ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jan 26, 2011 17:29:33 GMT -5
will seniors have the option of taking the cash and not buying insurance with it under Paul Ryans plan to dismantel Medicare? I think it wouild be the right thing to give us the choice.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 10:34:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2011 17:31:50 GMT -5
well they won't be able to take the cash and buy insurance... who would insure them??...
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Jan 26, 2011 17:34:40 GMT -5
I cannot say I viewed his response, I fell asleep. Did he actually say he wanted to dismantle it and do away with it, or make some much needed reforms?
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jan 26, 2011 17:35:04 GMT -5
I would say no, they would have to use it to buy insurance.
|
|
rileyoday
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 4:56:04 GMT -5
Posts: 236
|
Post by rileyoday on Jan 26, 2011 17:37:29 GMT -5
Sure that works. Then they go to the Emergency room and tax payer pays anyway. Same for opt out retirement. The others will pay.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jan 26, 2011 17:39:39 GMT -5
He did not bring it up in his response,but here is the plan.I think it is a good one.Get government out of it-----"In order to make good on Medicare’s promise, I’ve put forward reforms that offer future seniors the same health coverage options I enjoy as a member of Congress. My reform plan makes no changes for those 55 and older, as efforts to save this program ought not disrupt benefits for those in and near retirement. For those now under the age of 55, Medicare would provide seniors with a payment, a list of Medicare-approved coverage options and the ability to choose a plan that works best for them. The Medicare payment would be adjusted so that the wealthy receive a lower subsidy, the sick would receive a higher payment if their conditions worsen, and lower-income seniors would receive additional assistance to cover out-of-pocket costs." economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/rep-ryan-on-his-medicare-plan/
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jan 26, 2011 17:40:33 GMT -5
Sure that works. Then they go to the Emergency room and tax payer pays anyway. Same for opt out retirement. The others will pay. But that is not what the plan calls for, you don't get cash, you get a voucher to purchase insurance. And it wouldn't effect people nearing retirement, I don't remember the age right now, but it wouldn't effect people currently on medicare.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jan 26, 2011 17:43:31 GMT -5
But wouldn't that be the same as the government telling you you have to buy insurance?
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jan 26, 2011 17:47:23 GMT -5
But wouldn't that be the same as the government telling you you have to buy insurance? Not even close.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jan 26, 2011 17:48:59 GMT -5
Why,because you have the choice of accepting it and having the ability to seek medical treatments,or refusing it?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,425
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 26, 2011 17:57:07 GMT -5
ugonow-I had to read a bit from your thread title down to a second or third thread to see what this thread was about. Your thread title is a half sentence and is not completed in the very beginning of your opening post. As a courtesy to other posters and readers, could you complete the remainder of the sentence at the beginning of your opening post so it is not confusing to other posters.
Thanks.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 10:34:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2011 17:57:13 GMT -5
"Put patients in charge of how their health care dollars are spent, as providers compete against each other on price and quality to better serve patients; or funnel funds through the government, force providers to lobby bureaucrats for favorable funding formulas, and leave patients on the sidelines while health care decisions are made for them."
Do you see providers knocking themselves down to give out LOWER prices than medicare currently commands? ... choice?... seniors will have no choices, unless the government is back door subsidizing insurance companies to offer them a chioce... What am i missing here? This seems to have no possible way of actually working... maybe i am misunderstanding? Please explain.. Thanks.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jan 26, 2011 18:02:12 GMT -5
Why,because you have the choice of accepting it and having the ability to seek medical treatments,or refusing it? OK, you could refuse it and not use the benefit at all, but you could not take money in lieu of using the voucher to buy insurance. Of course the entire process of taking money from a group of citizens and then giving it back to some in an act of benevolence itself is probably unconstitutional.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jan 27, 2011 9:00:35 GMT -5
OK, you could refuse it and not use the benefit at all, but you could not take money in lieu of using the voucher to buy insurance.
I think if you have paid into it and it is being ended,you should be compensated. I think there should be a choice.If the government is going to hand out money,we should be able to use it as we see fit,not them,but that is jmo. I would not reccomend anyone taking it and going to Vegas,but it should be their option.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jan 27, 2011 9:04:41 GMT -5
ugonow-I had to read a bit from your thread title down to a second or third thread to see what this thread was about....
Sorry ten, I agree.It was not intentional...I don't know if I had a senior moment or what.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jan 27, 2011 9:32:45 GMT -5
OK, you could refuse it and not use the benefit at all, but you could not take money in lieu of using the voucher to buy insurance.
I think if you have paid into it and it is being ended,you should be compensated. I think there should be a choice.If the government is going to hand out money,we should be able to use it as we see fit,not them,but that is jmo. I would not reccomend anyone taking it and going to Vegas,but it should be their option. They would not handing out money, they would be changing the way the existing benefit works. Once the government takes your money you have no expectation of how that money will be spent.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 10:34:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2011 9:33:50 GMT -5
So can someone explain to me HOW it would work...
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jan 27, 2011 9:34:34 GMT -5
The basic way it would work is, is similar to the plan that congress itself has.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 10:34:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2011 9:42:21 GMT -5
I still don't understang... they would take everyone off of medicare and put them on the federal plan?
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jan 27, 2011 10:10:48 GMT -5
I still don't understang... they would take everyone off of medicare and put them on the federal plan? Not everyone, anyone currently on medicare or over certain age could still stay with medicare. The alternative plan would allow participants to "purchase" insurance from a pool of providers that has the plan that best suits there needs. Participants would receive a voucher to be used towards the cost of whatever plan they decide on. Poorer citizens would receive larger vouchers than wealthier citizens. This is like what congress has and also what many people have in the private sector, you get to chose what plan is best for you.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,453
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 27, 2011 10:17:18 GMT -5
Who gets to decide who is in the "pool of providers"?
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jan 27, 2011 10:25:45 GMT -5
Who gets to decide who is in the "pool of providers"? I don't know, some bureaucrat probably. Hopefully something else that can happen at the same time is to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,453
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 27, 2011 10:33:30 GMT -5
Who gets to decide who is in the "pool of providers"? I don't know, some bureaucrat probably. Hopefully something else that can happen at the same time is to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. So it is a way to take from the states the regulatory responsibility for health insurance companies and give it to the federal government?
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jan 27, 2011 11:38:31 GMT -5
I don't know, some bureaucrat probably. Hopefully something else that can happen at the same time is to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. So it is a way to take from the states the regulatory responsibility for health insurance companies and give it to the federal government? No they could still regulate what insurance is sold by companies that are based in there state, however, citizens would be able to do commerce with a company in another state, buying the insurance plan that best suits them. Should I not be able to buy milk that is brought in from another state? I mean we buy almost everything else except insurance this way, why shouldn't we buy insurance. This is really the entire point of the Interstate Commerce Clause, It was to basically create what we would call now a 'free trade zone' between the states. So there is no impediment to interstate selling of goods and services
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jan 27, 2011 11:47:15 GMT -5
There are a lot of local regulations .Many affect premium price,such as required reserves. If you don't replace state regs with fed regs,the other option is to let them all incoporate in the state with the most lax regulations...We are really only talking about a few large companies anyways..most of the names you see are owned by three.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,453
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 27, 2011 11:47:22 GMT -5
So it is a way to take from the states the regulatory responsibility for health insurance companies and give it to the federal government? No they could still regulate what insurance is sold by companies that are based in there state, however, citizens would be able to do commerce with a company in another state, buying the insurance plan that best suits them. Should I not be able to buy milk that is brought in from another state? Does the state in which the milk is sold have a right to set any standards for that milk and not allow it to be sold in their state if those standards aren't met?
|
|
|
Post by marjar on Jan 27, 2011 11:49:43 GMT -5
Will the providers agree to provide, or will they reject applicants?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,453
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 27, 2011 11:51:42 GMT -5
There are a lot of local regulations .Many affect premium price,such as required reserves. If you don't replace state regs with fed regs,the other option is to let them all incoporate in the state with the most lax regulations...We are really only talking about a few large companies anyways..most of the names you see are owned by three. We just need to make sure that we give states plenty of time to compete to see how lax they can make the regulations to attract the companies to their state.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jan 27, 2011 11:51:51 GMT -5
Hmmm this has not been addressed.Seeing as how they will be seniors it could be a thorny issue.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,453
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 27, 2011 11:53:21 GMT -5
Hmmm this has not been addressed.Seeing as how they will be seniors it could be a thorny issue. All plans are great plans as long as they haven't addressed the thorny issues.
|
|