AP-GfK Poll: Baby boomers fear outliving Medicare

[Deleted]

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101230/ap_on_re_us/us_ap_poll_medicare_and_the_boomers

new Associated Press-GfK poll finds that baby boomers believe by a ratio of 2-to-1 they won't be able to rely on the giant health insurance plan throughout their retirement.

The boomers took a running dive into adolescence and went on to redefine work and family, but getting old is making them nervous.

Now, forty-three percent say they don't expect to be able to depend on Medicare forever, while only 20 percent think their Medicare is secure. The rest have mixed feelings.

Yet the survey also shows a surprising willingness among adults of all ages to sacrifice to preserve Medicare benefits that most Americans say they deserve after years of paying taxes into the system at work.

So SS is one thing, I think its possible to save enough in retirement vehicles not to have to depend on SS income....Medicare is a whole other deal...now I don't think they are going to leave people to die in the streets or anything, but there is no doubt in my mind they will 'discourage' older people from getting the most expensive procedures at the end of their life...call them 'death panels' if you want, 'practical' if you want, its all the same to me.

So how do you hedge yourself against complete Medicare meltdown? Just how much is private insurance for a 70 year old? $5k a month? I have no idea.

[stats45]

People don't like to hear this, but the answer is rationing. In our political system, we have conservative (Republican) methods of rationing and liberal (Democratic) methods of rationing.

Republicans would like to see Medicare turned into a voucher for individual plans (see Paul Ryan). This would mean that the amount of the voucher could be controlled, set to only increase with or slightly above inflation. If people require care beyond what is provided, they have to pay it themselves. In this system there is rationing on the household level as some households cannot afford certain medical treatments.

Democrats prefer to see revenues increased if possible and think institutions can be set up to manage what types of care are useful. Think of it this way; the government takes in $1 million for health care and decides the best way to spend that money. Individuals would have access to the care based on the effectiveness of procedures and other conditions such as health, age, etc. In this system, households don't ration but institutions ration.

You can't avoid rationing. There is no way to pay for every possible health procedure that a person could possibly need (or has a preventative use) unless every person can pay for every procedure out of pocket. Which rationing would you like? This is the political debate we are having, even if we don't recognize it in the terms I have described.

[mtshastawriter]

My DH alone has used millions of dollars in the form of Medicare and Medicaid. I don't honestly see how either program will survive over the long-term. The more things they can "treat" then the higher and higher the bills get people people think they deserve every last treatment just because they are breathing.

[whoisjohngalt]

Oh what a fine line this is. It's one thing to discuss those matters theoretically, it is completely different when it is YOUR loved one lying there with the tubes in.

There was an excellent message board on Early Retirement where they discussed medical costs and how to handle it. It went away one day, unfortunately, but people had all kinds of plans in motion.

You can live very very cheaply in this country if it wasn't for medical exp.

[haapai]

From the article

Initially, 63 percent of boomers in the poll dismissed the idea of raising the eligibility age to keep Medicare afloat financially. But when the survey forced them to choose between raising the age or cutting benefits, 59 percent said raise the age and keep the benefits.

Wow! I'd be in the 41%. There's a limit to how much you can raise the age without opening up the disability floodgates. A whole lot of people stop working because their bodies are giving out and their ability to jump through the hoops necessary to qualify as permanently disabled is highly correlated with financial wherewithal. The fix that is most popular is to deny Medicare benefits to the most vulnerable so that the rest can keep their full benefits.

[bean29]

haapai,

I am so confused! Are you referring to the statement below? (I could not figure out how to put it in quotes).

Now, forty-three percent say they don't expect to be able to depend on Medicare forever, while only 20 percent think their Medicare is secure. The rest have mixed feelings.

Sorry, I am all for the "Death Panels" that are not at all what the Republicans are making them out to be. The original description that I absorbed was end of life planning to make sure you did not get life sustaining care that would render you a vegatable and cost lots of $$ and add no value to your life. I am also for not doing surgery that would only extend a life a short time.

I really think we should have gone after the drug companies and made our prescription costs in line with the rest of the world. But when your legislators are for sale to the highest bidder the poor ( and middle class) will suffer.


Read more: notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=finance&action=display&thread=635#ixzz19bjT93AT

[Gardening Grandma]

I hope I go quickly in my sleep from a stroke. At the age of 100, of course....

This is one of our major concerns as retirees. Over the last four years, I've watched our healthcare expenses rise steeply (and we're HEALTHY). That's just the cost of premiums and OOP expenses. If one of us develops a serious issue - that's probably my biggest worry.

A single payer, national healthcare plan - that is really what we need.

[haapai]

bean29, I clicked on the linked article and pulled it out of there.

I can't figure out how to use the quote box either. I can't say that I've tried to hard either. The font is too small for me to read and it would be hypocritical to impose it on others. The information regarding the source of the quotation is a nice feature though. I wonder how many folks are using that feature to find the source of the quote and read it in larger font.

[whoisjohngalt]

A single payer, national healthcare plan - that is really what we need.

Oh G-d no no no - we really don't!!!!!!!!!!!

Lena

[Gardening Grandma]

Yes we do. Countries that do have them are not spending nearly what we are per capita.

[haapai]

There seems to be a pretty strong pro-rationing sentiment on this board. I'm proud of you guys, but according to this poll, we're in the minority nationally. Most people would prefer to push the young old off the bus than see higher copays and more rationing.

In my mind that's a pretty shocking inversion of the original goals of the program.

[thyme4change]

Bring on the death panels!

[robbase]

"I really think we should have gone after the drug companies and made our prescription costs in line with the rest of the world. But when your legislators are for sale to the highest bidder the poor ( and middle class) will suffer."

"A single payer, national healthcare plan - that is really what we need."

"Yes we do. Countries that do have them are not spending nearly what we are per capita."

counterpoint- why does the US pay more for drugs? because the US is where the innovation happens, and innovation costs money (companies need profit motivations to go after this innovation).

medical innovation does not occur in those other countries because they have a single payer system and not as much a free market as the US in regards to health care. So since there is economic opportunity for drug companies in the US (they can charge higher prices to capitalize on innivation) they develop cutting edge drugs that improve life to sell to the US, those other countries (single payer) get the benefits of this because now that the US has paid the front costs for the research & the drug company might as well sell it to the single payer countries as well for a lower price.

BOTTOM LINE- if the US went to single payer there would be less drug (and medical) innovation in the world because of less profit for the medical industry would lead to less motivation to pursue innovation.

So similar to stats45 post, it depends on your values, if you want a "fair" system you have to also accept mediocre advancements (lower qualty of life) in medicine than single payer is the way

if you want a more economics based system ("unfair"), you get more advancements in medicine (higher quality of life) but more costs as well

[breezy]

Dec 30, 2010 10:53:27 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Yes we do. Countries that do have them are not spending nearly what we are per capita.

savernation.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/healthcare-comparison-us-canada-uk3.jpg

Interesting graph of key medical statistics comparing the US, Canada and UK healthcare systems responsiveness.

[thyme4change]

I wish the titles were complete on the graph. When I clicked on it I got things like

"Percentage of people who..."

[breezy]

Sorry thyme4change. It was just a graph showing the following:

Percentage of men & women who survived a cancer five years:
US 65%
UK 46%
CA 42%

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
US 93%
UK 15%
CA 43%

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:
US 90%
UK 15%
CA 43%

Percentage referred to a medical specialists who see one within one month:
US 77%
UK 40%
CA 43%

Number of MRI Scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
US 71%
UK 14%
CA 18%

I heard this story on the news this morning and I went on line to find more info because I though it was interesting, that's all.

[thyme4change]

What was the last one - elderly people who... (I'm going off memory here.)

[jkapp]

Dec 30, 2010 10:08:36 GMT -5 bean29 said:

Sorry, I am all for the "Death Panels" that are not at all what the Republicans are making them out to be. The original description that I absorbed was end of life planning to make sure you did not get life sustaining care that would render you a vegatable and cost lots of $$ and add no value to your life. I am also for not doing surgery that would only extend a life a short time.

Read more: notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=finance&action=display&thread=635#ixzz19bjT93AT

The funny thing about this, though, is that HMOs were doing this for years and getting reemed by the same people who now think the government doing it is ok...so why is it ok for government to do it but not private industry? Why the double standard?

[jkapp]

Dec 30, 2010 10:10:08 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

A single payer, national healthcare plan - that is really what we need.

Right...the "expand Medicare to cover everyone" argument again...

Except what do we do when doctors and hospitals start closing because the single payer insurance doesn't cover the costs of the actual procedures? Because that is exactly what Medicare does right now. if everyone had Medicare we would have no hospitals and no doctors - at least none that took the medicare insurance...not to mention the additional tens of billions in wasted money through fraud and abuse of the system because government refuses to regulate itself.

[whoisjohngalt]

Yes we do. Countries that do have them are not spending nearly what we are per capita.

Have you ever lived in one of those countries? Bc I have and let me assure you, having one, govt controlled health care system is not and NEVER will be an answer.

I am absolutely amazed that there are still people out there who think govt controlled anything is good. Whenever I ask them to name one, just ONE, program that is successfully run by govt, I don't get any responses. GG, would you like to be the first??

Lena

[thyme4change]

The funny thing about this, though, is that HMOs were doing this for years and getting reamed by the same people who now think the government doing it is ok...so why is it ok for government to do it but not private industry? Why the double standard?

I remember the whole HMO thing. I thought they were okay (not great) but I didn't have any real health problems and I was pretty flexible about my care. So, if someone has a horror story, I can certainly appreciate that it happened.

The thing I find funny is that people hated, hated, hated HMO's but want government care. Do they really think that the government will be able to do it better than the HMO's did? I think Medicare for all will basically be all the problems of HMO's, amplified.

[thyme4change]

(he he he he - spell check wanted to change HMO's to Homo's.)

[jkapp]

Dec 30, 2010 13:03:58 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

(he he he he - spell check wanted to change HMO's to Homo's.)

Well that's a change from the MSN board ;D

[stats45]

Politicians have successfully made people fearful using 'rationing' for a long time. I think many people on this board just don't think about political issues in soundbites.

You may not be able to use the term 'rationing' in politics, but the battles are over what type of rationing happenes.

[breezy]

Dec 30, 2010 12:58:41 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

Yes we do. Countries that do have them are not spending nearly what we are per capita.

Have you ever lived in one of those countries? Bc I have and let me assure you, having one, govt controlled health care system is not and NEVER will be an answer.

I am absolutely amazed that there are still people out there who think govt controlled anything is good. Whenever I ask them to name one, just ONE, program that is successfully run by govt, I don't get any responses. GG, would you like to be the first??

Lena

[bean29]

On drug costs - If we don't refuse to pay for all the research costs for the whole world, how will we ever get the rest of the world to share in the cost? As long as we are willing to cover 100% of the cost everyone else will continue to limit what they pay. It is unsustainable for us.

Breezy thanks for the graph and the claification - I too was wondering about the missing text.

I know the staus quo is not good enough. To claim we don't need any changes seems to me to be short sighted.

On end of life directives - this is not exactly like rationing because the individual is declaring that they don't want the care in advance. It is costly and not life enhancing. This is one way to reduce costs without sacrificing care for many people.

On the HMO being chaged to HOMO by spell check - how do I use spell check?

Thanks all.

[haapai]

To use spell check, you must opt to use the "reply" button (located in the bar beneath the last post) instead of the "quick reply" box and button that is so easy and intuitive to use.

The spell check button is the third of the four buttons that appear at the bottom of the reply box. It's somewhat difficult to read the black text in the grey box, so you may have to squint a bit.

[Deleted]

You paid your Medicare taxes all those years and think you deserve your money's worth: full benefits after you retire.

Nearly three out of five people say in a recent Associated Press-GfK poll that they paid into the system so their benefits shouldn't be cut.

But a newly updated financial analysis shows that what people paid into the system doesn't come close to covering the full value of the medical care they can expect to receive as retirees.

Consider an average-wage, two-earner couple together earning $89,000 a year. Upon retiring in 2011, they would have paid $114,000 in Medicare payroll taxes during their careers.

But they can expect to receive medical services — from prescriptions to hospital care — worth $355,000, or about three times what they put in.

The estimates by economists Eugene Steuerle and Stephanie Rennane of the Urban Institute think tank illustrate the huge disconnect between widely-held perceptions and the numbers behind Medicare's shaky financing. Although Americans are worried about Medicare's long-term solvency, few realize the size of the gap.

[stillontheroad]

As a young person, I'm way more concerned about Medicare being around when I retire than I am about SS still being around. If I never get any SS benefits, I should still be okay. (Fairness is a separate issue; I'll definitely be upset if I pay into a system I don't get to benefit from). Without Medicare, I don't see how I'd ever be able to retire, nor how any lower-to-middle class person could expect to retire (except by going without insurance and rolling the dice that they'll be in decent health in their old age, which sounds like a gamble most of us will lose).

[Mardi Gras Audrey]

I've mentioned this before on the MSN boards. I have had govt run healthcare and it is a nightmare. Talk to most people in the military about their experiences with the govt running healthcare. We had a 6 week wait to see a primary care physician (and u couldn't even get an appt at that point-their schedule just went out that far with no availability). Once they saw you for a condition and gave you one prescription (for drugs that were over the counter that you had already been taking and didn't work), they wouldn't see you again for the next two months (because "you already had your appt for that condition. We treated you. You need to wait". This was despite the fact that the treatment didn't work and the dr had said to come back if it didn't work in after using it for a certain time period). Seeing a specialist would take months to get an appt. The specialists would even deny seeing you because you "weren't that bad" (despite the fact that the PCP referred you because they didn't know how to help you). The govt did that bad with a population of mostly men ages 17-40 who are ordered to run/exercise a lot and maintain a healthy weight. DO you really think that they coulod do any better with a larger population of overweight people who don't have to exercise, smoke more, and have more chronic conditions?