of multiple moving numbers?

 

Another question. How does this interact with the fact that most working people in that age group have employers paying some significant % of their insurance? Or is that not a thing any more? (I've been paying 100% of mine for 9 years, so maybe I've missed something.)

It would give employers even more incentive to practice age discrimination as older employees would become much, much more expensive.

[creekland]

I focused on the 2015 data since that is most relevant to today.  It shows that the older ages (on average) are earning more than the younger ages.  Yes, it dips in the last age group before Medicare, but still not below the two youngest age brackets.

 

But you completely overlooked the fact that your own link says this is an average.  Those who do well (bring up the average) are those who tend to be wealthy, white collar, educated, etc, and those who are blue collar, poorer, and without higher education don't increase.

 

Even then... an average 25-34 year old household is earning 57K whereas an average 55-64 year old household is earning 62K.  That's not a whopping difference - even including the half the idea "works" for.  But the 55-64 year old folks would be paying far more for insurance.

 

To me, it seems like this plan is set up to fit the wealthier among us (of all ages below 65), and those who aren't?  Tough luck for them.  Let them die eat cake.

[Guest]

I do agree that people can only pay what the CAN pay. But I think a lot of younger people would be able to pay more - lots of people don't start having kids until they are in their early thirties and so for someone getting a good job right after college (or even earlier if not attending college) the first ten years or so would be a fairly affluent time in their lives. And I think "paying more" doesn't mean that they would pay more than older people, just more than would be needed if everyone was young (as on average healthcare costs would be lower then).

 

I just left my first ten years after college.

 

Incredible student loans, insane rent and three kids.

 

If that is as affluent as I'm going to get I am so screwed.

 

Let's say I didn't have those three kids, and: same. Probably more so actually on a personal level because I was able to get lower (but longer) loan payments due to the expense of the three kids. 

 

In theory, I'll have more working years on the backside, though, because I'll be done with my kids, financially, 10-15 years earlier than people who started in their thirties.

[FaithManor]

How many dollars differential to the current situation? And is this all-in cost or just one of multiple moving numbers?

 

Another question. How does this interact with the fact that most working people in that age group have employers paying some significant % of their insurance? Or is that not a thing any more? (I've been paying 100% of mine for 9 years, so maybe I've missed something.)

In the last ten years, more and more employers have reduced full time jobs to two part time jobs in order to not pay benefits. I have known tons of people in this mess...had a full time job, then bam, it was part time and they lost health insurance. Some received small wage increases to compensate a little for the loss, but not much.

 

Here in Michigan, schools have reduced the amount they pay towards health insurance plans to the point that locally less than half the premium is covered but the teachers have received no pay raises in eight years so a constant take home pay reduction.

 

The county turned half of its fulltime positions to part time to cut health insurance costs so the courthouse and other county services have reduced operational houra too which has been a real burden to the public.

 

My brother works for HP and has steadily seen his employer contribution decrease while the premium keeps going up. He is just this year paying $300 more per month for a policy that doubled the deductible to $10,000 per person, $15,000 per family. He could get a catastrophic plan much cheaper independently, but HP requires that the employee have "employer provided" coverage.

 

The days of employers paying half or more of premiums as part of compensation packages is becoming extinct.

[FaithManor]

But you completely overlooked the fact that your own link says this is an average. Those who do well (bring up the average) are those who tend to be wealthy, white collar, educated, etc, and those who are blue collar, poorer, and without higher education don't increase.

 

Even then... an average 25-34 year old household is earning 57K whereas an average 55-64 year old household is earning 62K. That's not a whopping difference - even including the half the idea "works" for. But the 55-64 year old folks would be paying far more for insurance.

 

To me, it seems like this plan is set up to fit the wealthier among us (of all ages below 65), and those who aren't? Tough luck for them. Let them die eat cake.

Agreed. It has a real Marie Antoinette feel to it!

 

Feudalism.

 

It is back!

[SKL]

Well anyway, this is too political for me so I need to get back to my job.

[Guest]

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.

I agree. And I think If we saw the cost of prenatal, labor, and delivery we might change our minds about supoosedly cheap young people. Edited March 15, 2017 by Heigh Ho

[creekland]

Agreed. It has a real Marie Antoinette feel to it!

 

Feudalism.

 

It is back!

 

Well, technically it could solve the world overpopulation issue, lack of lower tech jobs issue, and probably others I'm not thinking of.  Pretty soon I suspect we'll start seeing gov't paid for PSA commercials promoting Big Macs daily for kids.  If we can kill them off via heart attacks young, no social security issues later either.   :glare:

 

Of course, the really sad part is this could very likely be some of the thinking behind the legislation.  "Do we really want to help 'those people?'"  I mean... "if you have enough money, you deserve it.  If not, well..." :cursing:  

 

I know there are folks who think this way.  It's incredibly irritating to me (and that's choosing a nice word to use).  To them, if you don't have what it takes to make enough money, you deserve nothing.  They also will swear that luck has no part in it at all - even though they come from solid middle class families who helped them start out.  They'll argue that part, of course.  They "made it" themselves you know.

[Reefgazer]

Pew research:  http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/11/07/the-rising-age-gap-in-economic-well-being/ (Shows 47X as much net wealth as younger age groups).

 

 

Demos:  http://www.demos.org/blog/9/8/14/wealth-distributed-extremely-unevenly-within-every-age-group  (this one shoes a drop-off in wealth after age 75, but the 75+ group is still far, far wealthier than their young (under age 50) counterparts).

 

 

UChicago:  http://uchicagogate.com/2013/12/13/the-old-the-young-and-the-inter-generational-transfer-of-wealth/

 

 

 

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

 

[creekland]

Well anyway, this is too political for me so I need to get back to my job.

 

To me it's not political at all.  I don't give a hoot which party gives us a universal health care system.  I'd cheer either one.

[Reefgazer]

I said wealth, not income.  A wealthy senior can downsize their home and live off that income for a long time because their homes have increased greatly in value during the years they've lived in them.

 

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.

 

[creekland]

I said wealth, not income.  A wealthy senior can downsize their home and live off that income for a long time because their homes have increased greatly in value during the years they've lived in them.

 

IME Senior citizens (65+) are on medicare with Plan B options and not affected by what we're talking about in this thread...

 

Your links seem to concentrate on how much that age group has.  Others aren't nearly in the same boat.

[FaithManor]

I agree. And I think If we saw the cost of prenatal, labor, and delivery we might change our minds about supoosedly cheap young people.

The current replacement plan incentivizes dropping maternity coverage. If this goes forward, we will likely see a significant drop in birth rates. Most 20-30 year olds can not risk it. One always hopes for an uneventful pregnancy with non complicated delivery and minimal hospitalization, but since that isn't a guarantee and not necessarily a common scenario, economics will drive family planning in a very basic way.

 

It won't be felt economically now, but it very much will 30 years from now when the workforce is rather small.

 

Dd and hubby have one. And their insurance got downgraded while becoming more expensive and especially for maternity coverage. So at present they are not planning more. Most of my nieces and nephews are choosing childlessness. Not because they do not want children, but because they cannot afford to birth them on their crappy insurance policies with huge deductibles who try to get out of every claim made. None of them are living "high off the hog" and by the time their careers advance enough that maybe they will make a reasonable sum of money and potentially better health coverage, the biological clock will be ticking its last tocks.

 

It does not appear that the wealthy powers that be have stopped to consider the long term ramifications economically much less the human cost of their self centered ideas.

[Pam in CT]

I focused on the 2015 data since that is most relevant to today.  It shows that the older ages (on average) are earning more than the younger ages.  Yes, it dips in the last age group before Medicare, but still not below the two youngest age brackets.

 

 

I was surprised to see, it doesn't show that.  (Like the OP I expected it would.)  In 2015, and indeed in every year since 1980:

 

highest income bracket = 45-54 yo

Second highest = 35-44 yo

 

third highest = 55-64  (this is also the middle bracket for pre-Medicare years, coming in above only the 15-24 and the 25-34 yo brackets... and a good hunk of that 15-24 yo population is on their parents' rather than their own policies)

 

 

 

The ACA limits insurers to a 3:1 age-baed premium ratio (so for the same policy, insurers can charge older cohorts up to 3x as much in premiums).  The AHCA would loosen that to 5:1 (insurers could charge older cohorts up to 5x as much for the same policy).  The income data would suggest that many older cohort patients would really struggle to absorb that.

[FaithManor]

Well, technically it could solve the world overpopulation issue, lack of lower tech jobs issue, and probably others I'm not thinking of. Pretty soon I suspect we'll start seeing gov't paid for PSA commercials promoting Big Macs daily for kids. If we can kill them off via heart attacks young, no social security issues later either. :glare:

 

Of course, the really sad part is this could very likely be some of the thinking behind the legislation. "Do we really want to help 'those people?'" I mean... "if you have enough money, you deserve it. If not, well..." :cursing:

 

I know there are folks who think this way. It's incredibly irritating to me (and that's choosing a nice word to use). To them, if you don't have what it takes to make enough money, you deserve nothing. They also will swear that luck has no part in it at all - even though they come from solid middle class families who helped them start out. They'll argue that part, of course. They "made it" themselves you know.

My parents think this way. Meanwhile they have consumed more health care in Medicare than they ever paid in, more social security than they paid in, more....and they are going bankrupt and feel entitled to services.

 

They deserve it in their minds. But not everyone else. Everyone else was lazy and dumb. But of course they worked harder than everyone else and made better choices (bizarrely debatable in their case, clearly delusional thinking as the evidence points to nothing but financial stupidity on their part) so should have access to what they need.

 

Makes.me.nuts!!!

Edited March 15, 2017 by FaithManor

[maize]

I said wealth, not income. A wealthy senior can downsize their home and live off that income for a long time because their homes have increased greatly in value during the years they've lived in them.

A long time?

 

Median net worth of folks 65+ is $170,000. Let's say that is all home value. I'm not sure what home you think they will downsize to that costs enough less than $170,000 to leave them lots of money to live on for years to come.

[maize]

Not to mention the many folks with no home equity at all...

[Pawz4me]

Pew research:  http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/11/07/the-rising-age-gap-in-economic-well-being/ (Shows 47X as much net wealth as younger age groups).

 

 

Demos:  http://www.demos.org/blog/9/8/14/wealth-distributed-extremely-unevenly-within-every-age-group  (this one shoes a drop-off in wealth after age 75, but the 75+ group is still far, far wealthier than their young (under age 50) counterparts).

 

 

UChicago:  http://uchicagogate.com/2013/12/13/the-old-the-young-and-the-inter-generational-transfer-of-wealth/

 

Those studies largely reference people 65+. Which is a totally different demographic than is being discussed here (50-64 year olds). It's a whole different ball game once one is eligible for Social Security and Medicare.

[maize]

The current replacement plan incentivizes dropping maternity coverage. If this goes forward, we will likely see a significant drop in birth rates. Most 20-30 year olds can not risk it. One always hopes for an uneventful pregnancy with non complicated delivery and minimal hospitalization, but since that isn't a guarantee and not necessarily a common scenario, economics will drive family planning in a very basic way.

 

It won't be felt economically now, but it very much will 30 years from now when the workforce is rather small.

 

Dd and hubby have one. And their insurance got downgraded while becoming more expensive and especially for maternity coverage. So at present they are not planning more. Most of my nieces and nephews are choosing childlessness. Not because they do not want children, but because they cannot afford to birth them on their crappy insurance policies with huge deductibles who try to get out of every claim made. None of them are living "high off the hog" and by the time their careers advance enough that maybe they will make a reasonable sum of money and potentially better health coverage, the biological clock will be ticking its last tocks.

 

It does not appear that the wealthy powers that be have stopped to consider the long term ramifications economically much less the human cost of their self centered ideas.

And negative birth rates will do wonderful things for the economy. Wonder who is going to pay for Medicare and social security for my generation?

[creekland]

A long time?

 

Median net worth of folks 65+ is $170,000. Let's say that is all home value. I'm not sure what home you think they will downsize to that costs enough less than $170,000 to leave them lots of money to live on for years to come.

 

My mom lives in a rural poor area.  Her house is nice (3 bedroom 1 1/2 bath), but would sell for 40-50K. I'm not quite sure how long that would keep her going sleeping in motels or her car...

 

That said, she's not hurting financially - and is on medicare, so isn't affected by all this health care stuff.

[FaithManor]

A long time?

 

Median net worth of folks 65+ is $170,000. Let's say that is all home value. I'm not sure what home you think they will downsize to that costs enough less than $170,000 to leave them lots of money to live on for years to come.

If closing costs were low and they exited with $150,000 in equity, living on $25,000 a year they would have six years of savings. And they still have to buy another place or pay rent.

 

That is not much.

 

Most people do not consider how much you have to have in cash if you do not have investments big enough to live off the interest for many years before dipping into the principle.

 

It takes something like $450,000 invested at 5% to have $1875 per month income.

 

Save young. But that is pretty hard to do when income is low, student loans are high, and a lot of the jobs that pay benefits are in high COL areas.

[Sneezyone]

Pew research:  http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/11/07/the-rising-age-gap-in-economic-well-being/ (Shows 47X as much net wealth as younger age groups).

 

 

Demos:  http://www.demos.org/blog/9/8/14/wealth-distributed-extremely-unevenly-within-every-age-group  (this one shoes a drop-off in wealth after age 75, but the 75+ group is still far, far wealthier than their young (under age 50) counterparts).

 

 

UChicago:  http://uchicagogate.com/2013/12/13/the-old-the-young-and-the-inter-generational-transfer-of-wealth/

 

These folks accumulated wealth during a time when the social safety net invested heavily in higher education, many were boosted by the GI Bill, VA home loans, and other programs during a time when many more people served. That wealth is largely not there for GenXers and Millenials. NOTE: I'm GenX and I'm 40 years old. In 10 years, my mother will need significant care just as my children are off to college. Most of my friends have toddlers and young elementary kids. Mine are the oldest. Most of my friends postponed childbearing to pay off hefty student loans. Most of them will not be able to afford a 5x cost differential.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Sneezyone

[Barb_]

Same for me and most people. It makes sense for the insurance against the big stuff (though I don't know how much % of the premiums went for that). But some of it is a transfer of wealth.

 

Yes. Yes it is, and it's time we make peace with that. Small transfers of wealth are the only way we all have enough. Our family income is ten times what I used to make when I worked full time in a grocery store, but we don't work as hard now as we did then. Why not transfer some of our wealth so someone else busting their butts at Walmart or who is disabled or laid off can afford health care?

 

Why not?

[SparklyUnicorn]

Yes. Yes it is, and it's time we make peace with that. Small transfers of wealth are the only way we all have enough. Our family income is ten times what I used to make when I worked full time in a grocery store, but we don't work as hard now as we did then. Why not transfer some of our wealth so someone else busting their butts at Walmart or who is disabled or laid off can afford health care?

 

Why not?

 

I assume because fundamentally some people don't think it's their problem to if there is a segment of underpaid or disabled people.

[SKL]

I was surprised to see, it doesn't show that.  (Like the OP I expected it would.)  In 2015, and indeed in every year since 1980:

 

highest income bracket = 45-54 yo

Second highest = 35-44 yo

 

third highest = 55-64  (this is also the middle bracket for pre-Medicare years, coming in above only the 15-24 and the 25-34 yo brackets... and a good hunk of that 15-24 yo population is on their parents' rather than their own policies)

 

 

 

The ACA limits insurers to a 3:1 age-baed premium ratio (so for the same policy, insurers can charge older cohorts up to 3x as much in premiums).  The AHCA would loosen that to 5:1 (insurers could charge older cohorts up to 5x as much for the same policy).  The income data would suggest that many older cohort patients would really struggle to absorb that.

 

You are saying exactly what I said.  The older age brackets earn more than the younger age brackets, with a dip in the oldest pre-Medicare age group, but still not less than the two youngest categories.  I did not say that earnings continually get relatively higher until age 65.  The question raised was whether young adults can afford to pay more.  This is a complex question, but straight income does not support that conclusion.

[Barb_]

I assume because fundamentally some people don't think it's their problem to if there is a segment of underpaid or disabled people.

Mankind was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The deals of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!

 

Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol

[SparklyUnicorn]

Well and I think one fatal flaw in this plan is...it's one thing to say ok I'll pay more so others can have what they need.  I'll pay pay pay for years so it'll be there when I need it when I'm older.  But will it?  Is that really what is going to happen?  Or are we mostly just lining the pockets of insurance execs.  The insurance industry creates jobs so I like that part.  But are we really doing more than creating jobs?  Are we making a handful of people richer?  Do the insurance companies say we'll set aside money now so later things won't be so expensive for people?  I don't think so.  I am not that optimistic.  The government is in large part using private for profit business to create something that is supposed to benefit the public thinking it'll work like the public sector.  What would motivate insurance companies to behave in the best interest of the average person?

 

 

 

 

[SKL]

Yes. Yes it is, and it's time we make peace with that. Small transfers of wealth are the only way we all have enough. Our family income is ten times what I used to make when I worked full time in a grocery store, but we don't work as hard now as we did then. Why not transfer some of our wealth so someone else busting their butts at Walmart or who is disabled or laid off can afford health care?

 

Why not?

 

I didn't say there should be no transfers of wealth.  I'm just calling it what it is.  It is helpful to call things what they are when discussing policy.

 

[SKL]

My opinion is that the negotiating has just begun.  I am not reading the draft anything until it is further along in the process.  From what little I have heard, I am not excited, but I will leave it at that for now.

[Butter]

We allow insurance increases for folks in middle age and older, but we guarantee increased income--we'll offset the difference with government checks made out to everyone in that age bracket whose income doesn't make the premiums affordable. Then we can honestly say that the increased premiums are fair and sustainable.

 

That is actually sort of what part of their proposal will do.  Subsidies will change from need-based to age-based.  The older (and so the higher your premiums) the higher the subsidy.  It doesn't totally make it up and has issues because of lack of help for those who need it due to income level.  The biggest beneficiary actually seems to be the insurance companies.

 

My impression is/was that most people, when they go onto Medicare, are dropped from the health insurance plan they had previously, when they were working or before they were old enough for Social Security. . I was surprised, to see last night, that people of Social Security Retirement age were included, in what they showed during that segment.

 

Many people have supplementary insurance.  Medicare has its own issues and does not really pay well and there are costs to the patient, too.  Many doctor's costs are actually *above* that which they are reimbursed through Medicare.  The rest of us are actually subsidizing regular doctor's visits for the 65+ Medicare-only crowd.  When I worked for a therapy group, Medicare paid 1/3 as much as the next lowest insurer and after paying their amount the providers had to pay to the group for overhead (like my pay) and their self-employment taxes, they literally were making below minimum wage for the hour of therapy with a Medicare patient.

[kewb]

 

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?

 

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?

Not how it works at all. Maybe once upon a time but certainly not true in my lifetime. I peaked in my late 30's. If I had not left the corporate world I probably would have gone a bit higher in my 40's. Then ageism would rear it's ugly head. Why pay me my big paycheck, 4 weeks vacation, health insurance that I am using more, when I can hire 2 twenty somethings for less than my salary.

 

I don't think it is a female issue. I know a fair amount of men who also face ageism in the work place.

 

While we were a double income family we had savings and investments and lived within our means. Then my dh got sick with a mystery illness. Bye bye savings and investments. I went from solid middle class to barely getting by. I was unable to go back to work full time because I am my husband's care taker.

 

My advice to any young person is save your money. Don't get sick. Don't get old.