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.
And how many seniors will then just go on Medicaid?
21% of seniors are already on Medicaid in addition to Medicare. They are on both. And that doesn't include the Medicaid that is covering seniors in nursing homes.
Dh was told that he had to sign up at 65 or he would not be able to later. We would have preferred to just carry him on my insurance but that was not an option. Maybe this is because he wasn't covered by HIS employer. We're covered by mine. The policy is not in his name.
I know what he had to do. I'm trusting what the Medicare people told us not what you are telling me. They said he had to sign up at 65 or risk not ever being able to sign up so that's what he did. Future insurability is not something to mess with when you're 65. So we've paid a couple hundred extra a month to have him covered on Medicare when I have a great BCBS policy that I already pay the family plan on. I don't get why he was told he had to sign up when he's a rider on my plan but that's what he was told so that's what we did. Better to pay more now and insure insurability later than to run the risk he can't get insurance down the road. I'm a few years off before I turn 65. I'll have to ask one of the teachers who is dh's age if he had to sign up at 65. It may be different if you're on a policy provided by your employer vs being a rider on someone else's policy.
You can sign up later, but you might have a waiting period or a higher premium. Medicare is one of our grandest bargains, so it makes little sense to delay. 9 months for me and I'm in.
Dh was told that he had to sign up at 65 or he would not be able to later. We would have preferred to just carry him on my insurance but that was not an option. Maybe this is because he wasn't covered by HIS employer. We're covered by mine. The policy is not in his name.
I know what he had to do. I'm trusting what the Medicare people told us not what you are telling me. They said he had to sign up at 65 or risk not ever being able to sign up so that's what he did. Future insurability is not something to mess with when you're 65. So we've paid a couple hundred extra a month to have him covered on Medicare when I have a great BCBS policy that I already pay the family plan on. I don't get why he was told he had to sign up when he's a rider on my plan but that's what he was told so that's what we did. Better to pay more now and insure insurability later than to run the risk he can't get insurance down the road. I'm a few years off before I turn 65. I'll have to ask one of the teachers who is dh's age if he had to sign up at 65. It may be different if you're on a policy provided by your employer vs being a rider on someone else's policy.
You can sign up later, but you might have a waiting period or a higher premium. Medicare is one of our grandest bargains, so it makes little sense to delay. 9 months for me and I'm in.
My husband's employer/insurer offer a voluntary Wellness Program whereby one can earn points towards the employee share of the premium. He lost 20 pounds and has kept it off. He gave up cigars. He cut his cholesterol in half. He takes 15-20,000 steps a day. The Wellness credit offsets his/our share of the premium.
I am self employed and would need an individual plan if my husband retired. I/we do not qualify for subsidies.
For us, it is more cost effective for my husband to delay enrollment.. So long as there is no gap in coverage, he will not incur a penalty.
My husband's employer/insurer offer a voluntary Wellness Program whereby one can earn points towards the employee share of the premium. He lost 20 pounds and has kept it off. He gave up cigars. He cut his cholesterol in half. He takes 15-20,000 steps a day. The Wellness credit offsets his/our share of the premium.
I am self employed and would need an individual plan if my husband retired. I/we do not qualify for subsidies.
For us, it is more cost effective for my husband to delay enrollment.. So long as there is no gap in coverage, he will not incur a penalty.
With my employer, the spouse has to do all this stuff too. Just wondered if your husbands was that way, and what you are doing to improve your health?
While Medicare recipients paid into the program, their contributions are no where near the level of benefits they are receiving. If you gave them the highest possible credit for the contributions they made, say $3000 per year for 50 years, that would equal $150,000 and they didn't come anywhere near contributing that much.
If you gave that back to them and said, "Here you go, go shop and pay for your own health care for the rest of your lives", they'd be lucky if that money lasted 10 years. A 65 year old with a bad hip, heart trouble and high blood pressure is going to be lucky to find a plan for $1000 a month. If they have a serious health event, it won't last five or ten years. Then what happens to the 70 year old with no health coverage?
Medicare recipients are expecting those younger than they are to pay for them and to pay for all their operations, Medicare Part D, all of it for 25 or 30 years. Yet they are calling those younger and still working, "takers and thieves" and Obamacare as socialism. This is convenient, considering these same working people are paying for this older generation.
I receive no Obamacare benefits due to my income. But I don't resent those who do because I want everyone to have health coverage. What I'm seeing though, is the huge hypocrisy by Medicare recipients who paid very little in comparison to the very expensive benefits they get. Remember, Medicare recipients paid nothing when it began. They qualified based on age alone.
It would be interesting to see a 75 year old shopping for health coverage on the open market. Remember with Republicans wanted to voucherize Medicare? I was against it because I worried for the elderly. But the elderly are worried about you, only themselves. So let's end it, voucherize it, do whatever it takes to put everyone on an even playing field. If socialism is bad, it's bad for everyone.
Then, I guess, we need to look at ending public education too because everyone pays for schools and not everyone has children.
I've read your first post on the topic. I don't have time (77 years old) to read the rest, but just in case no one thanks you, I want to say Thank You. I appreciate your contributions to Medicare and lets not forget Social Security. Thank you for that too.
You didn't pay that, your employer did. You think you should get credit for what your employer paid?
The level of entitlement by seniors never ceases to amaze me.
And the calculator you used began with the wrong numbers since you based them on $1200. a year or $2400 a year for 47 years.
But today, the Republican budget was proposed. They are going to start giving out vouchers for private insurance policies instead of Medicare. Your gravy train is ending.
So are you going to forgo your employer's portion of your 401K? Do you think YOU should get credit for what your employer paid? Huh? Huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aneftp
The OP seemed to forget that there were insurers for the elderly in the 1960s. But as Medicare kicked in. They were all driven out of business.
That's why if you want to get rid of Medicare. It will need a phase in period over 30 years. Insurers will come back as government leaves Medicare. Thats how the free market works.
Similar to high risk insurers for those under 65. There were insurers for that market prior to the ACA. Yes. It costs a lot for those who purchased those plans. But there were insurers. Now that the ACA has eliminated pre existing condition clauses. It drives those insurers plans away similar to the way Medicare drove plans for seniors away in he 1960s.
So phase out Medicare over 30 years. All the current seniors will be dead by than anyways.
Actually, private insurance wasn't covering retired people in the 60s. Many of them were "charity" cases. Sometimes their families had to help them out. You know, like Seacove is going to have to help his parents and his in-laws once his cockamamie plan goes into effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowne
If you have a family how were you so confused by that post regarding HOH requirements?
This thread has been a laugh. As suspected, lefties are long on opinion and short on understanding.
Actually, it's not lefties. It's this one lefty, who actually sounds like a tea-partier in reverse.
I'll pay for my own children's education as long as Medicare ends immediately. Medicare costs much more than me paying for two children to go to school.
Last I read - and this was 7 or 8 years ago in Florida - the cost of government education was $12K per kid per year. It's probably much more now, and much higher in blue states.
Last I read - and this was 7 or 8 years ago in Florida - the cost of government education was $12K per kid per year. It's probably much more now, and much higher in blue states.
But my kids are halfway there. Still cheaper than Medicare which has 50 Million participants right now.
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.
