The headline suggests that medical bills drove them into poverty so much so that he’s had to be driving for Uber at 76. Thats not the case, and the article lays it all out.
It looks like about 25 years after the medical bills wiped them out financially, they recovered financially:
I really didn’t want to retire in my 60s, but we were getting older, and my wife wanted me to be spending more time at home. When I retired, I had some equity in my home and around $300,000 in my IRA. I also started to fund an IRA for my wife, which I built to mid-five figures. This allowed us to travel extensively within the US for the first few years. But a part of me felt like we probably weren’t going to live that long anyway because everybody around us was dying.
We should be celebrating two things:
the fact that the ACA passed into law and that what happened to this couple in the 1990s can’t happen again under today’s law
the hard work they did rebuilding financially to have over $350k in savings + home equity and have have a comfortable retirement to be able to afford extensive travel they did in retirement.
Except that the Republicans in congress have refused to allocate funding for ACA subsidies, which means this WILL happen again. This is a lesson from the past about the sort of outcomes we have to look forward to.
Except that the Republicans in congress have refused to allocate funding for ACA subsidies, which means this WILL happen again.
If you read the article you’d know the ACA benefits point I mentioned has nothing to do with subsidies on insurance premiums. It has to do with prior to the ACA insurance companies could deny coverage for preexisting conditions.
I did read the article, and that’s true, but insurance companies have been using that as an excuse to drive up premiums at record rates for years now (and making very healthy profits as a result, no pun intended). In my state, the exchange prices went up an average of 21% this year due to the loss of ACA subsidies. It doesn’t help a lot to know that they are legally required to offer you coverage if you can’t afford to pay for it.
I’m in my early 50s. Over my life, I’ve been very diligent about saving, and I expect to have what I thought would be enough to retire in my 60s. But I’m looking at the cost of health care going forward and I’m very concerned that I won’t be able to afford it.
I did read the article, and that’s true, but insurance companies have been using that as an excuse to drive up premiums at record rates for years now (and making very healthy profits as a result, no pun intended).
I don’t disagree that health insurance companies (and their business practices) aren’t serving Americans well. However, as the article lays out the couple had the ability and will to pay for insurance premiums. The issue during the 90s was that any gap in coverage would mean health issues found during the gap wouldn’t be covered even when paying new premiums. That was fixed with the ACA. I was commenting on the article and their situation.
In my state, the exchange prices went up an average of 21% this year due to the loss of ACA subsidies. It doesn’t help a lot to know that they are legally required to offer you coverage if you can’t afford to pay for it.
I’m in my early 50s. Over my life, I’ve been very diligent about saving, and I expect to have what I thought would be enough to retire in my 60s. But I’m looking at the cost of health care going forward and I’m very concerned that I won’t be able to afford it.
I agree with everything you said here. Republicans are poisoning that portion of the ACA unrelated to the article. I’m also doing the same math you are about making sure I have healthcare until Medicare kicks in. For many, health coverage will be the defining metric to when we can retire. Some of us are discussing that exact topic in a different Lemmy community.
Nobody commenting is reading the article.
The headline suggests that medical bills drove them into poverty so much so that he’s had to be driving for Uber at 76. Thats not the case, and the article lays it all out.
It looks like about 25 years after the medical bills wiped them out financially, they recovered financially:
We should be celebrating two things:
Except that the Republicans in congress have refused to allocate funding for ACA subsidies, which means this WILL happen again. This is a lesson from the past about the sort of outcomes we have to look forward to.
If you read the article you’d know the ACA benefits point I mentioned has nothing to do with subsidies on insurance premiums. It has to do with prior to the ACA insurance companies could deny coverage for preexisting conditions.
I did read the article, and that’s true, but insurance companies have been using that as an excuse to drive up premiums at record rates for years now (and making very healthy profits as a result, no pun intended). In my state, the exchange prices went up an average of 21% this year due to the loss of ACA subsidies. It doesn’t help a lot to know that they are legally required to offer you coverage if you can’t afford to pay for it.
I’m in my early 50s. Over my life, I’ve been very diligent about saving, and I expect to have what I thought would be enough to retire in my 60s. But I’m looking at the cost of health care going forward and I’m very concerned that I won’t be able to afford it.
I don’t disagree that health insurance companies (and their business practices) aren’t serving Americans well. However, as the article lays out the couple had the ability and will to pay for insurance premiums. The issue during the 90s was that any gap in coverage would mean health issues found during the gap wouldn’t be covered even when paying new premiums. That was fixed with the ACA. I was commenting on the article and their situation.
I agree with everything you said here. Republicans are poisoning that portion of the ACA unrelated to the article. I’m also doing the same math you are about making sure I have healthcare until Medicare kicks in. For many, health coverage will be the defining metric to when we can retire. Some of us are discussing that exact topic in a different Lemmy community.