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.
This study is flawed because it only counts what came out of the employee's paycheck toward Medicare. However the employer pays the same amount of Medicare taxes to the government on behalf of the employee. For this example couple, $244,000 was paid in Medicare on their behalf.
Also the example couple - could be that the wife didn't work. In that case she didn't pay any money into Medicare and the entire benefit for both spouses was only due to husband working.
These days, most spouses have their own job and they both pay into Medicare. This means the couples of the current generations are paying more money into Medicare taxes than a married couple that is now in their 70s and 80s. Those older couples often had only 1 spouse working. This means they are 2 recipients of Medicare but only 1 payers. they are getting 2 for the price of 1.
Therefore, the example couple in that link (that are elderly) are more likely to have paid less into Medicare than a couple that is now in their 40s.
Also that link doesn't count all the people that died before age 65 so they contributed taxes into Medicare but they didn't use it. Their tax money is used to help pay for the Medicare claims for people that lived long enough to use Medicare. Thus helping cover the healthcare costs for 'typical couple' that is described above. Lots of people don't live until age 65.
This is based on a study by the Urban Institute. See Page 5 of the PDF.
Two-Earner Couple: Average Wage/Low Wage ($44,600/$20,000 in 2012 dollars)
Year Lifetime Medicare Benefits Lifetime Medicare Taxes
2020 33,000 534,000 499,000 1,033,000 507,000 111,000 618,000
Two-Earner Couple: Average Wage ($44,600 each in 2012 dollars)
Year Lifetime Medicare Benefits Lifetime Medicare Taxes
2020 37,800 632,000 499,000 1,131,000 700,000 153,000 853,000
Two-Earner Couple: High Wage/Average Wage ($71,400/$44,600 in 2012 dollars)
Year Lifetime Medicare Benefits Lifetime Medicare Taxes
2020 48,000 756,000 499,000 1,255,000 909,000 199,000 1,108,000
The huge increases we've seen since the so-called "Affordable Care Act" are entirely due to it's failings, and it's hard to imagine that scrapping it would lead to anything but reduced costs.
"reduced costs"? Ok, let us know then, who (and why) would be willing to make less money in the end. Your choices are: insurance companies, hospitals, pharma, and doctors.
Obamacare has nothing to do with cost. Cost was/is/will be through the roof unless you have a plan to reduce cost. There is NOTHING in current republican plans to reduce costs.
"reduced costs"? Ok, let us know then, who (and why) would be willing to make less money in the end. Your choices are: insurance companies, hospitals, pharma, and doctors.
Obamacare has nothing to do with cost. Cost was/is/will be through the roof unless you have a plan to reduce cost. There is NOTHING in current republican plans to reduce costs.
And the ACA had stuff about controlling costs. But most of it is rarely discussed.
Let's be honest for a change. The so called "Affordable Care Act" ruined the health insurance industry in this country and made health insurance completely unaffordable for most people. Astronomical premiums and deductibles made it worthless. Premiums are more than mortgage payments, and they leave little if any money left for discretionary spending. It's pure theft. Deductibles so high it's ridiculous. People are better off taking their chances, especially if they are young.
Then back to healthcare via bankruptcy. Young people sometimes have bad accidents.
Looks like some of the ACA insurance providers are weighing in on the expected changes to the ACA. And stating they are looking at 40% increases in costs. Basically it's back to covering the costs of all those who choose not to have insurance.
Back to covering the costs of all those who chose not to have insurance? There was never a time when insurance providers covered the costs of those who chose not to have insurance. How could an insurance company pay a claim submitted by someone who wasn't a customer? I can't even imagine what you could be talking about.
People who chose not to get insurance either paid out of their own pockets or did not get health care.
Insurance needs to go. Period. It is a relic of the 20th century that should be buried. There is no sane reason why I have insurance companies telling me what doctors I can and can not see or which treatment is the right even though my doctor prescribed a specific one..
Americans pay insane prices for healthcare precisely because we have a for profit, publicly traded on wall Street, multibilllion dollar companies that need to get paid first and make as much profit as possible before you're allowed healthcare.
Back to covering the costs of all those who chose not to have insurance? There was never a time when insurance providers covered the costs of those who chose not to have insurance. How could an insurance company pay a claim submitted by someone who wasn't a customer? I can't even imagine what you could be talking about.
People who chose not to get insurance either paid out of their own pockets or did not get health care.
Wrong. Hospitals are forced to treat them. Then the hospital increases everyone else's costs if the patient can't pay. Sometimes the hospitals go bankrupt because of this.
We need to face the facts that health insurance is unaffordable to 80% of more of Americans. Without employer coverage, we would have a complete disaster in the country.
Actually, employer coverage is the primary problem with the system. Employers offer coverage because the value of the coverage is not taxed. Employers started offering coverage during World War II when the central government imposed a freeze on wage increases. This means that the typical patient does not pay for the services rendered and lacks the incentive to pay close attention to their cost (to someone else). It also means that the person who is paying lacks the knowledge to determine what was necessary and what was done to pad the bill.
Looks like some of the ACA insurance providers are weighing in on the expected changes to the ACA. And stating they are looking at 40% increases in costs. Basically it's back to covering the costs of all those who choose not to have insurance.
I think some of the GOP reps are going to freak out when they realize they are stuck. Trumps actions alone will doom the ACA, but they can't find a cheaper solution. Just worse ones.
I don't think they thought their plan all the way through.
But I'll will say this, it looks like they will leave a lot of it up to states.....and the blue states will have the money to do it right. The red states just don't have the population density, and high tech income. Interesting times.
Maybe I need to buy some more property. WA is pricey but if ACA is left to the states ours should be good and will attract even more people here...
To be honest the red states almost seem to be trying to fail. They don't spend money on education and then wonder why they suffer from brain drain.
if you have skills come live in WA we have lots of open jobs, for all sorts of skilled people.
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.
