"Without the ACA, that would most likely leave you without any insurance at all."
It would? Don't understand your basis for this conclusion.
"With the ACA, at least you will have an option, even if it does cost you more
than the IBM plan."
Not a very interesting option for me. I've investigated the details a bit. 99% of the preventative care covered doesn't benefit me. I have no children younger than 26. I don't have any pre-existing conditions. And so on.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
--- In ibmpensionissues@..., edward_berkline <no_reply@...> wrote:
Yes, you should be worried about IBM taking away retiree health insurance. Sooner or later, the greed of the executives will overcome any reluctance they might have kill it.
Without the ACA, that would most likely leave you without any insurance at all. With the ACA, at least you will have an option, even if it does cost you more than the IBM plan.
--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "zimowski@" <zimowski@> wrote:
"You are mistaken that IBM would have to pay ANY fine if they dropped health insurance coverage for retirees. There is a fine *only* for not providing coverage for full-time employees."
Now I'me even more worried!!
As noted in my post, I understand that IBM contributes $7K yearly to my health care coverage. I don't find anything amusing about my costs potentially going up. And I'm not blaming ACA for a potential increase in my costs, I'm just pointing out that it will provide me with less coverage at an increased cost if I need to rely on it. And I don't want to pay real world prices... As those on the IBM pension board have often pointed out, I earned the health care coverage that I have.
--- In ibmpensionissues@..., edward_berkline <no_reply@> wrote:
You are mistaken that IBM would have to pay ANY fine if they dropped health insurance coverage for retirees. There is a fine *only* for not providing coverage for full-time employees.
It's amusing that you compare the price of insurance on the exchanges to what you are paying through IBM. You are one of the folks who is covered under the old plan and not the FHA, correct? That means you get a subsidy of around $7000 from IBM. No wonder the numbers aren't even close! You haven't been paying real world prices! And you want to blame the ACA for the difference in cost?
--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "zimowski@" <zimowski@> wrote:
There have been no posts on IBM pension issues for the longest time. If you have a pension issue that you would like to discuss, post something and we'll do our best to help you out.
I. BTW, am concerned that ACA may be an issue for IBM retirees. I fear that IBM may decide to drop the healthcare coverage that some of us have and just point us to the exchanges. Seems like it might be more cost effective for IBM to pay a smaller fine per retiree (about $2000 I read somewhere) rather than the roughly $7000 IBM currently contributes to coverage for each retiree that it still covers. This, I believe, is what started the whole ACA discussion. It morphed into something else. I've looked into ACA and the cost vs coverage that I would receive if I had to depend on the exchange for my coverage. What I've learned is based on information currently available for the California exchange. It's not a pretty picture for me.
