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.
Lost in all of the noise and arguing in last night's presidential debate: Joe Biden said he would expand Obamacare to include a public option. He calls it "Bidencare."
I think a Public Option would be very popular. Unlike Medicare For All, you would not be forced to drop private insurance. Instead, a Medicare-style plan would compete against the for-profit private insurance plans. Consumers would have the freedom of choice to pick the one they want. This seems like a win-win to me. If the government insurance plan is cheaper with better coverage and smaller deductibles, then I want the freedom to pick that one.
And since the Public Option would increase competition in the marketplace, insurance companies would have to tighten their belts and drop prices in order to compete. Again, a win-win for the consumer all the way around.
Lost in all of the noise and arguing in last night's presidential debate: Joe Biden said he would expand Obamacare to include a public option. He calls it "Bidencare."
I think a Public Option would be very popular. Unlike Medicare For All, you would not be forced to drop private insurance. Instead, a Medicare-style plan would compete against the for-profit private insurance plans. Consumers would have the freedom of choice to pick the one they want. This seems like a win-win to me. If the government insurance plan is cheaper with better coverage and smaller deductibles, then I want the freedom to pick that one.
And since the Public Option would increase competition in the marketplace, insurance companies would have to tighten their belts and drop prices in order to compete. Again, a win-win for the consumer all the way around.
A public option will be cheaper because it's subsidized with tax dollars. It's easy to be inexpensive when you can run perpetually at a loss. Eventually it will turn into Medicaid for all.
I expect eventually we'll have a system like Germany, where everyone gets 'something' from a public system for about 15% payroll tax, and anyone who is able to buys private insurance (about 10% of the population in Germany).
A public option will be cheaper because it's subsidized with tax dollars. It's easy to be inexpensive when you can run perpetually at a loss. Eventually it will turn into Medicaid for all.
I expect eventually we'll have a system like Germany, where everyone gets 'something' from a public system for about 15% payroll tax, and anyone who is able to buys private insurance (about 10% of the population in Germany).
Wouldn’t it be more likely to be cheaper because it would not be for profit? Your taxes already pay for those who don’t have insurance. Then we can add in our taxes paying for drug research and then paying a high rate for prescriptions. If done right I don’t see why it couldn’t be done without raising taxes. It isn’t a matter of how much it costs, it’s a matter of where the money goes.
The insurance companies saved a lot of money in 2020 due to Covid and reduced surgeries.
Yet my insurance premium is going up over 13%. Because they want a larger profit.
I agree with OP that the public option plan will likely be popular.
There is no way profit will ever be wrung from the insurance companies and hospitals. Non-profit means spend excess revenue on new buildings, pay exorbitant salaries and perks. True non-profit healthcare will never happen in the US.
Wouldn’t it be more likely to be cheaper because it would not be for profit?
I only go by what I see in other countries. As I mentioned, in Germany, they pay a 15% payroll tax for health insurance. Whatever reasons I can think of why it shouldn't be that much, it's that much in Germany, so I believe it would be similar here. And, about 10% of people in Germany buy private insurance rather than use the public insurance, so that tells me the public option there leaves something to be desired. Again, there's no reason to think it will be any different here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishgirlyc58
I agree with OP that the public option plan will likely be popular.
I have no doubt that:
- the public option will be popular since it will charge less than the cost of providing services
- the public option will morph into a system similar to what exists in other countries
- people will be very unhappy with the ~15% payroll tax to pay for it
- it will have the same advantages and disadvantages as systems in France, Germany, UK, etc.
I'm rapidly closing in on Medicare age, and I would like Medicare to be around for me in its current form. Unfortunately, I think demographics just makes that impossible. I fully expect we'll have a system similar to Germany's. That isn't the worst thing in the world, but I don't think it's as good as Medicare in its current form.
I'm rapidly closing in on Medicare age, and I would like Medicare to be around for me in its current form. Unfortunately, I think demographics just makes that impossible. I fully expect we'll have a system similar to Germany's. That isn't the worst thing in the world, but I don't think it's as good as Medicare in its current form.
I will be Medicare age in three years so I’ve been reading up on it and I think it’s a hot mess!
You pay into Medicare for 30-40 years but then you have to pay for part B and D so you can see doctors and get prescriptions. And because I will get a pension I will pay at a higher rate than those who have millions of dollars in a bank account and only draw out a small amount.
And then I need to buy a supplemental plan-which I haven’t looked at in detail since it they will probably change in 3 years. But the supplement only covers the same services as Medicare.
It’s nuts!
And I’ve been in social services for 35 years and understand Medi-Cal rules-which are also nuts! So, it’s not like I’m not used to state and federal programs.
It just seems like it could be simplified and therefore cheaper to administer.
There is no way profit will ever be wrung from the insurance companies and hospitals. Non-profit means spend excess revenue on new buildings, pay exorbitant salaries and perks. True non-profit healthcare will never happen in the US.
It can be done but will probably depend on what the younger people will demand.
I have faith that they are going to change the world for the better.
I only go by what I see in other countries. As I mentioned, in Germany, they pay a 15% payroll tax for health insurance. Whatever reasons I can think of why it shouldn't be that much, it's that much in Germany, so I believe it would be similar here. And, about 10% of people in Germany buy private insurance rather than use the public insurance, so that tells me the public option there leaves something to be desired. Again, there's no reason to think it will be any different here.
I have no doubt that:
- the public option will be popular since it will charge less than the cost of providing services
- the public option will morph into a system similar to what exists in other countries
- people will be very unhappy with the ~15% payroll tax to pay for it - it will have the same advantages and disadvantages as systems in France, Germany, UK, etc.
Health insurance in Germany does not cost the worker 15%. The employer/employee figure totals 14.6% and is borne equally (shared 50/50) by employee and employer. - i.e., employee pays 7.3% (not 15%); employer pays 7.3% (not 15%).
The correct numbers for Germany's payroll tax paid by the worker, which includes unemployment, health, pension, long-term care insurance, are:
9.30% - pension
1.20% - unemployment insurance
7.30% - health insurance
0.90% - health insurance add'l individual amount 1.525% - long-term care insurance
20.22% - overall payroll tax
Similar to our FICA system, employers also pay these amounts. Yes, one can buy supplemental insurance to pay for a private room and bells and whistles. If one's income is high enough (over $78k/year), one can opt out of the govt system entirely, and buy private insurance. In addition, German out-of-pocket expenses:
Quote:
Out-of-pocket spending accounted for 13.5 percent of total health spending in 2017, and most individual spending went to nursing homes, pharmaceuticals, and medical aids.
Which means, most of that out-of-pocket is spent by seniors. Lots of good info, here:
Our current FICA/payroll tax system for 7.65% covers SS (6.2%) and Medicare (1.45%). How many here for an additional 12.57% of their income, can pay for long-term care policies, health insurance premiums, copays, deductibles and balance billing without a significant employer subsidy.
Long ago I did an analysis on the Canadian system. Including income taxes, payroll taxes, and health insurance costs, US people are paying at least $10K more a year than those in countries with so-called socialized medicine.
To believe we are better off in this country with our current system which leaves far too many uninsured and hundreds of thousands with bankrupting medical debt or unable to afford or access health care at all is fallacious. And that doesn't begin to get into the hassles with our current system of in-network/out-of-network, preapprovals/denials, coding, surprise billing and all the rest of the cost control game playing.
Last edited by Ariadne22; 10-23-2020 at 10:52 PM..
I will be Medicare age in three years so I’ve been reading up on it and I think it’s a hot mess!
You pay into Medicare for 30-40 years but then you have to pay for part B and D so you can see doctors and get prescriptions. And because I will get a pension I will pay at a higher rate than those who have millions of dollars in a bank account and only draw out a small amount.
And then I need to buy a supplemental plan-which I haven’t looked at in detail since it they will probably change in 3 years. But the supplement only covers the same services as Medicare.
It’s nuts!
It just seems like it could be simplified and therefore cheaper to administer.
For the average beneficiary, Medicare Part B is subsidized 75% by the govt. 2021 Part B premium of $153 is a fraction of the actual cost which should be closer to $612 - just for Part B. If your AGI exceeds $87,000, yes, your Part B premium is increased.
Most single retirees don't have taxable retirement income at that level.
A good Medigap will cost about $150/mo. to start, or thereabouts. If you're healthy, consider a a much lower-cost high-deductible Medigap plan for about 1/3 that expense.
Administration costs are not huge contributors to Medicare - but they surely are for under-65 private insurers. Elimination of that layer via public option modeled after Medicare would go a long way to reducing the cost of medical insurance. CMS' administration costs are in the area of 1.5% v. private insurers double digits.
Health insurance in Germany does not cost the worker 15%. The employer/employee figure totals 14.6% and is borne equally (shared 50/50) by employee and employer. - i.e., employee pays 7.3% (not 15%); employer pays 7.3% (not 15%).
Similar to social security and medicare, the payment is split 50/50 between employee and employer. But if there were no tax, that 50% the employer pays would go to the employee instead as higher wages. The alternative to believing this is to believe employers simply eat the cost of having to pay this tax (i.e., accept lower profit), rather than passing the tax on to their employees through lower wages (and maintaining their profit). I don't believe employers are, in general, that generous.
While there are some companies with very high margins who could bear that cost themselves (Google, Apple, Facebook, etc.), for most companies eating an additional 7.3% tax on wages is just too much. That cost is passed on to the employee in the form of lower wages, so effectively the employee is paying the entire amount.
At a company meeting many years ago, I remember the CEO explaining to us that he pays a certain amount for each employee. It didn't matter to him how that was split among wages, benefits, and taxes, the amount was set and the only question was how it was split (the context of this explanation was someone asking about an additional benefit, and his answer was he was happy to provide the extra benefit, but it would be at the expense of lower wages, but if that's what we wanted he was fine with that. With that understanding, the employee no longer wanted the extra benefit).
Last edited by jdhpa; 10-24-2020 at 07:21 AM..
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.
