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.
I am going to take all the elderly, lower income African
American and Latin-American folks in my community out to lunch
tomorrow and help them fill out a Medicaid Application
Good luck with that. Many lower income individuals do not qualify for Medicaid.
Quote:
Psssst - Medigap policies don't work with
Medicare Advantage
Yeah, that's why elderly, lower-income African-Americans and Latin-Americans have Medicare Advantage instead of the medigap policies they can't afford.
I can only assume you do not know how the Medicare Advantage plans work. If people are currently paying for supplemental plans, why would they not continue to do that. There are a number of Supplemental plans that are over and above basic Medicare Advantage. If I wanted a Supplemental plan, my company would be happy to sell me one. Some people do have a need for the Supplemental coverage, generally due to extensive drugs requirements. I fail to see your point.
The point is the premium cost. Medicare Advantage provides the most coverage for the cost for elderly, lower-income African-Americans and Latin-Americans. What about that do you not understand? http://www.ahipresearch.org/pdfs/MAL...Report2008.pdf
49% of Americans still favor a public option for health care reform, with 42% who oppose. So when Republicans claim that most Americans do not like to current legislation how does that fact figure into the equation? Could it be much of the dislike with the current legislation is because it offers no public option?
Creation of a public entity to directly compete with existing health insurance companies
FavorOpposeUnsure Creation of a public entity to directly compete with existing health insurance companies."
1/28-31/10 Favor:49% Oppose 42% Unsure 9%
Health Policy ' Ipsos/McClatchy Poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs. Jan. 28-31, 2010. N=1,127 adults nationwide. MoE ± 2.9
"The plan could include a government insurance option only for people who can't get private insurance, the so-called public option. Or instead it could have the government negotiate with private insurers to have them offer these people insurance that meets government specifications. Which of these two approaches would you prefer: the public option or the alternative'
Public OptionAlternativeBoth (vol.)Neither
1/12-15/10 Public option: 47%, Alternative 41%, Neither 8%
Let's get real. Most Americans like what they have now. Most Americans do not want government "health care", which is European style, which is no health care at all.
Only about 33% are in favor of "Government run health care".
That is the real picture. That is why the Democrats cannot pass it.
49% of Americans still favor a public option for health care reform, with 42% who oppose. So when Republicans claim that most Americans do not like to current legislation how does that fact figure into the equation? Could it be much of the dislike with the current legislation is because it offers no public option?
Creation of a public entity to directly compete with existing health insurance companies
FavorOpposeUnsure Creation of a public entity to directly compete with existing health insurance companies."
1/28-31/10 Favor:49% Oppose 42% Unsure 9%
Health Policy ' Ipsos/McClatchy Poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs. Jan. 28-31, 2010. N=1,127 adults nationwide. MoE ± 2.9
"The plan could include a government insurance option only for people who can't get private insurance, the so-called public option. Or instead it could have the government negotiate with private insurers to have them offer these people insurance that meets government specifications. Which of these two approaches would you prefer: the public option or the alternative'
Public OptionAlternativeBoth (vol.)Neither
1/12-15/10 Public option: 47%, Alternative 41%, Neither 8%
Hey, great! With all that public support and an overwhelming majority in the senate and congress, it should be a piece of cake to pass for anyone expcept and incompetent idiot. Have at it!
The point is the premium cost. Medicare Advantage provides the most coverage for the cost for elderly, lower-income African-Americans and Latin-Americans. What about that do you not understand? http://www.ahipresearch.org/pdfs/MAL...Report2008.pdf
AHIP: Low-Income and Minority Seniors Depend on Medicare Advantage (http://www.ahip.org/content/pressrelease.aspx?docid=24507 - broken link)
The premium cost is the same for Medicare or for a Basic Advantage plan., $96.40 per month. In some states, $0 to $96.40 is returned to the Advantage plan person by the insurance co back to social sec. Most states, none is returned. So yes, the people, like me, who do not pay the $96.40 premium, would have to pay that. We should. But nobody would pay more. The coverage enhancements of Advantage plans over Medicare, are of limited real value to the policy holder. But yes, there are some. My contention is, that removing Advantage plans, and their associated subsidies, would lower the overall costs of Medicare significantly. It would be much cheaper to expand the Medicare benefits to equal the Advantage plans. The Ins Co collects a subsidy from Medicare for each person who has an Advantage plan. That subsidy is between $800 to $ 2000 per month. That is my guess from some of the estimates that I have seen. I have been trying to find more specific govt information on that, but I think naturally, hard to find. I am guessing for a person my age, the subsidy is about $1100 to $1200 per month. My claims on the Ins Co last year was $600, not per month, for the year. I think I am pretty typical of someone on a Medicare plan. I hope you can see where removing Advantage plans and extending Medicare coverage to compensate for what little difference there may be plus fill the gaps, would be significantly lower cost than what we now pay out of Medicare funds. That's what I see, that's what House and Senate Dems see, that's what the President sees and that's what the Ins Cos hate to see being recognized. The Repubs, see it also, but don't want a Dem Admin to successfully clean some of this up.
I am in favor of a Public Option, not a Govt run entitlement of all. I think we have the ability to create a Public/Private system that can cover all of us, and do away with Medicare and Medicaid. Those who are not retired could select from various private plans or a public plan and pay the age appropriate premium. Those who are retired could make the same selection and pay an income appropriate premium. Those who would be Medicaid eligible would fold into the public plan. That way we could deal with part of the entitlements problem and provide Universal Health coverage.
The premium cost is the same for Medicare or for a Basic Advantage plan., $96.40 per month. In some states, $0 to $96.40 is returned to the Advantage plan person by the insurance co back to social sec. Most states, none is returned. So yes, the people, like me, who do not pay the $96.40 premium, would have to pay that. We should. But nobody would pay more. The coverage enhancements of Advantage plans over Medicare, are of limited real value to the policy holder. But yes, there are some. My contention is, that removing Advantage plans, and their associated subsidies, would lower the overall costs of Medicare significantly. It would be much cheaper to expand the Medicare benefits to equal the Advantage plans.
And exactly where is the proposal to expand Medicare benefits to match those received under Medicare Advantage, with no corresponding increase in premiums?
And exactly where is the proposal to expand Medicare benefits to match those received under Medicare Advantage, with no corresponding increase in premiums?
I am saying, if you get rid of Advantage plans, you could easily afford the enhancements and the bottom line cost would be lower. Medicare reform is in the bills, what specifically gets done would be an evolving process. They could address fraud and inefficiency(actually they can and should always be doing that), they could review and adjust compensation levels to be reflective of the rising costs, ... the whole entitlement program needs reform and the bills in Congress establishes that as a priority.
Actually my statement is accurate. You might also note I said medical related expenses and 'issues'. Which would obviously include no income from being sick.
"Bankruptcies due to medical bills increased by nearly 50 percent in a six-year period, from 46 percent in 2001 to 62 percent in 2007, and most of those who filed for bankruptcy were middle-class, well-educated homeowners, according to a report that will be published in the August issue of The American Journal of Medicine."
Thats not true at all.. many who get sick file bankruptcy, but its due to a loss of income, not a lack of insurance.. This happens regardless of one having healthcare or not..
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.
60% of bankruptices
