[quote=livinincali][quote=bearishgurl]
Since then, I have done some preliminary research on coveredca.com. However sketchy the info that is avail on there now, the tax credits based upon adjusted gross income and the premiums which are on there now are likely close to an accurate representation of what they will be, at least in 2014. (I may no longer be a resident of CA in 2015 and I checked the exchange websites of the two states I am considering relocating to and their premiums are approx. $100 – $150 mo less for me than the CA exchange for the Gold and Platinum plans, respectively.)[/quote] So it’s ok when you receive subsides in the form of tax credits.[/quote]
Yes, livinincali. That is the ONLY reason “it’s okay.” I was completely okay with the way things WERE. I really don’t want to leave my carrier but they have decided to leave us (their ~50K indiv policyholders in CA). The tax credits are the only thing I can feel good about in having to sign up on the state exchange. For all we know, the HCRA may end up being a disaster and be abolished by 2015-16. To make the “numbers work,” the exchanges have to sign up a LOT of “relatively healthy” people, like myself. Before the HCRA was announced (in March 2010), my monthly premiums were ~50% lower.
[quote=livinincali][quote=bearishgurl]This is the main reason why large govm’t employers such as the City of SD changed over to having “cafeteria plans” in recent years. EVERY represented employee gets ~$6600 to spend per year on healthcare, including dental and vision care if they wish. If they are trying to cover more people than themselves with that, they are going to have a lot taken from their checks every payday UNLESS they sign up for the cheapest Kaiser HMO for everyone in their family, in which case they will have ~$175 mo taken out of their pay for spouse coverage.
This is the fair way to deal with ALL employees.[/quote]It’s not ok when some employees subsidize other employees.[/quote]
I completely agree.
[quote=livinincali]This is the fundamental problem I have with people who claim these type of programs are good for the whole. It’s really only good for the whole if you happen to be on the right side of the balance sheet where you get a net benefit at somebody else’s net loss. If total medical spending as a percentage of GDP doesn’t go down after the implementation of this program it just means some are net winners while others are net losers.[/quote]
Everyone has a choice on which side of the “balance sheet” they want to be on, here. You read UCGal’s post where she stated that posters on earlyretirement.org are trying to figure out how to become eligible for tax credits by retiring earlier than planned or manipulating the types of retirement accts they are contributing to. They can also take a demotion NOW, work less hours or take LWOP or FML for part or all of the balance of 2013 in order to be eligible for tax credits in 2015. There are more than nine ways to skin a cat.
The “rules” have changed now so if you’re completely a W-2 worker who wants to insure yourself or a family member though a state exchange, you have to figure out a way to “work the system” if you want to be eligible for a tax credit or a higher tax credit. For many high earners, it isn’t worth it to do this, especially if all their family members are currently covered through employer(s) and they are happy with that coverage.
If you are a high earner and like it that way but need to get yourself or a family member health coverage through a state exchange, then suck it up and pay the premium they ask for whatever level of coverage you desire.
None of us really know how the nuts and bolts of the HCRA are going to play out until a year or two passes.
