<p>I think it’s important to note that, as well as early retirement, starting small businesses has just become easier. I know people who keep jobs with employers who offer health insurance when they would rather start their own businesses. They are willing to take risks with income but not with insurance coverage for themselves and their families. I think that this is a major unrecognized drag on the economy. It is well-established that most new jobs are created by small businesses.</p>
<p>
Means testing all the benefits programs would save a TON of money … but is a political third rail for both parties … unfortunately I seriously doubt it will happen in my lifetime.</p>
<p>
Lol, but eew. (I suspect she will cost him a LOT more than any extra SS money he might get)</p>
<p>^^ “eew” is right. And I suspect you are right about how much money she will cost!</p>
<p>Let’s hope they don’t reproduce.</p>
<p>“I know people who keep jobs with employers who offer health insurance when they would rather start their own businesses. They are willing to take risks with income but not with insurance coverage for themselves and their families.”</p>
<p>This describes someone I’ve known extremely well ever since she was born. :)</p>
<p>Hanna, will the new law make it possible for you to take the leap? If you do, how many jobs do you think you will create in the next 5 years?</p>
<p>The fact that we had individual health insurance (a carry-over policy offered VERY BRIEFLY by a previous employer) was what made it possible for DH and I to get involved in our present e-commerce businesses. Then Costco offered low-cost health insurance to tiny groups and we were able to insure our two employees relatively cheaply. We now employ 75 people and they all have health insurance.</p>
<p>I still want single-payer health care, not insurance. Health CARE. Why on earth do we want all those for-profit insurance companies and adjusters and screeners taking a cut? It just ups the cost of health CARE for everyone. It’s not like people want to get sick. Health care is not an impulse purchase.</p>
<p>I couldn’t agree more, dmd. The new law limits “overhead” to 20%. Over the years, the fraction of premium dollars going to pay for actual health care has been shrinking. Medicare administrative costs are 2-3%. How can we afford 20% off the top of our healthcare system to pay for private insurance company profits and overhead? And this doesn’t even count the costs that doctors and hospitals pay to employ people to deal with multiple insurance companies, resubmissions, etc. And it doesn’t count the cost of my time. I spend a fair amount of time dealing with Blue Cross, and we don’t even have any major health issues. BC rejects many legitimate claims in order to save money. I hound them until they pay, but many people give up.</p>
<p>In 2014, it should, though I’m not counting on anything. I would want to see the system up and running for a while. I assume my business will be a sideline for the foreseeable future.</p>
<p>If I ever get there, I’ll start with creating 1 job! Each of us who finds independent work frees up a 9-5 for an unemployed young grad who needs it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We already do pay for the more expensive medical care of the >=65 age group. Do you mean to say that that program should be abolished as well?</p>
<p>Dmd77, I love your post.</p>
<p>NYMomof2, I have had issues with Blue Cross myself. </p>
<p>If I was at the income levels that are mentioned in the op’s link, I would be really happy that Obamacare exists because private insurance is awful. </p>
<p>Single payer is the way to go…</p>
<p>I am glad early retirement is made easier.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We are very grateful for the subsidized loans which enables our son to attend the college he selected. Just like thousands of other families who benefit from these government programs. </p>
<p>Going to the original topic - many of the near retirement people I talked to cited insurance cost as a major reason they still stay job. This law apparently releases their concern.</p>
<p>It appears that government programs are just like FAFSA - income only. Our State has a web site where you could put in your information to see what assistant program you are qualified. </p>
<p>To TEST the system, I put in some fake numbers. For someone with -0- income but $1 MM assets (stock, bond etc.), you are eligible for max food stamps.</p>
<p>“Going to the original topic - many of the near retirement people I talked to cited insurance cost as a major reason they still stay job. This law apparently releases their concern.”</p>
<p>That’s good.</p>
<p>“To TEST the system, I put in some fake numbers. For someone with -0- income but $1 MM assets (stock, bond etc.), you are eligible for max food stamps.”</p>
<p>That’s good to know. Do you have a link?</p>
<p>Does this mean that if you have 1mm in stock that generates income that you are eligible for food stamps???</p>
<p>Dad II, whether or not to count assets for food stamp recipients depends on the state. Here is a link, albeit over a year old, and things may have changed. I found, for ex, that PA was supposed to add asset limits for food stamp recipients in 2012.</p>
<p>[Some</a> states tie assets to food stamp benefits ? USATODAY.com](<a href=“http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-10-19/food-stamps-and-assets/50831586/1]Some”>http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-10-19/food-stamps-and-assets/50831586/1)</p>
<p>Even in the same state, some people may have assets count and others don’t:<br>
<a href=“http://www.massresources.org/snap-financial-eligibility.html[/url]”>Massresources.org;
<p>
</p>
<p>Are all of the stocks non-dividend-paying, and are all of the bonds in default, in order to have $0 income?</p>
<p>The bonds can be zero coupons…</p>
<p>I think it is very difficult with somebody with 1 million in assets to get food stamps. In Claifornia unearned income counts as income when figuring out food stamp eligilbilty. You have to still have net income below the poverty level, and as another poster mentioned, assets are considered in some states.</p>
<p>Who has $1 million in assets but NO income? And would then apply for food stamps rather than use some of their income for food? I doubt there are a lot of such people.</p>
<p>Just for entertainment purpose - let say an empty nest couple both retire at 55. Have their home paid for and pay cash for cars. Have only retirement accounts worth $1 MM. They could work a couple hours in part time job at minimum hourly rate. They would now qualify for food stamps, free cell phone, free medical care (starting 2014), reduce energy bill. They could, I am not sure about these two, get earn income credit and saving credit. In other words, they will have all their basics covered.</p>
<p>So premiums are based on income; what’s next? Should mortgages be a percentage of income too - platinum houses costing >x million: 25% of income, gold houses - 15% etc with the richer subsidizing the poor? In many cities, it’s hard to manage with public transportation, so should autos, auto ins, and gas come in plans too - you get a beamer that you can put 35000 miles on with a million dollar insurance for 10% of your salary, etc?</p>