U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-11-2016, 10:45 AM
 
Location: OH>IL>CO>CT
5,238 posts, read 8,409,707 times
Reputation: 7191

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
I was thinking about this last night so I googled what the Gov't pays for a Medicare Advantage plan, this is all I could find and it's from 2011 so God only knows what it is now: Medicare Advantage plans on average received about $9,900 per person in 2011. That would be almost $20,000 a year for a couple on medicare, and who knows what the 'premium support' would amount to? if they included your investments and savings as assets then millions of people might end up paying the full bill and that would be a disaster.
If interested, the 2017 county-by-county payments are available at this CMS/Medicare webpage:

https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Health-...tebook2017.zip

So are Part C Advantage plans a pre-cursor to Ryan's "voucher" plan ? And would we still have to pay the insurance co. an additional (currently $123/mo in my own case) for a plan with decent coverage ?

 
Old 11-11-2016, 11:05 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,085 posts, read 13,614,329 times
Reputation: 22147
Quote:
Originally Posted by reed303 View Post
If interested, the 2017 county-by-county payments are available at this CMS/Medicare webpage:

https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Health-...tebook2017.zip

So are Part C Advantage plans a pre-cursor to Ryan's "voucher" plan ? And would we still have to pay the insurance co. an additional (currently $123/mo in my own case) for a plan with decent coverage ?
I doubt if you would still pay medicare part B but the rates might be higher than on the lists you provided because there would be no guarantee to insurers of the number of people enrolling, and if only the elderly with health problems signed up the rates would probably skyrocket.
 
Old 11-11-2016, 11:12 AM
 
Location: Paranoid State
13,047 posts, read 10,445,912 times
Reputation: 15683
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
I carry collision insurance because I don't want to spend 20k to get a new car if mine is totaled. People pay for health insurance because they either can't or don't want to have to come up with up to $71,000 if they need a C-section. Why do you have trouble understanding that? All the planning in the world will not protect you from catastrophic expenses, that is WHY we buy insurance

You and I agree more than we disagree, actually, although it might not be obvious.

Let's take that automobile collision insurance again. Insurance companies are a for-profit business, and they make a profit. In aggregate over time, their revenues exceed their costs. No news there - just like every successful business. Their main cost is repair reimbursements. Their other costs are administrative.

We as customers of that business know that insurance is a "bad deal" from a pure economic & probability point of view. How could it not be? The insurance companies take in more revenue than they pay out. Similarly, playing blackjack or playing a slot machine at a casino has a negative expected value.

But for any individual person, we carry insurance for the unforseen, not for the forseeable.

Imagine how expensive automobile insurance premiums would be if, every time we got an oil change or new tires or a brake job or a valve job or an A/C tune up or a fuel pump if we then --- wait for it --- submitted those receipts to the insurance company for reimbursement?

Well, actually, we know how expensive it would be. It would be the cost of the repair plus administrative fees.

That is not a very good way to finance the automobile repairs.



The article you reference helps makes my point for me.

The title of the article:

Quote:
How Much Does it Cost to Have a Baby in a Hospital?

UCSF Study Examines Widely Varying Charges for Uncomplicated Deliveries
And then in the article itself:

Quote:
The study found that California women giving birth were charged from $3,296 to $37,227 for an uncomplicated vaginal delivery, depending on which hospital they visited. For a C-section, women were billed between $8,312 and nearly $71,000. Few of the women in the study had serious health issues and most were discharged within six days of admission.

The COST of a C-section is most definitely NOT $71K.

The PRICE of a C-section according to the article above is between $8,312 and nearly $71K. NOT the cost. The price. NOT the cost. THE PRICE.

There is a causal relationship between insurance funding and the PRICE of a medical procedure. That is why it is all over the map. This is evidence the system is broken and needs to be fixed.

I can imagine a system whereby the catastrophic is covered insurance -- but the garden variety routine uncomplicated childbirth is not.
 
Old 11-11-2016, 11:19 AM
 
Location: RVA
2,167 posts, read 1,267,777 times
Reputation: 4465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacanegro View Post
Perhaps that was exaggerated.......That is all good, but the Govt had to go and spend down their reserves so the program is underfunded and cuts are now necessary within 10 years to maintain solvency, all while the COL is going up.
REALLY! No matter HOW many times it is posted here on CD, the myth will never die!!! There IS NO "RESERVE", never has been, never was supposed to be, from the beginning and by LAW, There can Not be. The government did NOT spend our Social Security. They used the funds as prescribed by law. The government always runs in a deficit, and it is far less expensive to borrow money from itself than elsewhere. The SS shorfall has NOTHING to do with use of the money, and EVERYTHING to do with too much going out due to a large retired population and a smaller contributing population earning less over all when adjusted for inflation.. the deficit INCLUDES the government paying back, with COL interest everything borrowed from SS while there was a surplus. The problem has always been adding on too many entitlements from SS and the income in to SS from salaries dropping with inflation every year.

A growing economy with increased number of jobs would always keep SS solvent. It is a legal and intentional Ponzi scheme. Outflow was always supposed to be from current inflow, with an excess lent to the Fed Government for when needed later.
 
Old 11-11-2016, 11:59 AM
 
Location: Paranoid State
13,047 posts, read 10,445,912 times
Reputation: 15683
Quote:
Originally Posted by ansible90 View Post
I don't know what you think you fixed but you changed what I said. My point was:
because those people never made enough money during their working lives to be able to save any substantial amount for retirement.

We understand each other. Those people chose not to save enough.
 
Old 11-11-2016, 12:13 PM
 
Location: too far from the sea
19,848 posts, read 18,874,270 times
Reputation: 33760
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty View Post
We understand each other. Those people chose not to save enough.

I think the person said they never MADE enough to be able to save. In other words, they did not have high enough paying jobs. Nothing to do with "chose." and, just in case... they did not CHOSE to have low paying jobs either. For example, I know someone who, because of a birth defect, will never be able to work at a high paying job. He did not CHOOSE to have a birth defect. Did not CHOOSE to only be able to work at a low paying job. He works long hours but makes very little. It's the best he can mange to do. He's not happy about it and it was not something he CHOSE.
__________________
my posts as moderator will be in red. Moderator: Health&Wellness~Genealogy. The Rules--read here>>> TOS. If someone attacks you, do not reply. Hit REPORT.
 
Old 11-11-2016, 12:23 PM
 
5,825 posts, read 13,322,905 times
Reputation: 9300
The Democrats were the ones reducing the military's pay and benefits. They don't give a damn about our troops or their families or the seniors. They have done nothing to help either of those groups.

The Paul Ryan interview last night was quite interesting as far as Medicare. He said Medicare and Medicaid are being drained because of Obamacare and he and Trump discussed this and how to fix it. There was NO mention of changing Medicare.

I wish people would get their panties out of a wad and stop all the fear-mongering and listening to the "talking heads" on the news. NO ONE knows what will happen yet.
 
Old 11-11-2016, 12:34 PM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
13,684 posts, read 8,585,088 times
Reputation: 19892
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty View Post
.........
The COST of a C-section is most definitely NOT $71K........
OK. But this is the retirement forum, so there is that question of applicability.
 
Old 11-11-2016, 12:36 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,085 posts, read 13,614,329 times
Reputation: 22147
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty View Post
The COST of a C-section is most definitely NOT $71K.
The PRICE of a C-section according to the article above is between $8,312 and nearly $71K. NOT the cost. The price. NOT the cost. THE PRICE.
When you get a hospital bill it doesn't matter what the cost is, you pay the price. Just like when you get your car fixed, my son is an auto mechanic & owns his own business. You pay him the price that he sets, believe me, the price is much higher than the cost but it makes no difference to the consumer and is not relevant to the discussion.

Things have changed, and insurance has become a mechanism for paying for medical care, even for procedures that were once affordable like an uncomplicated delivery. When I had my kids I paid the doc and the hospital cash. It was the equivalent of about one months take pay and at the time my husband was not making a great deal of money.

Now the 'price' of a routine uncomplicated delivery is probably three or four times the average workers monthly take home pay and in many states rent alone consumes 50% or 60% of gross salary, so how do those people come up with the money? Do we limit medical care to the top 10 or 15% of the population, do we arbitrarily set prices that Doctor's and hospitals can charge and by doing so force a reduction in the 'price' we pay for healthcare, or do we provide insurance to cover the majority of medical costs and subsidize the cost of the insurance for those who can't pay the full cost? Or..do we get on board with most developed nations and provide national healthcare?
 
Old 11-11-2016, 01:08 PM
 
Location: Tennessee
23,592 posts, read 17,582,380 times
Reputation: 27682
Quote:
Originally Posted by in_newengland View Post
I think the person said they never MADE enough to be able to save. In other words, they did not have high enough paying jobs. Nothing to do with "chose." and, just in case... they did not CHOSE to have low paying jobs either. For example, I know someone who, because of a birth defect, will never be able to work at a high paying job. He did not CHOOSE to have a birth defect. Did not CHOOSE to only be able to work at a low paying job. He works long hours but makes very little. It's the best he can mange to do. He's not happy about it and it was not something he CHOSE.
One thing to remember is that while well-paying jobs are not necessarily zero sum (a fixed amount where I get one and so you don't), the amount of people chasing them exceeds the amount of jobs being created.

Combine that scenario with the fact there are large numbers of people in society that are simply not capable of holding sophisticated jobs (intellectual disabilities, physical disabilities, people with criminal records even if rehabilitated, personality problems, etc.), and you end up with a lot of people who are going to fall into the loser category.

Most of the people on this board are by some broad measure in the "winner" category of life. I doubt you'll find many posts on the C-D retirement board who are in the bottom 20% of the intellectual or net worth category for their age.
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top