Early retirement just made easier

Parent Cafe
41

<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.”</p>

<p>People who have great health care often don’t want single payer systems because they don’t want to lose the great deal they feel they have. It is part of the benefit of choosing to work for a larger company. I personally wouldn’t want to lose the benefits I have (never turned down for anything, low cost, choose my doctors–just paid only $50 towards a 10K surgery), to have a Canadian type system. Where I might have to wait a long time for a procedure, have poorly paid doctors and less choice. </p>

<p>Now I can see why someone who doesn’t have health insurance, or has expensive or bad insurance, or who is an employer that pays for others insurance would want single payer. I can’t see why anyone thinks they should have the right to force single payer systems on others, though. Then again, I can see why those people might not want to subsidize tax breaks for employers who offer insurance, when they don’t have the benefits, and there is an argument for ending that. But if a company wants to offer good benefits to their employees for loyalty, stability and healthy employees, whose business is it to say they can’t? </p>

<p>And I don’t believe for a second that all of a sudden if we don’t have for profit companies paying employees to do the work, we’re going to be paying nobody to administer the benefits. Usually when something moves to government control, you have more employees and inefficiency, not less.</p>

42

<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>I seem to remember a story just like this, locally. And the govt was subsidizing their housing too I think (in a million dollar house). I would think there are plenty of people who saved that kind of money, as they had good jobs, and then lost them or quit. Can’t imagine they would have that nest egg for long, though.</p>

<p>How about that lottery winner in Michigan who won 1 million and continued to take food stamps because she felt entitled to them? She recently died of a drug overdose, I read.</p>

<p>There are plenty of people who will use the system as much as they can.</p>

43

<p>“And I don’t believe for a second that all of a sudden if we don’t have for profit companies paying employees to do the work, we’re going to be paying nobody to administer the benefits. Usually when something moves to government control, you have more employees and inefficiency, not less.”</p>

<p>I read this all the time…and it is nonsense. The first part of your post makes sense. The second part, the part I highlighted, is a sound bite.</p>

<p>Ask your son…</p>

44

<p>Smart aleck.</p>

<p>Hey, I worked for the government long enough to know that they blow through cash like there’s no tomorrow. Of course the govt can do some things quite efficiently, but the thought that they can do it cheaply…ha!</p>

45

<p>The private sector is not that efficient either. Obviously, you haven’t had to deal with Blue Cross. ;)</p>

46

<p>I have anthem blue cross. They have been fantastic, zero complaints. They even answer the phone and don’t put me on hold. We haven’t had a lot of complicated issues though. No requirement to see a primary provider and rarely have to get prior approval for anything.
Maybe it’s because my company self funds and they just administer.</p>

<p>And you’re right, that last part of my post was a sound bite.</p>

47

<p>And I don’t believe for a second that all of a sudden if we don’t have for profit companies paying employees to do the work, we’re going to be paying nobody to administer the benefits. Usually when something moves to government control, you have more employees and inefficiency, not less. </p>

<hr>

<p>I took a brief detour from higher ed to work as a group insurance benefit consultant. I can tell you in no uncertain terms that the above is 100% spot-on. The regulations and employer costs associated with the HCR are ridiculous and expensive. Google the pay or play calculator — not sure if one is available to the masses, but I participated in a webinar with a company that developed one for business. The spreadsheet required is very complicated, and companies will have to spend a bunch just to get the necessary info. I thought financial aid had a lot of costly, time-consuming rules … but HCR is far worse.</p>

48

<p>You have been really lucky or maybe I have been unlucky. Blue Cross couldn’t get my bill correct and threatened to cancel my family’s insurance. Took about 6 months and several phone calls on my part to get things fixed. They denied tests for me. And of course they were sued for unfair business practices and Blue Cross settled. Cost me about 12,000 maybe. I can’t remember.
Also, my premiums are going to be raised 23 percent this year, starting next month.</p>

49

<p>busdriver: “People who have great health care often don’t want single payer systems because they don’t want to lose the great deal they feel they have. It is part of the benefit of choosing to work for a larger company. I personally wouldn’t want to lose the benefits I have…”</p>

<p>A lot of people feel that way. What they, and you, are missing is that if the worker becomes seriously ill, they can no longer work, and they lose those great health insurance benefits, just when they need them most! And try getting replacement health insurance under those conditions (after 18 months of COBRA at very high cost).</p>

<p>Medicare is efficient, 2-3% overhead. Private health insurance companies are screaming because they will now have to keep their overhead to 20%. These are facts.</p>

50

<p>NYMom, yes you’re right, if someone gets sick and loses their benefits, I’m sure their perspective would change. But if you’re not in that situation, it would be awfully hard to give up something that is working great for your family, for something that is potentially crummy. For my company, if we become sick, I’m pretty sure that we keep our insurance, even if we have to medically retire. I would like there to be reasonable plans for everyone to have access to, but it doesn’t mean that I want to change mine.</p>

<p>Just one person’s experience, but the medical treatment I had in the seven years I had in the military was AWFUL. Waiting 3 hours for a OB/GYN appt. Serious pain inflicted by dentists who, though they weren’t trying to be unkind, didn’t really care if you came back to them for more treatment (you didn’t know who you were going to get anyways). To the doctors who refused to give me an epidural or drugs during childbirth (hey, all the anesthesiologists are deployed…stop yelling, will ya), telling my husband, “Okay, see you later, call us when you see the head.” What? Really crummy govt medical, never got such lousy care as a civilian. Though the price was right, $8 for a baby (had to pay for your yummy box lunch). I like to tell him I’m not sure I got my money’s worth!</p>

<p>Now I don’t know who really can do a better job administering all this. I wonder what country has the most efficient, user friendly medical system…that people are truly happy with. I had heard that Germany had a system that most were pleased with. A govt healthcare plan that everyone was eligible for, paid for by the taxpayers…yet everyone who has money pays for a private plan, because it was far better than the govt plan. Not sure how accurate that is.</p>

51

<p>One thing for sure, what we have in the US is expensive for the results we get. Government spending on medical care in the US is about 7% of GDP, about the same percentage of GDP as in other rich countries. But the other rich countries have much lower non-government spending as a percentage of GDP (3-4% of GDP versus 10-11% of GDP in the US). The US does not seem to have particularly better medical results. (And this was the case both before and after PPACA.)</p>

<p>Could it be due to more unhealthy habits? That is not so clear cut. While the US has a relatively high obesity rate compared to other rich countries, it also has a relatively low smoking rate compared to other rich countries.</p>

52

<p>Hmmm…seems to me there was a “fellow” on the financial aid forum who qualified for the simplified needs test due to lack of income…but had a million dollars in assets. Or so he said.</p>

53

<p>

</p>

<p>Funny, I’ve never been turned down for anything, have ZERO cost, choose my own doctors, have no co-pay, have never had to talk to an insurance company, never had to get prior approval, never had to discuss payment issues with any of my doctors, never had to have discussions like those that are frequently held here on CC about healthcare, never had to worry about job loss being related to health insurance, never had to worry about one of my kids being covered once they hit a certain age, never had an issue with choice of doctors, and never had to “wait a long time for a procedure”. I also have several family members and friends who are physicians, and a D in med school. None feels that they are poorly paid. Don’t believe everything you hear about Canadian healthcare. Oh, and the best thing? Everyone’s covered.</p>

54

<p>I have a lot of friends and family in Canada and England, two countries we’re supposed to fear turning in to, their biggest fear is becoming more like America in their health care system. Go figure.</p>

<p>I’m terrified to get sick. I’ve been uninsured for several months. That’s not something the vast majority of people in other developed countries will ever have to deal with and I’m envious.</p>

55

<p>Under this sytem, no company will be forced to abandon their health plans - they are still able to offer wonderful plans if they feel it will attract the employees they want, just as they do now.</p>

<p>Under this system, yes, taxpayers will subsidize those at poverty level, but some of that subsidy will come from those who choose to pay a tax penalty (not all that much the first year, but it grows significantly), rather than have insurance. The current problem with our system is that aside from those whose employers provide insurance, those who don’t feel they need it don’t pay - and then complain about the premiums when they are in a position to need it. We’re already subsidizing those who will be subsidized under this new system, but hopefully the cost of doing so will be reduced. The article speaks to the average cost of insuring a family of 4 - but why is the cost that high? Maybe because hospitals have to treat those without insurance, and have to build those costs into their prices? Again - we’re already subsidizing them!</p>

<p>We’ve seen these discussion in the financial aid forum - who is willing to give up their current lifestyle inorder to get more aid? Not very many. Do you expect those who retire early to accept a significant change to their lifestyle, such that they qualify for substantial subsidies? I don’t! When we retire, we may not have significant taxable income, but we’ll still have income to maintain our lifestyle. Maybe lower, but we also won’t have a family of 5!</p>

<p>I see a few things happening:</p>

<p>1 - those who are currently healthy and don’t have insurance will either get insurance, broadening the pool of insured, or pay a tax penalty.</p>

<p>2 - if they get insurance, the average cost per insured will go down, and overall premiums can be reduced, leaving a much smaller “gap” to be covered by the subsidy.</p>

<p>3 - if they choose not to get insurance, their tax penalty will pay for the subsidy of those that do get insurance.</p>

<p>4 - the health of the population may get better as more can afford primary care, rather than going to the ER for everything. There will be more preventive care, and more early treatments, which will drive costs down. </p>

<p>This is not a Canadian-style health program, though maybe that wouldn’t be as bad as so many seem to think, either.</p>

56

<p>I am very bothered by the “pathway” in Britain. I find that deeply disturbing.</p>

<p>Ultimately, we have a large population of folks who don’t pay for their healthcare and a large population of elderly folks who have earned a great sense of entitlement. We can sing, dance and feast, but we can’t change the demographics. Too few babies to too many retirees. We also have to have an honest discussion about innovation and end of life care and what quality of life the truly elderly should expect.</p>

57

<p>CTScoutmom, what I already see happening is a move toward concierge-style medicine wherever possible. Primary care physicians are in great demand now and about to be more so (I read a statistic yesterday that 70% of PCPs in California are over age 60), so they can choose a practice style that is more lucrative and convenient. That shortage must be addressed.</p>

<p>Romani, are there really no options for you to get coverage? We are, obviously, not in the same state, but in my state and others there is excellent subsidized coverage available from the state.</p>

58

<p>ZM, nope. If I had a kid, I could. As a single young adult there is nothing reasonable. Several hundred dollars a month regardless of income. No subsidized plans for people like me except for annual female related health visits and family planning.</p>

59

<p>

I’m sorry. </p>

<p>(Glad you’re not having a kid, though.)</p>

60

<p>zooser - I agree that we need to address end of life care. That is what is driving the unsustainable costs for Medicare. As a society, we spend way more on health care (government, corporate, and individual contributions) than other developed countries. I would rather offer better preventative/intervening care to many than throw literally tens of thousands of dollars a month per patient for certain end of life expenses.<br>
Add me to the list of those wanting single payer health care.<br>
Health care is the big wild card in our retirement planning. Thanks for starting this informative thread.</p>