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.
Re: Medicare. Stop paying for heart transplants in 70+ year old wealthy men?
Which 70+ wealthy man did Medicare help? Before you answer, surely you realize Congress and the Executive Branch all receive the same excellent plans. Even Jimmah Cartah, Hairy Reid, et al.
My city-retired sister gets city health coverage head to toe for her and her husband for life. They will each both have Medicare. Why will those like them get Medicare? Which is the first payer?
Which 70+ wealthy man did Medicare help? Before you answer, surely you realize Congress and the Executive Branch all receive the same excellent plans. Even Jimmah Cartah, Hairy Reid, et al.
Surely you realize that Medicare Part A covers hospitalization and is the primary insurer for federal retirees? Before answering, consider that it is sometimes better to keep one's mouth shut than to open it and remove all doubt.
My city-retired sister gets city health coverage head to toe for her and her husband for life. They will each both have Medicare. Why will those like them get Medicare? Which is the first payer?
When she is no longer employed and is eligible for Medicare Part A, Medicare becomes the first payer. I don't know if she is required under her city plan to sign up for Part B. The feds don't require their retirees to sign up for Part B, but most plans do require this.
When she is no longer employed and is eligible for Medicare Part A, Medicare becomes the first payer. I don't know if she is required under her city plan to sign up for Part B. The feds don't require their retirees to sign up for Part B, but most plans do require this.
She's already (early) retired, at 62. So if she already has this great city coverage, why are the taxpayers going to have to pay for her to have Medicare A (and possibly B)? My point being that this case demonstrates why Medicare is "running out of funds" - it covers retirees who already have some fine form of health coverage from independent coverage they always had, or from former employers. Can't the Feds start there??
Re: Medicare. Stop paying for heart transplants in 70+ year old wealthy men?
Not a bad idea. You know that I ask this question rather facetiously.
We have all debated the problems with Medicare and Social Security more than one time. My solutions are:
1. Raise the age for benefit eligibility;
2. Medicare should only pay for those treatments that really help. For example, cancer medications that cost $100,000 and only add six weeks to longevity should not be paid for. All treatments should be ranked for their cost and efficacy and if they don't meet a certain standard they shouldn't be reimbursed;
3. As the recession ends, raise payroll taxes gradually.
4. This is a last resort measure. However, if worst comes to worst than "means-test" some or all of the benefits.
I'm sure fault will be found with every suggestion here. That's fine. I just wish those who chose to "find fault" had a solution of their own. I don't include as solutions:
1. Ending Social Security and Medicare;
2. Allowing this generation to exhaust all the money in the trust fund;
Option 5: Eliminate Medicare Part B, transfer some of the taxpayers' portion to Medicare Part A and Medical Assistance. Conduct a massive public relations campaign advising citizens that in order to save Medicare Part A, the part of Medicare that was prepaid for by wage earners, taxpayers can no longer subsidize Medicare Part B, the part of Medicare that was not covered by their payroll taxes. Yeah, that would go over big.
BTW, in terms of Social Security, there is a major push by the government to keep seniors in the workforce and to promote longevity annuities. The major push is evidenced by meetings between the private sector and government liaisons. One of the suggestions put forth include encouraging employers to transition of senior employees into flexible, part time positions. Of course, the longevity annuities are promoted because seniors who outlive their funds may go on the "dole", i.e. food stamps, medical assistance, subsidized housing.
She's already (early) retired, at 62. So if she already has this great city coverage, why are the taxpayers going to have to pay for her to have Medicare A (and possibly B)? My point being that this case demonstrates why Medicare is "running out of funds" - it covers retirees who already have some fine form of health coverage from independent coverage they always had, or from former employers. Can't the Feds start there??
Ahh, but then the City taxpayers would have to pay much more for the coverage offered to retirees. Personally, I always thought it was odd that the Feds do not require their retirees to sign up for Medicare Part B.
Ahh, but then the City taxpayers would have to pay much more for the coverage offered to retirees. Personally, I always thought it was odd that the Feds do not require their retirees to sign up for Medicare Part B.
Precisely! My wife and I both have lifetime medical, dental and prescription coverage from the state from which we both retired. She has major medical for another year and a half, 'til age 65, and mine reverted to a full coverage, Medicare supplement but still with the full prescription coverage when I became Medicare eligible. The plan even reimburses me for the Part B premium each month and neither of us pay a premium for the medical and only a small one for the dental.
Is it over the top? Of course. But at this stage of our lives we're grateful for it and we both worked long and hard to be eligible for it.
My city-retired sister gets city health coverage head to toe for her and her husband for life. They will each both have Medicare. Why will those like them get Medicare? Which is the first payer?
Because the coverage provided by I am assuming their formal employer is supplemental or secondary and kicks in after Medicare pays. Since it becomes supplement/secondary and not primary it costs their employer/former employer much less and is/was affordable to provide.
Precisely! My wife and I both have lifetime medical, dental and prescription coverage from the state from which we both retired. She has major medical for another year and a half, 'til age 65, and mine reverted to a full coverage, Medicare supplement but still with the full prescription coverage when I became Medicare eligible. The plan even reimburses me for the Part B premium each month and neither of us pay a premium for the medical and only a small one for the dental.
Is it over the top? Of course. But at this stage of our lives we're grateful for it and we both worked long and hard to be eligible for it.
We currently pay 10% of the cost for ours and once we go on Medicare our former employer pays 100% which is much less than the former 90% they were paying.
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.
Of course, the longevity annuities are promoted because seniors who outlive their funds may go on the "dole", i.e. food stamps, medical assistance, subsidized housing.
