Invincibles? It's the 50-somethings that may sidestep Obamacare - Health Exchange - MarketWatch

 

While many fear the so-called 20-something “invincibles” will stay on the sidelines when President Obama’s health-care overhaul takes effect next, one study says it’s the older, pre-Medicare workers who will be harder to sell on the benefits of getting insured.

 

Insurance consultant HealthPocket says those who have yet to reach 65 — and are without company coverage — will have a difficult time finding affordable insurance if they aren’t eligible for government subsidies, and the cost will be much more troublesome than it would be for someone in their 20s. The reason is although there are premium limits on policyholders with higher risk factors, coverage under Obamacare still will be vastly more expensive, the study says.

 

HealthPocket says a 28-year-old earning $20,000 a year would pay $3,281 for a so-called silver plan, but get $2,259 in a premium subsidy, leaving out-of-pocket costs at $1,021. Conversely, a single 60-year-old who has moved up the economic ladder during the working years to $45,000 would be charged $8,191 for a silver plan and get a subsidy of $3,916, paying $4,271 out of pocket each year, quadruple that of the 28-year-old. The study notes that if the 60-year-old’s pay were to hit $46,000 a year, that would be at 400% of the poverty level, making that person ineligible for any subsidy.

 

Couples at the age of 60 face even more difficult challenges, the study says. Coverage would cost $16,382 for a couple earning a combined $62,000 a year, but they would be eligible for subsidies of $10,492. But the subsidy goes to zero for a 60-year-old couple making $1,000 more in combined income.

 

HealthPocket, in conjunction with Deft Research, found that those in the 19-34 age category would comprise the largest percentage of “most likely buyers” — 37% — of individual plans available through state exchanges, and the smallest portion of “least likely buyers” at 28%.

Make sure you punish those that have worked hard for their entire life.

Obama is an idiot.

It's when stuff like this comes out that really makes me question if those that voted for the President were high or drunk at the time....

It's when stuff like this comes out that really makes me question if those that voted for the President were high or drunk at the time....

 

No...I was neither.

I posted a video on here about how Obamacare was going to affect all the classes. It was 100% correct, but the usual suspects poo poo'd the video author because he was a former Bush guy.

 

 

Now how we lookin'?

 

No...I was neither.

 

Your thoughts on the article?

 

Your thoughts on the article?

 

Haven't read it yet. Pretty sure that even if I had, I still wasn't drunk or high when I voted for Obama.

I posted a video on here about how Obamacare was going to affect all the classes. It was 100% correct, but the usual suspects poo poo'd the video author because he was a former Bush guy.

 

 

Now how we lookin'?

 

I've just now started getting deep into the info on the plans that are being released and the pricing. We're not looking good that's for sure.

How much would a single 28-year old in good health pay for an insurance plan that covered what the "silver plan" covers currently? Is it less than $1000? Would a 60-year old pay less than $4000 for a commensurate plan? These would seem to be pertinent questions in light of what's posted.

 

The regulations require insurance companies to provide a minimum policy to participate in the state exchanges and that individuals who don't have insurance to purchase it - ideally through one of these exchanges where there will be a degree of competition among providers. Those who remain uninsured will face a tax for not having insurance. I'm sympathetic to the arguments against that. But from my cursory look at this and similar arguments it would seem the complaints rest on the idea that insurance would be free under the new regulations.

"Health insurance rate fears 'overblown,' cost study says." That's the headline on A5 of Enquirer today. Actually a Louisville Courier -Journal story.

How much would a single 28-year old in good health pay for an insurance plan that covered what the "silver plan" covers currently? Is it less than $1000? Would a 60-year old pay less than $4000 for a commensurate plan? These would seem to be pertinent questions in light of what's posted.

 

Well insurance companies can't charge that 60 year old more than 3 times what it charges someone that is 21 so just taking a guess. That 28 year old would be looking at $200-250 best case with no subsidy but prices haven't officially been released yet.

 

So the 28 year old would want to get a plan off exchange most likely depending on the subsidy amount.

How much would a single 28-year old in good health pay for an insurance plan that covered what the "silver plan" covers currently? Is it less than $1000? Would a 60-year old pay less than $4000 for a commensurate plan? These would seem to be pertinent questions in light of what's posted.

 

The regulations require insurance companies to provide a minimum policy to participate in the state exchanges and that individuals who don't have insurance to purchase it - ideally through one of these exchanges where there will be a degree of competition among providers. Those who remain uninsured will face a tax for not having insurance. I'm sympathetic to the arguments against that. But from my cursory look at this and similar arguments it would seem the complaints rest on the idea that insurance would be free under the new regulations.

Serious question because this passive aggressive approach is very similar to most posts defending obamacare. Have you studied the impact of pricing ? Obamacare was originally marketed as a way to fix sky rocketing health care costs. But the law itself ignored key problems to cost of health care and whether intended or unintended created problems that caused pricing to rise at a higher rate. The bill is bad and we as a nation will suffer because of it for decades . There is no way around it , this is the worst piece of legislation in at least 75 years.

Coincidentally yesterday I heard a representative from the Kentucky Chamber giving an update as to the effects of the upcoming Obamacare. Let me first start by saying that I am not opposed to a universal health care system. I genuinely believe we should all be provided with the necessary care to combat illness, injury, and disease. If you are a blue collar, lower middle class family doing things the right way and going about your business, why should your child with a hampering condition be given any less care than a family that can afford it? I am not trying to stray away from the subject, just letting you know my position.

 

With that said, Lipton Bash brings up an excellent point that this was marketed as "a way to fix sky rocketing health costs." Remember, the actual name is the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act. The representative yesterday was not some kind of political hack, she was just delivering the facts. In short - and this not a shock to anyone - you will be paying more. People can try and spin it say money is shifting here or there, etc. But it is a guarantee that you will be paying more. You best just accept it. It is law and been upheld by the Supreme Court. Get your popcorn ready. What is really meant by Affordable Health Care is that those who monetarily can according to your income will pay more, those who cannot monetarily afford will be given coverage so that we can all be on a level playing field. Idealistic, I know. Where they really get you is that there are a lot of built in attractive tax breaks; however, in order to qualify you must be part of the government system.

 

I think the idea of the law is noble. I do not believe it is some sort of scheme so that Obama or the government can control and watch our everyday lives, but it is really going to alter American industry and how companies and their business models will look. The under 30 hour employee will become more and more prevalent across all sectors. From that perspective I do not think the law was thought out well.

Coincidentally yesterday I heard a representative from the Kentucky Chamber giving an update as to the effects of the upcoming Obamacare. Let me first start by saying that I am not opposed to a universal health care system. I genuinely believe we should all be provided with the necessary care to combat illness, injury, and disease. If you are a blue collar, lower middle class family doing things the right way and going about your business, why should your child with a hampering condition be given any less care than a family that can afford it? I am not trying to stray away from the subject, just letting you know my position.

 

With that said, Lipton Bash brings up an excellent point that this was marketed as "a way to fix sky rocketing health costs." Remember, the actual name is the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act. The representative yesterday was not some kind of political hack, she was just delivering the facts. In short - and this not a shock to anyone - you will be paying more. People can try and spin it say money is shifting here or there, etc. But it is a guarantee that you will be paying more. You best just accept it. It is law and been upheld by the Supreme Court. Get your popcorn ready. What is really meant by Affordable Health Care is that those who monetarily can according to your income will pay more, those who cannot monetarily afford will be given coverage so that we can all be on a level playing field. Idealistic, I know. Where they really get you is that there are a lot of built in attractive tax breaks; however, in order to qualify you must be part of the government system.

 

I think the idea of the law is noble. I do not believe it is some sort of scheme so that Obama or the government can control and watch our everyday lives, but it is really going to alter American industry and how companies and their business models will look. The under 30 hour employee will become more and more prevalent across all sectors. From that perspective I do not think the law was thought out well.

Good points. I was going to like your post but I couldn't out of principle of universal care. I will never stop believing health care is not a right. Like any other service you get what you can afford. I have the right to pursue life liberty and happiness. But the pursuit does not guarantee me equal results.