ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Apr 5, 2011 7:16:11 GMT -5
I doubt insurance companies will give that great of rates to the influx of seniors in their system. The only way imo, this will save money is if the benefits drop drasticaly and costs rise to those that are paying the bill right now,but I doubt it will be sold that way.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Apr 5, 2011 7:18:03 GMT -5
Or just have higher deductibles, which is basically all Medicare supplements are since they
1. Only cover what Medicare approves 2. Kick in after Medicare (what Medicare pays being the deductible)
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Apr 5, 2011 7:20:52 GMT -5
And why are the changes just for those under 55? UIf it will save money,and we are in that bad of shape, why not get it going asap?
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Apr 5, 2011 7:23:59 GMT -5
And why are the changes just for those under 55? UIf it will save money,and we are in that bad of shape, why not get it going asap? High deductible plans help people save money on premiums at all ages. The higher the deductible, the lower the premium charged.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Apr 5, 2011 7:29:46 GMT -5
Deductables are small potatoes in senior care. Chronic illnesses,the big diseases,end of life care all are big ticket items that make deductables pale.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Apr 5, 2011 7:40:57 GMT -5
Maybe the government should just the the portion we currently pay toward medicare into a privatized personal account. When people get to age 65, they can use the money in that account to help cover the cost of premiums and deductibles.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Apr 5, 2011 7:50:56 GMT -5
The problem is people are taking out more in benefits than they are putting in right now.How can they allocate a portion of their taxes into an account and still provide care for the current seniors?
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Apr 5, 2011 7:56:52 GMT -5
No, the problem is that the government didn't look for a long term solution to some issues. Instead, those in the government did what so many politicians do, started a program without thinking about the long term consequences because it helped to gain them votes.
If the system had been set up with privatized accounts initially, we wouldn't have this issue. Unfortunately, now we are going to have to pay for those using the system now and up to a certain point in the future, as well as save for when a system is phased out. Transitions are very rarely painless. They can't do it immediately because those who are currently using Medicare, and those who will use it soon, have not had the time to allow their portions to grow in the privatized accounts. Of course some have retirement accounts that they could use, but the reality is that many people spend what they take in without saving nearly enough toward retirement.
So again, most likely there would have to be a transition phase out where people would still pay for current enrollees, as well as have more taken out of their checks to go into these privatized accounts so that future generations won't have to deal with these same issues.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Apr 5, 2011 8:05:59 GMT -5
Of course a lot of the reason politicians start programs like this is because it is a tough sell to say we are going to take a portion of your money, put it into a privatized account that grows with the market, and in 30 years people will be better off for it. The usual response is something along the lines of "how are you going to help me now." SS was the same way.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 29, 2024 8:41:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2011 8:22:54 GMT -5
Medicare Advantage currently costs 30% more than regular government medicare...
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Apr 5, 2011 8:25:15 GMT -5
Medicare Advantage currently costs 30% more than regular government medicare... Last time I checked, MA plans weren't high deductible plans. Their premiums are supplemented by the government, but the plans themselves aren't HDHP. I also want to say that they tended to cover more than Medicare, which would help account for any higher premiums. It's been a while since I looked at anything like that, but it seems I remember thinking that a medicare supplement was the best thing to have if a person could afford them. If they couldn't afford a medicare supplement, then a medicare advantage plan offered better coverage than just having medicare. I also seem to remember something about once people go on MA plans, they are no longer covered by medicare because that plan becomes their insurance (not a supplement).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 29, 2024 8:41:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2011 8:45:38 GMT -5
I'm sorry, so the elderly will have to have high deductable plans? How will they pay their high deductables? with no income?
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Apr 5, 2011 8:49:29 GMT -5
I'm sorry, so the elderly will have to have high deductible plans? How will they pay their high deductibles? with no income? I already mentioned having a privatized account that has the equivalent of what we pay toward Medicare today. Over a working life, that account should grow to a decent amount of money to help cover the deductible and premium. Unfortunately people working now will need to do that on top of paying what they currently pay since we can't just cut people off. As far as having no income, is there no SS or people working part-time to supplement their SS income in your scenario?
|
|
|
Post by Mkitty is pro kitty on Apr 5, 2011 8:52:38 GMT -5
Why don't you ask Pinochet to see how it worked out? Weren't all his attempts to privatize a smashing success?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 29, 2024 8:41:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2011 8:58:31 GMT -5
Ok. I have some questions.
1) how do we pay for medicare in the interim? Because currently today's taxes pay today's program... so what do we do to pay for today's program while the privatized accounts add up?
2) So, the vision is that medicare will morph into these privatized accounts... but the privatized accounts are to pay the deductable... who pays the premiums then? Does a medicare program ALSO pay the premiums? If so, how? And if not, how are the elderly expected to pay them? I do not see any way the privatized account would grow to cover both premiums and deductables...
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Apr 5, 2011 9:27:49 GMT -5
The accounts would have to realize some really decent gains to cover costs,imo. And for those type of gains comes risk exposure.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Apr 5, 2011 13:28:26 GMT -5
Duh- no. It will just put more health care dollars into the industry that makes our system so bad.
Republican 101- A)take tax dollars out of X and give to private corporations B)shift extra costs of X onto citizens via higher prices or reduced services
New GOP mantra- if it isn't working hire a middleman
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Apr 5, 2011 14:05:09 GMT -5
"The 2022 Medicare Crisis
Matt Yglesias has a very good point: the supposed transition strategy under the Ryan plan, in which everyone currently under 55 gets Medicare as we know it, while everyone younger than that gets vouchers that won’t be enough to buy adequate insurance, sets up an unstable political dynamic. In fact, we can be sure that whatever happens, it won’t be what the plan says will happen.
If the Medicare Advantage precedent holds, what will happen in 2022 or a bit later is that Congress will react to the fury of younger seniors — who see that those born just a few years earlier have vastly better benefits than they do — by increasing the vouchers. And the end result, in that case, would be that the Ryan plan substantially increases Medicare costs; remember that the payment increases that were part of the 2003 Medicare bill, introduced to rescue failing Medicare Advantage programs, have resulted in large overpayments, adding hundreds of billions to the program’s costs.
Alternatively, if the benefit cuts stick, you’ll have a lot of furious people realizing that they are paying high taxes to support lavish medical care for older Baby Boomers, while being themselves condemned to pleading with insurance companies to provide coverage in return for an inadequate voucher. Plus, private insurance companies, making lots of money off the voucher business, will cast their eyes on those potential profit centers, aka seniors, still getting government insurance. So traditional Medicare will be in the firing line — and all those assurances about how nobody currently over 55 will be hurt will turn out to be empty.
So this plan isn’t going to work; the only uncertainty is about exactly how it would fail.
- Paul Krugman
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Apr 5, 2011 22:07:41 GMT -5
Ok. I have some questions. 1) how do we pay for medicare in the interim? Because currently today's taxes pay today's program... so what do we do to pay for today's program while the privatized accounts add up? 2) So, the vision is that medicare will morph into these privatized accounts... but the privatized accounts are to pay the deductable... who pays the premiums then? Does a medicare program ALSO pay the premiums? If so, how? And if not, how are the elderly expected to pay them? I do not see any way the privatized account would grow to cover both premiums and deductables... 1. I already mentioned that people will have to pay for the current system, as well as pay for their transition. It sucks, but that is the situation we are currently in right now. 2. People who work 40+ years will have a decent amount of money in those accounts to cover any deductibles and premiums. Also, if anybody wants a supplement to medicare, they pay it out of their savings and SS, so it wouldn't really be any different if people were paying their own premiums under a privatized system. Of course the privatized accounts would be exposed to the market (target date plans, or something along those lines). I know, here comes the big bad scary stock market talk.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Apr 5, 2011 22:08:20 GMT -5
Duh- no. It will just put more health care dollars into the industry that makes our system so bad. Republican 101- A)take tax dollars out of X and give to private corporations B)shift extra costs of X onto citizens via higher prices or reduced services New GOP mantra- if it isn't working hire a middleman Old Dem mantra- if it isn't working, blame private business and charge more in taxes for less benefits.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Apr 5, 2011 22:22:16 GMT -5
"1. I already mentioned that people will have to pay for the current system, as well as pay for their transition. It sucks, but that is the situation we are currently in right now"
As a young person, all I can say is screw that. We have to pay for our grand parents AND ourselves while still trying to save for our own retirement AND our kids college? You can only squeeze so much from the average worker bee. A lot of people don't even make enough money to fund their own retirements.
Another thing I want to know is how you handle people who don't work. SAHS's and the like.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Apr 5, 2011 22:40:46 GMT -5
"1. I already mentioned that people will have to pay for the current system, as well as pay for their transition. It sucks, but that is the situation we are currently in right now" As a young person, all I can say is screw that. We have to pay for our grand parents AND ourselves while still trying to save for our own retirement AND our kids college? You can only squeeze so much from the average worker bee. A lot of people don't even make enough money to fund their own retirements. Another thing I want to know is how you handle people who don't work. SAHS's and the like. I'm still a young person too and somebody is going to take the hit. The problem is that nobody wants to be that somebody. As far as SAHS, the money in the privatized account would be used to help pay for their insurance as well. It would probably be a good idea to put some extra money toward savings if possible. As to the rest of your post, I do understand. I really don't know who they expect to put away 15% (some say with match, others say before company match) toward retirement, $300-500/month for child's college, all the different insurances (life, health, disability, ID theft, homeowners, etc), and not to mention paying for daycare for 2 income households that can range from $600-1500/month depending on where you live...then use what is left over to pay rent/mortgage, utilities, gas, food, etc. I haven't even mentioned tithing, which to some (myself included) is important and just like all the other things I mentioned, a choice that each person needs to make on if they feel it is important to do or not. So yes, I do understand how irritating it can be to hear that we need to cover the cost of a broken current system, on top of paying even more in order to cover ourselves during the transition phase. Honestly though, what is the alternative? Keep paying into a system that you know is broke because you don't want to be the one to pay for it?
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Apr 5, 2011 22:49:46 GMT -5
To an extent medicare is already privatized. The government deducts money from my SS check each month and Humana manages the money. I have a $10.00 co-pay for each visit and then Humana pays the rest to the doctor depending on the treatment about 40 cents on the dollar for their bill. The doctor eats the difference and has a built in tax deduction I would guess.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Apr 5, 2011 22:49:56 GMT -5
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Apr 5, 2011 22:51:28 GMT -5
To an extent Medicare is already privatized. The government deducts money from my SS check each month and Humana manages the money. I have a $10.00 co-pay for each visit and then Humana pays the rest to the doctor depending on the treatment about 40 cents on the dollar for their bill. The doctor eats the difference and has a built in tax deduction I would guess. That sounds like an advantage plan, in which case I don't believe you are actually covered by Medicare anymore. I want to say that was a big deal in that a lot of people filed lawsuits because they didn't realize that the MA plans took them off of Medicare and some doctors don't accept MA plans. The premiums you are paying to Medicare are subsidizing the MA premiums, which is why some do not cost any extra each month (depending on the county you live in).
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Apr 5, 2011 23:05:32 GMT -5
True there are a lot of doctors that do not accept medicare or medicaid either. I believe you are correct it is considered a advantage plan but it works well for us.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Apr 5, 2011 23:10:40 GMT -5
True there are a lot of doctors that do not accept medicare or medicaid either. I believe you are correct it is considered a advantage plan but it works well for us. It's been a while, but I think the MA plans were better than just having medicare alone. Some of the higher cost associated with these plans probably have to do with covering more. Having a supplement with medicare seemed like the best coverage, but also the most expensive.
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Apr 5, 2011 23:15:30 GMT -5
To me the only advantage of having a supplement with medicare is if one family member has some expensive health problem. Same with the proscription drug plans
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Apr 5, 2011 23:22:27 GMT -5
To me the only advantage of having a supplement with medicare is if one family member has some expensive health problem. Same with the proscription drug plans It's better coverage for the most part and you never know what the future holds. I definitely don't remember thinking that MA plans were bad plans though.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 29, 2024 8:41:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2011 10:32:30 GMT -5
To an extent medicare is already privatized. The government deducts money from my SS check each month and Humana manages the money. I have a $10.00 co-pay for each visit and then Humana pays the rest to the doctor depending on the treatment about 40 cents on the dollar for their bill. The doctor eats the difference and has a built in tax deduction I would guess. Medicare Advantage costs 30% more than regular medicare... we should get AWAY from private partnerships if we want to save money... You understand this proposal does NOTHING to contain actual health care costs... just the portion the government will cover... the rest of it will go to the individual...
|
|