Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Robyn, You are very well informed and you like to argue.
What happened in south Florida with the seniors thinking their medical care should be free doesn't have anything to do with me. Maybe you saw that happening too much and your got burned.
My eye doctor did not try to take advantage of the system at all. She explained to me that Medicare would not pay for my eye exam and so I was prepared to pay for it myself.
During the exam she found that I have early cataracts and it was then that she told me that my exam would be free because I have a medical condition. Free, in this particular context means free to me. That should be obvious. You don't have to continue to split hairs about how it is not really "free"--I think we get it.
I hope we're done and that we can all proceed with productive conversations.
I am well informed. Especially about Medicare. We have 3 dead parents - dealt with a lot of their Medicare stuff. Am still dealing with some Medicare stuff for last surviving parent - and now my husband. And I don't particularly like to argue (I'm a retired lawyer and if I loved to argue on a full time basis - I'd still be practicing law).
Your doctor is off base IMO. My husband has MS and all kinds of optical stuff (artifacts of things like optic neuritis at this point). But unless he is having a specific MS related optical problem - and goes in to see an eye doc for it - he has to pay for his routine eye exams to get a new prescription for glasses. Don't believe me? Get a copy of the paperwork your doc submitted to Medicare - along with all the diagnostic codes and notes. And report back.
FWIW - I have never heard of a doctor saying to a patient during the course of an exam that - whoopee - I found this - so Medicare will pay for it. Sounds very unprofessional to me.
And did you have to sign the Medicare waiver when you showed up for your appointment? The one that says that there's a reasonable chance Medicare won't pay for this - and you agree to pay if Medicare doesn't? Required by law these days in every health care encounter that is even 1% questionable (my husband signs lots of them). If you didn't - good chance your doc belongs in south Florida.
FWIW - the only way my husband and I get burnt in terms of medical stuff is when our insurance providers (be they private or Medicare or otherwise) pay for stuff they shouldn't - and our premiums go up more than they should. And I think it is productive when the people reading and writing and listening here know how things work (and don't work). Robyn
What you pay in SS and Medicare during your working life doesn't come close to what it costs to provide good health care to you when you become a senior, and if you live a long life, your social security you paid may turn out to be a real bargain for you as well.
Medicare in particular does not collect enough money to even make a dent in your medical costs when you get older and develop problems, get cancer, or some other serious condition.
We need to attack the Medicare problem on every front, and that includes raising the contributions we make during our working years.
Before we attack Medicare and Social Security we need to attack the unbelievable corporate subsidies and tax breaks/evasions for the rich.
The amounts we paid into SS and Medicare all our lives was into a pool that should be there for us. It was for our parents and nobody complained, neither them nor their children. Maybe Medicare and Social Security should be paid in payroll by those who figure they will need it, and preserved for those who finally do. Otherwise, out on the street.
What about the many who never work and still get benefits via Medicaid etc etc etc etc. We are running out of people to pay the bills. We need to develop a shortage of people not WILLING to contribute and still receive.
Maybe we need a surplus of "the rich" who could waive their rights to SS and Medicare. They don't need it anyway, so why take it?
Before we attack Medicare and Social Security we need to attack the unbelievable corporate subsidies and tax breaks/evasions for the rich.
The amounts we paid into SS and Medicare all our lives was into a pool that should be there for us. It was for our parents and nobody complained, neither them nor their children. Maybe Medicare and Social Security should be paid in payroll by those who figure they will need it, and preserved for those who finally do. Otherwise, out on the street.
Yada - yada - yada. I ask you once again. How much have you paid into the Medicare system to date? I paid about $10k.
And why should I pay 10 cents for you? Give me a good reason (other than I have more money than you do). Robyn
Before we attack Medicare and Social Security we need to attack the unbelievable corporate subsidies and tax breaks/evasions for the rich.
The amounts we paid into SS and Medicare all our lives was into a pool that should be there for us. It was for our parents and nobody complained, neither them nor their children. Maybe Medicare and Social Security should be paid in payroll by those who figure they will need it, and preserved for those who finally do. Otherwise, out on the street.
Although you were responding not to me, but to another poster, I want to point out that the post to which you were responding was not an attack on Medicare and Social Security. It was simply pointing out certain facts about how little we pay in over a lifetime versus the potential pay-out on our behalf. Rationally discussing the severe funding problems which Medicare (more so than Social Security) is now facing is not the same as an attack. We can't keep our heads in the sand and just spout tired bromides about the rich.
Yes but one that wants to spend the money on us and screw those behind us;only leaving unpaid debt. That is why we are spend borrowed money for 40 cents of every dollar we spend on us.Other than that the present generatio wnats it free form birth to death and let the rich pay who know npow to cut the bottomline. bascailly the bottomline for them is 70% employee cost. That is what you are seeing now when they cut the bottomline to needs. Wait until you see the state cost in 2017 after federal subsidises run out for state medicaid increased cost stops. That is why Nelsen wanted the exception to vote for it.The 500 billion taken from medicare is just the start of the payments needed to funhd Obama care.
Location: Los Angeles, but looking for my niche in ME, or OR
326 posts, read 433,813 times
Reputation: 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP
Because they contributed to the fund to the max possible and the law says they can.
Bingo! That lies the problem...
One is fully taxed up and only to the first $107,000! After that, nilch, nada, zero!
You know that by the very first paycheck of the year, those famous radio/TV/News personalities (and I shall name NO names here) that advocate so strongly against it, are done paying for it. That's it, done. For the rest of the entire year.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
