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.
So are you saying that some folks will still be eligible for Medicare and some will not depending on health? And that some folks will still be required to purchase their own insurance if not eligible for Medicare?
YW.
No. I was perhaps not clear. Medicare eligibility remains unaffected, but by ensuring people are covered early (via insurance before they're eligible for Medicare), the idea is that it will help reduce Medicare costs in the longer term. A person without insurance is likely to ignore or at least not seek treatment, much less get annual physicals done. It should help to see people covered and be more aware of their health, seek treatment well before they enter Medicare.
Quote:
If Medicare is reduced over time, it could potentially be eliminated and taxes would not be withheld from our paychecks.
As someone who is decades away from being eligible for Medicare, I would be wary of that. I certainly don't want to pay the same for less. If I am being promised less, I don't want to contribute and deserve the freedom from paying into the system. With enough people holding that idea, I'm pretty sure it will be present and near future recipients of medicare who will be affected.
Quote:
It is the claim of the administration that the Affordable Care Act will reduce insurance premiums over time. So nothing to worry about as we age.
Insurance premium has increased at nearly 9% per year since (at least) 2000, more than doubling in 7-8 years before the Health Care Reform took effect. This is affecting the economy, the financial health and general welfare of the nation in a lot of ways. So, I won't be holding my breath to see increase in cost come to a halt, but I surely believe that it must be controlled.
Quote:
Medicare won't be needed. And everyone will be covered because it's the law.
Nope. Medicare is a separate issue, which is covered only for cost management.
Medicare was the answer for seniors who were flat out denied health insurance by companies.
The sickest seniors will either be denied, or will not be able to afford private health insurance, if Medicare is privatized. These people will ultimately die early from lack of proper medical care.
Why doesn't the GOP just get it over with and euthanize sick senior citizens! What they propose is, in effect, doing that.
What you don't realize is that right now seniors are not getting the care they need because they can't find doctors who will treat them for what Medicare pays. And the problem will only worsen because the Washington bean counters will try to lower the cost of health care by further reducing payments to doctors and hospitals.
Here in Maine the state owed hospitals $300 million for services provided to low-income people without insurance. Since the law forbids hospitals from denying care it was the hospitals that were eating the shortfall. Doctors, on the other hand, are not compelled to treat Medicaid patients and it is not uncommon to go into a doctor's waiting room and see a sign which reads: We do not accept MaineCare (Maine's Medicaid program).
What you don't realize is that right now seniors are not getting the care they need because they can't find doctors who will treat them for what Medicare pays. And the problem will only worsen because the Washington bean counters will try to lower the cost of health care by further reducing payments to doctors and hospitals.
Here in Maine the state owed hospitals $300 million for services provided to low-income people without insurance. Since the law forbids hospitals from denying care it was the hospitals that were eating the shortfall. Doctors, on the other hand, are not compelled to treat Medicaid patients and it is not uncommon to go into a doctor's waiting room and see a sign which reads: We do not accept MaineCare (Maine's Medicaid program).
Medicaid and medicare are obviously different programs. I would not say it's that widespread of a problem with medicare.
Ryan, R-Wis., said he wants to "protect" people who are currently 55 or older by giving them Medicare exactly as it exists today. "We don’t want to pull the rug out from people on their way to retirement," he said.
So what am I at 54, on my way to babyhood? If it's good for someone at 55 not to be hassled with greedy car insurance scams posing as health insurance companies then why is it ok for someone to be ripped at 54 and under? It's ok to pull the rug out from underneath them? All of this will lead to higher rates for the American worker and federal payouts to these bloodsuckers.
I feel for you, I'm right behind you in line. I'm in the radiopharmaceutical business and I know the system pretty well. Ryan's proposal does not bode well for the poor and elderly. Too bad we could not get meaningful health care passed when we had the opportunity.
Quote:Yooperkat So are you saying that some folks will still be eligible for Medicare and some will not depending on health? And that some folks will still be required to purchase their own insurance if not eligible for Medicare?
Einstein:
No. I was perhaps not clear. Medicare eligibility remains unaffected, but by ensuring people are covered early (via insurance before they're eligible for Medicare), the idea is that it will help reduce Medicare costs in the longer term. A person without insurance is likely to ignore or at least not seek treatment, much less get annual physicals done. It should help to see people covered and be more aware of their health, seek treatment well before they enter Medicare.
Quote:Yooperkat If Medicare is reduced over time, it could potentially be eliminated and taxes would not be withheld from our paychecks.If Medicare is reduced over time, it could potentially be eliminated and taxes would not be withheld from our paychecks.
Einstein:
As someone who is decades away from being eligible for Medicare, I would be wary of that. I certainly don't want to pay the same for less. If I am being promised less, I don't want to contribute and deserve the freedom from paying into the system. With enough people holding that idea, I'm pretty sure it will be present and near future recipients of medicare who will be affected.
Quote:Yooperkat It is the claim of the administration that the Affordable Care Act will reduce insurance premiums over time. So nothing to worry about as we age. It is the claim of the administration that the Affordable Care Act will reduce insurance premiums over time. So nothing to worry about as we age.
Einstein:
Insurance premium has increased at nearly 9% per year since (at least) 2000, more than doubling in 7-8 years before the Health Care Reform took effect. This is affecting the economy, the financial health and general welfare of the nation in a lot of ways. So, I won't be holding my breath to see increase in cost come to a halt, but I surely believe that it must be controlled.
Quote:Yooperkat Medicare won't be needed. And everyone will be covered because it's the law.
Einstein:
Nope. Medicare is a separate issue, which is covered only for cost management.
I'm more than 20 years away from Paul Ryan's proposed eligibility age of 69 for Medicare. But, it's not too early to start thinking about it.
I can still see Medicare being necessary, but it is possible that it could be reduced dramatically, because not everyone will need it. One person in this thread mentioned the chair the taxpayers bought him - only $24,000.
I know people who will receive far more from Social Security in retirement than they ever contributed, and many who don't need their Social Security checks period. It's a different program, but the same principle should apply. Cut out waste. If you want to tax the rich ... deny them Social Security checks. Many seniors accept Social Security because they were guarenteed payment, many don't need it.
For those who can afford private insurance or have it carried into retirement, Medicare shouldn't even be an issue. Vouchers don't seem to be so threatening when they take a person's wealth and options into account.
The OP is under the impression that vouchers will kill Grandma. Not true. Vouchers can provide great savings to the taxpayers by giving less to the less needy and more to the more needy. If citizens will be required to purchase health insurance until they are 69 years old, I don't see why they wouldn't be able to maintain their policies into their 70's and beyond, if they can afford it.
Do you honestly believe the federal gov't can handle health care for the entire country?
They can't even run the Post office efficiently.
EVERY gov't program is full of waste fraud and abuse.
Even the strictest agency of the gov't, the IRS cant' collect all the taxes due. They claim about (they don't even know the correct number) $330 BILLION in unpaid taxes.
“If these two government-run healthcare programs, Medicare and Medicaid, are eating up $900 billion in waste, fraud and abuse, how will adding even more government-run healthcare programs make things better?”
When the U.S. government actually wants to do something right, they can.
Maybe it is time for the taxpayer to demand investigations and long prison term convictions for serious criminal fraud offenders.
It just takes the will to do so, and big business don't want that.
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.
