Why not abolish Medicare completely and have insurance premiums forever?? (coverage, patient)
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.
You do realize medicare is part of the tax system people pay into during their working life. The same is true of SS ;its not voluntary or free. But ACA or even universal is a system where some are subsidized and others pay the cost of it. Remember that medicaid is hugely increased under ACA which will mean more taxes on those who pay them as 2017 comes then the other taxes coming .Nothing is free and the more you make the more you are the providers to those who don't. That is who government is dependent on itself.
Umm, Texdav, you do realize that tax contributions for Medicare only cover about 1/3rd of the cost, right? So Medicare is basically about 2/3rds welfare? And then Medicare premiums depend on income, so "some are subsidized and others pay the cost of it?"
I have come around to the point of view that the health of a child ought not be dependent on who its parents are. And probably, the healthier all the children are, the better off we all will be. And if we can take care of medical needs for the old and washed-up with welfare (Medicare) then we ought to be able to take care of our future, our children, the same way.
Forgive my ignorance but I have a question and I'm sure someone will enlighten me. For the most part, I am sensing people on this forum are against having Universal healthcare as an option for their future. One of the main reasons being they don't want their healthcare system to be "run by the government".
Here's where my confusion arises. Based on the nature of my work, I come into contact and treat lots of elderly folk on Medicare and lower income patients on Medicaid programs. These programmes are "Government" funded and the recipients are generally thankful for them, indeed are happy enough with them, and are actually given a sense of relief once on them. (Particularly when they have additional supplementary insurance to pay the shortfall)
So what I'm not getting is this...if you're happy to have government funded programmes once you reach the age of 65 (or medicaid for other reasons), then why have such an issue with having Government funded healthcare for the whole of your lifespan?? I just don't get it. Am I missing something here?? Surely if folk are so against Universal healthcare and/or Government involvement with their healthcare, then you would want to abolish Medicare and you would be perfectly happy to pay your premiums for private insurance for your whole life??
Just FWIW - I am not for or against "universal healthcare" (whatever that means - most countries - even if they once had "universal healthcare" - are now going in the other direction when it comes to illegal immigrants - "medical tourists" - etc.). Also - I don't know about other states - but a very large % of the uninsured in Florida are illegals - or legal only by virtue of the ridiculous wet foot/dry foot immigration policy when it comes to Cubans.* Once immigrants are "legal" - they qualify for Medicaid in 5 years. I think Medicaid should be a program only for citizens.
The closest things I've observed/read about like this in Europe are the boatloads of African immigrants who try to get to Italy and similar (not only for health care but for food and housing and the like). I imagine some succeed - but the papers only report the boats that capsize - often killing many people. Then there's the backlash in Sweden when it comes to providing health care for "refugees". And - of course - there's a backlash in the UK about this now as well (which I've previously mentioned). Many of these people come from wretched circumstances - but that doesn't mean that the developed countries in the world can afford to take care of even a small % of them (much less all).
Also - you have to keep in mind that almost 50% of people legally in the US who play by the rules don't pay income taxes. And that's only on the basis of *reported income*. It's estimated that about 10% of the total GDP in the US is in the "underground economy". We've already seen today that at least one misguided "navigator" is telling people who haven't reported income in the past not to report it when they apply for ACA subsidies.
You keep mentioning 13% as your magic number. Is the 13% the number you pay - or the number everyone pays? If not everyone is paying - what % of the working age population is paying? Do some people pay more than 13% - do some people pay less than 13%?
And it's 13% of what again? Adjusted gross income - modified adjusted gross income? I'd be ok with paying that 13% now for the Medicare I have now (and pay for my Medigap and Part D and concierge plan out of pocket). Then again - I am retired and pretty good at taxes. That 13% wouldn't even cover me and my husband for the subsidies we get from Medicare. So who's going to pay for everyone else if that 13% won't even cover us? To me - it's pretty much all dollars and cents - not ideology.
BTW - in terms of all the southern bashing - I lived up north for a fair part of my life. My father made a a good living as a builder in southern New Jersey catering to a mostly white Italian clientele fleeing black people in Philadelphia. The southies when I lived in the Boston area were as virulent in terms of racism as it comes. Miami is the only city in the south to make the "most segregated" list I linked above. And that's because many/most white Hispanics (the majority ethnic group in Miami) are even more racist than most domestic white people. Brits are certainly pretty racist too:
Don't know about Scots. OTOH - Scotland has a whopping < 1% black population. So it's pretty much a theoretical question for Scots.
We here in the southern part of the US have large black populations. Where I live - in my particular community - perhaps not so much - like about 5%. Toss in Asian/Americans and similar - and you're at about 10%. OK by me. My community is "zoned by income" - not race or ethnic background. I don't care what "flavor" a resident of my HOA is - as long as the family keeps its property looking nice (and almost everyone who lives here - regardless of "flavor" - can afford to and does that). My only complaint is the kids who came to my house on Halloween (we had over 200 this year) - well the 12 year children of football players were much bigger than I am! Robyn
Umm, Texdav, you do realize that tax contributions for Medicare only cover about 1/3rd of the cost, right? So Medicare is basically about 2/3rds welfare? And then Medicare premiums depend on income, so "some are subsidized and others pay the cost of it?"
I have come around to the point of view that the health of a child ought not be dependent on who its parents are. And probably, the healthier all the children are, the better off we all will be. And if we can take care of medical needs for the old and washed-up with welfare (Medicare) then we ought to be able to take care of our future, our children, the same way.
It's less than that (what we on Medicare pay versus what we cost). Unless you're really upper income ($170/k MAGI+ for a couple) - there's a 75% subsidy on Part B - and Part A is "free". I've never really been able to figure out what Part A "costs" - but the part B subsidy alone is worth about $300/month per person.
The issue with children troubles me. On the one hand - children ought not to suffer for the sins of parents. OTOH - we can't make the production of illegitimate children by poor women a cottage industry. Especially now that about 50% of children in the US are born illegitimate - and therefore pretty much doomed to lives of poverty from the outset (being born illegitimate in the US is the single most important factor when it comes to predicting poverty).
I personally favor reasonable monetary incentives to cut off reproductive capabilities (getting your tubes tied - having a vasectomy - etc.). OTOH - I'm not sure something like that would work (many poor mothers have illegitimate kids for the same reason lots of people have dogs - to keep them company and make them feel loved). Note that I did personal research on this when I was a student 40+ years ago. I thought championing easy access to birth control in stodgy Massachusetts then was the answer. But it wasn't. Many 16 year old poor black girls wanted kids the same way many other people want puppies (I dealt with black girls in Boston - but I'm sure there are many white girls in the US in that category today).
I also favor government policies that give incentives to get married - as opposed to not. Perhaps tax credits for lower income married couples with kids. Even outright government grants. Perhaps there could be other things too.
You got a better idea - a more well thought out idea - even a "pulling it out of your a-hole idea" - I'd be glad to hear it. Because I have pretty much given up on good ideas. Robyn
You do realize medicare is part of the tax system people pay into during their working life. The same is true of SS ;its not voluntary or free. But ACA or even universal is a system where some are subsidized and others pay the cost of it. Remember that medicaid is hugely increased under ACA which will mean more taxes on those who pay them as 2017 comes then the other taxes coming .Nothing is free and the more you make the more you are the providers to those who don't. That is who government is dependent on itself.
All insurance involves one group subsidizing another. Whether it's health, life, property, car....you name it. The group that doesn't use the insurance while paying premiums inevitably subsidizes the group that uses it. This is the very nature of insurance. This is a basic fact that those who object to the ACA ostensibly because of the subsidies involved fail to understand.
Just FWIW - I am not for or against "universal healthcare" (whatever that means - most countries - even if they once had "universal healthcare" - are now going in the other direction when it comes to illegal immigrants - "medical tourists" - etc.). Also - I don't know about other states - but a very large % of the uninsured in Florida are illegals - or legal only by virtue of the ridiculous wet foot/dry foot immigration policy when it comes to Cubans.* Once immigrants are "legal" - they qualify for Medicaid in 5 years. I think Medicaid should be a program only for citizens.
The closest things I've observed/read about like this in Europe are the boatloads of African immigrants who try to get to Italy and similar (not only for health care but for food and housing and the like). I imagine some succeed - but the papers only report the boats that capsize - often killing many people. Then there's the backlash in Sweden when it comes to providing health care for "refugees". And - of course - there's a backlash in the UK about this now as well (which I've previously mentioned). Many of these people come from wretched circumstances - but that doesn't mean that the developed countries in the world can afford to take care of even a small % of them (much less all).
Also - you have to keep in mind that almost 50% of people legally in the US who play by the rules don't pay income taxes. And that's only on the basis of *reported income*. It's estimated that about 10% of the total GDP in the US is in the "underground economy". We've already seen today that at least one misguided "navigator" is telling people who haven't reported income in the past not to report it when they apply for ACA subsidies.
You keep mentioning 13% as your magic number. Is the 13% the number you pay - or the number everyone pays? If not everyone is paying - what % of the working age population is paying? Do some people pay more than 13% - do some people pay less than 13%?
And it's 13% of what again? Adjusted gross income - modified adjusted gross income? I'd be ok with paying that 13% now for the Medicare I have now (and pay for my Medigap and Part D and concierge plan out of pocket). Then again - I am retired and pretty good at taxes. That 13% wouldn't even cover me and my husband for the subsidies we get from Medicare. So who's going to pay for everyone else if that 13% won't even cover us? To me - it's pretty much all dollars and cents - not ideology.
BTW - in terms of all the southern bashing - I lived up north for a fair part of my life. My father made a a good living as a builder in southern New Jersey catering to a mostly white Italian clientele fleeing black people in Philadelphia. The southies when I lived in the Boston area were as virulent in terms of racism as it comes. Miami is the only city in the south to make the "most segregated" list I linked above. And that's because many/most white Hispanics (the majority ethnic group in Miami) are even more racist than most domestic white people. Brits are certainly pretty racist too:
Don't know about Scots. OTOH - Scotland has a whopping < 1% black population. So it's pretty much a theoretical question for Scots.
We here in the southern part of the US have large black populations. Where I live - in my particular community - perhaps not so much - like about 5%. Toss in Asian/Americans and similar - and you're at about 10%. OK by me. My community is "zoned by income" - not race or ethnic background. I don't care what "flavor" a resident of my HOA is - as long as the family keeps its property looking nice (and almost everyone who lives here - regardless of "flavor" - can afford to and does that). My only complaint is the kids who came to my house on Halloween (we had over 200 this year) - well the 12 year children of football players were much bigger than I am! Robyn
OK Robyn: Since you asked me the question and I answered.
If we could get rid of all the "illegals" for you, what kind on universal care would you support?
All insurance involves one group subsidizing another. Whether it's health, life, property, car....you name it. The group that doesn't use the insurance while paying premiums inevitably subsidizes the group that uses it. This is the very nature of insurance. This is a basic fact that those who object to the ACA ostensibly because of the subsidies involved fail to understand.
Yes, but what proponents of the ACA fail to understand ( actually, they just usually fail to admit) that in cases other than the ACA, risks were lumped into pools of like risks. Higher risk insureds paid more than those in a low risk pool.
Yes, but what proponents of the ACA fail to understand ( actually, they just usually fail to admit) that in cases other than the ACA, risks were lumped into pools of like risks. Higher risk insureds paid more than those in a low risk pool.
That is NOT true. MOST people in the US are covered under group medical plans and those plans are lumped together and "risk" doesn't factor into the premiums individually. RECENTLY some groups have attached surcharges for smokers, that's it. For those in individual policies, you are rated on your age and zip code, some states do rate for health risks but even those premiums are off-set by other people with individual plans that are low users.
For home, auto, etc, your rates are set by zip code by most major companies. You may receive a discount because of your credit or claims experience but your base rate is the same as everyone in your zip code.
That is NOT true. MOST people in the US are covered under group medical plans and those plans are lumped together and "risk" doesn't factor into the premiums individually.
Correct. I'm a group policy where my 27 year old intern pays the same as those twice his age.
Forgive my ignorance but I have a question and I'm sure someone will enlighten me. For the most part, I am sensing people on this forum are against having Universal healthcare as an option for their future. One of the main reasons being they don't want their healthcare system to be "run by the government".
Here's where my confusion arises. Based on the nature of my work, I come into contact and treat lots of elderly folk on Medicare and lower income patients on Medicaid programs. These programmes are "Government" funded and the recipients are generally thankful for them, indeed are happy enough with them, and are actually given a sense of relief once on them. (Particularly when they have additional supplementary insurance to pay the shortfall)
So what I'm not getting is this...if you're happy to have government funded programmes once you reach the age of 65 (or medicaid for other reasons), then why have such an issue with having Government funded healthcare for the whole of your lifespan?? I just don't get it. Am I missing something here?? Surely if folk are so against Universal healthcare and/or Government involvement with their healthcare, then you would want to abolish Medicare and you would be perfectly happy to pay your premiums for private insurance for your whole life??
I dont really care who supplies my healthcare as long as i get it when needed and its affordable, Big problem i have with private insurances is the length they go to weasel out of paying when its time for them to pay up,Pre-Existing conditions, caps,co-pays and cobras,high premiums and deductables, lose your job=lose your insurance Etc are all problems inherant with the private system whereas government run single payer health care is a much simpler plan paid for through taxes and basically from birth to death if you are American and still breathing you're covered.
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.
