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.
Perhaps the people who are in favor of it should define what *they* mean by it. FWIW - I get dozens of checks that say "Medicare Payment" on top - but the checks are from First Coast Service Options (a division of Florida Blue that administers Medicare up here in north Florida). Which is probably why I get all my checks very fast (I can't imagine how long I'd wait for my checks if the people who designed the ACA website were in charge of getting my Medicare checks to me). IOW - even Medicare uses a private insurance company - and a very large one at that - to keep things working (although most people probably think of it as a "single payer system"). [b] I think when most people mouth off - they don't have a clue how things actually work now. Robyn
Exactly x 2 !!! (but I think my meaning may be different than golfgals)
Perhaps the people who are in favor of it should define what *they* mean by it. FWIW - I get dozens of checks that say "Medicare Payment" on top - but the checks are from First Coast Service Options (a division of Florida Blue that administers Medicare up here in north Florida). Which is probably why I get all my checks very fast IOW - even Medicare uses a private insurance company - and a very large one at that - to keep things working (although most people probably think of it as a "single payer system"). I think when most people mouth off - they don't have a clue how things actually work now. Robyn
Well, truth to this.
My insurance guy last week said ever since WPS (Wisconsin Physician's Service, which also sells Medigaps and other private coverage) lost the contract as administrator of Medicare Part B in WI, which it had had since the inception of Medicare, Medicare processing has been problematic. New administrator for Part B is National Government Services. I'd like the backstory on this ...who greased whose palm.
So, indeed, Medicare relies on private administrators.
Three years ago (before I switched to UHC Advantage), when I was on Medicare/employer Medigap, I got EOBs from CMS all the time. Can't wait to see what my experience will be in 2014.
Marcopolo, I appreciate hearing your take, and would like to address a couple of points.
First the fact that the ACA plan takes more from the young age group to help the older age group. You stated that you are older and have enough money to spend and then some. That is good. But please try and understand, there are many older people who don't have the means (especially single parents) when they get older, and their premiums sky rocket disproportionately upward. This is the typical time you may develop medical problems. So many 55-65 individuals were facing premiums they simply could not afford to pay. Actually I do not feel insurance should be age based at all. It should be wage based and separated from employment........
I sure disagree (respectfully) about the wisdom of having the young subsidize the old in health insurance, when the old are already creaming the young with Medicare and Social Security.
For those 55-65 individuals who are unable to pay the average cost of care for their age group, there ought to be some welfare-based or universal minimal level of care. Taking money from generally poorer young people when they are trying to acquire housing and furniture and autos and feed the babies that represent our future....not right, in my opinion.
Using that logic, the over $400k SS is now sitting on for me (in paper only) was certainly wasted supporting all my elders the 52 years I worked. I do know if I had received that money while I worked, instead of paying into SS, I sure as heck wouldn't have invested that money, but would have SPENT IT because, just like many young people you mention, I always had a "place" - or so I thought - for it.
The "young people" in my immediate family will receive an inheritance to compensate for any "unfair" contributions they are currently making to my support.
Clue: They Aren't.
I have paid far more into the system than they ever will, seeing as how one isn't working and the other isn't even close to earning what I did when I worked. So, I'm not feeling guilty. Not one bit. And, I have pretty much zero in medical expenses since my health is fine. Retirement Part B & Medigap insurance far more expensive than employer health coverage when I worked. I don't expect I'll be getting much from the Medicare system for a good long while. Medicare, for me, is insurance only - to the tune of over $2k/yr. (Part B $1260, plus $900 Medigap).
Last edited by Ariadne22; 11-11-2013 at 11:47 AM..
Using that logic, the over $400k SS is now sitting on for me (in paper only) was certainly wasted supporting all my elders the 52 years I worked. I do know if I had received that money while I worked, instead of paying into SS, I sure as heck wouldn't have invested that money, but would have SPENT IT because, just like many young people you mention, I always had a "place" - or so I thought - for it.
The "young people" in my immediate family will receive an inheritance to compensate for any "unfair" contributions they are currently making to my support.
Clue: They Aren't.
I have paid far more into the system than they ever will, seeing as how one isn't working and the other isn't even close to earning what I did when I worked. So, I'm not feeling guilty. Not one bit. And, I have pretty much zero in medical expenses since my health is fine. Retirement Part B & Medigap insurance far more expensive than employer health coverage when I worked. I don't expect I'll be getting much from the Medicare system for a good long while. Medicare, for me, is insurance only - to the tune of over $2k/yr. (Part B $1260, plus $900 Medigap).
Well if we are comparing a company subsidy to what we pay in Medicare Plan, then I pay
$5,040 a yr. Part B, Medicare Supplement J, Part D
When Medicare was rolled out in 1966, it was rolled out in six months using index cards,” Dr. Steffie Woolhandler told me Monday. “So if you have a simple system, you do not have to have all this expense and all this complexity and work.” Woolhandler is professor of public health at CUNY-Hunter College and a primary-care physician. She is a visiting professor at Harvard Medical School and the co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program, or PNHP. PNHP is an organization with 17,000 physicians as members, advocating for a single-payer health-care system in the U.S.
What is single-payer? Critics denounce it as “socialized medicine,” while ignoring that single-payer is already immensely popular in the U.S., as Medicare. A 2011 Harris poll found that Medicare enjoyed 88 percent support from American adults, followed closely by Social Security. Woolhandler explained that with a Medicare-for-all system, “you would get a card the day you’re born, and you’d keep it your entire life. It would entitle you to medical care, all needed medical care, without co-payments, without deductibles. And because it’s such a simple system, like Social Security, there would be very low administrative expenses. We would save about $400 billion [per year].” Dr. Woolhandler went on, rather than “thousands of different plans, tons of different co-payments, deductibles and restrictions—one single-payer plan, which is what we need for all Americans to give the Americans really the choice they want … not the choice between insurance company A or insurance company B. They want the choice of any doctor or hospital, like you get with traditional Medicare.”
Monthly premiums in most cases are expected to decrease with Obamacare’s health-exchange systems, which will enhance the transparency and ease of comparison for people shopping for a health-insurance policy. If and when the technical problems are eliminated from the online health insurance exchanges, and people can easily shop, there will likely be a huge number of people buying policies for the first time. The ACA offers important advances, which even single-payer advocates acknowledge: subsidies for low-income applicants will make insurance affordable for the first time. Medicaid expansion also will bring many poor people into the umbrella of coverage. Young people can stay on their parents’ insurance until the age of 26. People with so-called pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied insurance.
While the ACA was deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court, the opinion gave states the option to opt out of the Medicaid expansion, which 26 states with Republican governors have done. A New York Times analysis of census data showed that up to 8 million poor people, mostly African-Americans and single mothers, and mostly in the Deep South, will be stranded without insurance, too poor to qualify for ACA subsidies, but stuck in a state that rejected Medicaid expansion.
Although many are blaming Obamacare and the federal exchange for glitches it appears that glitches are simply a technological hazard of instituting new software programs. States that opted to put up their own exchange as opposed to the federal government are also experiencing glitches:
From California comes this report:
Quote:
Two weeks after opening, the state’s new health insurance exchange continues to operate with several glitches that can hinder consumers trying to choose a policy.
The new site still doesn’t have a working doctor directory so that shoppers can see which physicians are included in each health plan. Its enrollment functions were offline this weekend for maintenance. And certification of private insurance agents who want to sell exchange plans is moving slowly.
Covered California joins health insurance exchanges in other states that have struggled with a range of problems since opening Oct. 1. The problems elsewhere have ranged from difficulty quoting prices to consumers to vexingly slow download speeds.
State-based exchanges are facing a slew of problems too, with the online marketplace in Washington, D.C., handling the biggest setback so far.
The exchange, called the DC Health Link, is delaying two key functions--calculating consumers' eligibility for Medicaid and calculating the size of any federal subsidies that consumers can receive.
"There is one part of the system that our testing indicated was not working right and we did not want to take any chances that it would give incorrect information," Richard Soriano, spokesman for the DC exchange, told McClatchy newspapers.
----- Colorado's exchange, called Connect for Health Colorado, also won't be able to calculate federal subsidies when it opens Oct. 1 because officials weren't "completely satisfied" with the accuracy of the calculations, Ben Davis, an outside spokesman for the exchange, told Reuters. "There are 100,000 scenarios they want to test for," including various combinations of income and family situations, "and it takes X amount of time. We just did not have enough time to test."
--------
And the Oregon exchange said some health plans are inaccurate on a test site, causing misinformation like incorrect deductibles. "We are in a validation process with our carriers," Executive Director Rocky King told Reuters.
All of this points to why the single payer, federally operated medicare system, simply expanded to cover all American citizens, would work so much better and less expensively than what we had or what we will have under Obamacare.
All of this points to why the single payer, federally operated medicare system, simply expanded to cover all American citizens, would work so much better and less expensively than what we had or what we will have under Obamacare.
I have never understood why a modified Medicare wasn't offered for everyone. Offer both plan A and plan B with a cap. If you want more go with a revised Medigap.
Easy to understand, almost everyone would go for it, relatively easy to administer.
Should ACA fail (and its very possible), this will probably be the replacement IMO.
I have never understood why a modified Medicare wasn't offered for everyone. Offer both plan A and plan B with a cap. If you want more go with a revised Medigap.
Easy to understand, almost everyone would go for it, relatively easy to administer.
Should ACA fail (and its very possible), this will probably be the replacement IMO.
Because the Medicare taxpayer subsidy - at least for those of us 65 or so - is about $400-500/month per person - just for Parts A and B - before we pay for Medigap and the like. Who's going to pay the subsidy for millions of other people? You'll just be taking a system that is going broke - and make it go broke faster. Robyn
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.
(I can't imagine how long I'd wait for my checks if the people who designed the ACA website were in charge of getting my Medicare checks to me). IOW - even Medicare uses a private insurance company - and a very large one at that - to keep things working (although most people probably think of it as a "single payer system"). [b] I think when most people mouth off - they don't have a clue how things actually work now. Robyn
Why single payer would work
