<p>Health insurance cost has made many could be early retirees think twice about take the jump. Now the new health care act seems to release that concern.</p>
<p>If I read this correctly, if both retires, i.e. w/o any income, a couple of early retirees could qualify for the silver plan for less than $250 a year. </p>
<p>Any one knows when does that become effective?</p>
<p>We have 4 more quarters of tuition to pay. May work a couple more years to help paying the student loan and pay off mortgage. After that, don’t see why have to work.</p>
<p>The problem is there is apparently no means test. My unintentional early retirement has progressed along the lines described in that article. Our income is very low, but not by design, more a result of low interest rates. Fortunately we do have significant savings which are sustaining us. We have managed to find relatively affordable health insurance, and in fact just reduced our monthly premium from $1100 to $690 by going to a higher copay and co-insurance. I was not planning on being eligible for Medicaid (that is essentially what these subsidized plans are) before becoming Medicare eligible, which will be in 5 years. </p>
<p>And I wouldn’t be too overly critical of DadII. When financial incentives are provided and people behave in an economically rational way I would change the incentive rather than fault those who are doing what for them is the right thing. If you pay people to not work, they don’t work. That’s not politics, it’s economics. :D</p>
<p>oh, and it could kick in as early as jan 2014, but I don’t know the details.</p>
<p>I’m upset about hedge fund managers paying 15% income tax on their multi-million dollar incomes; I don’t see a problem with early retirees getting a break on health insurance. I think that the link between health insurance and employment is a major flaw in our current system; there are all sorts of bad consequences to this.</p>
<p>" I think that the link between health insurance and employment is a major flaw in our current system; there are all sorts of bad consequences to this. "</p>
<p>Amen. Imagine if you couldn’t switch jobs or retire because it meant that you would lose your right to buy homeowner’s insurance. It seems absurd.</p>
There’s also a link between employment and paid vacation, paid sick time, paid holidays, life insurance, some other subsidies, etc. These are benefits a company uses to lure talent to them. If a person doesn’t want to receive the benefit of company subsidized health insurance then they can buy their own insurance. Sure, it’s expensive, but that’s what happens when someone else isn’t subsidizing it for them. Now some people want other taxpayers to subsidize it for them instead. At the end of the day though, most people pining for this, like the OP, are looking for other people to subsidize their costs - they don’t want to pay for all of it themselves.</p>
<p>
The only reason for that is because homeowner’s insurance isn’t usually a benefit companies are choosing to subsidize although some might through special programs with insurance companies. If subsidizing homeowner’s insurance was something a company deemed it should do in order to be competitive for talent then it’d be the same as health insurance and one can decide whether they want it or not. </p>
<p>I agree with those posters that want health insurance and labor delinked.</p>
<p>I hope carried interest is eliminated in the next go round.</p>
<p>There is a cap…</p>
<p>“With this new law, as long as your income falls below the level of 400% of federal poverty guidelines, your out-of-pocket premiums for “silver” level coverage are capped on a sliding scale that gets to be no higher than 9.5% of your income. The rest of the costs of insuring you are covered by taxpayers.”</p>
<p>No, I’m comparing two apples that are treated totally differently in our economy. That distinction is an artifact of a historical development (employers deciding to offer health insurance as a perk around mid-century), rather than a system that a rational person would create.</p>
<p>There isn’t any present reason to tie health insurance to jobs and keep auto insurance separate. It’s a habit, nothing more.</p>
<p>Good Lord - I assumed they were monthly premiums as well and was kind of excited as I pay more than double that monthly for myself which is a huge chunk of our income - never really use it either as I don’t generally go over the huge deductible (husband is over 65 and on medicare). If I can get insurance for $250 a year (or even a month), I will certainly go for it.</p>
<p>Am I reading this wrong? I thought the only way you could get the $240 annual premium was if you are 1 person living AT the poverty level. </p>
<p>Once you go above the poverty level (up to 4 times the poverty level), then your premium also increase up to 9.5% of your income. This means that if you are a family of two earning $60,000 in retirement your premium will be $5700 per year.</p>
<p>That’s still a good deal but not as good as $250/year.</p>
<p>Most of us will have at least Social Security as income when we retire. That is generally above poverty level, although for someone with a spotty work history or a very low wage, it could be at or below poverty level.</p>
<p>I think you are correct, scout59. Plus, There are different plans. bronze, silver, gold, platinum, and catstrophic. What are the out of pocket expenses in each plan?</p>
<p>* May work a couple more years to help paying the student loan and pay off mortgage. After that, don’t see why have to work.*</p>
<p>That probably depends on what you plan to do with your time.
Will your investments pay for travel & toys?( or are you planning to hang onto the ones you have now?) Or will your entertainment needs be covered by the public library & public television?
Most people I know work as long as their health permits it, both because they enjoy where they are in their career & because they are used to a certain level of income.</p>
<p>"The ACA creates four benefit categories of plans plus a separate catastrophic plan to be offered through the Exchange, and in the individual and small group markets:</p>
<p>– Bronze plan represents minimum creditable coverage and provides the essential health benefits, cover 60% of the benefit costs of the plan, with an out-of-pocket limit equal to the Health Savings Account (HSA) current law limit ($5,950 for individuals and $11,900 for families in 2010);
The Silver (70%), Gold (80%) and Platinum (90%) plans utilize the same out-of-pocket expense rules as the Bronze plan but with higher coverage (70%, 80%, 90%, respectively)."</p>
<p>I don’t think this was a hidden loophole. This is an essential part of the provision that was meant to address the affordability issue. The article is just saying that the same income guidelines that have been touted as making insurance affordable for families could make health insurance affordable for people closer to retirement age. In their 50s, however, most people are at prime income age. Unless there is a generous pension or a lot of money in retirement accounts, most of us are trying to shore up retirement savings after paying for college. I’m not sure it will entice too many people out of the workforce but it may make things easier for those who are pushed. </p>
<p>If you want to talk about benefits of early retirement that get my boat: the fact that a parent with dependent children who retires early and collects social security can collect on their minor children. I would have no issue with this if there were a means test but I know of people with good salaries who had children later in life who retired early because of that benefit. In our day and age of assisted fertility treatments, there are more and more people who would get this money.</p>
