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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 04:23 PM
 
20,996 posts, read 16,836,403 times
Reputation: 39336

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by JOinGA View Post
My mother lived a good life until the age of 93. You think she didn't deserve her final 13 years? She was a well person for most of her life, paying insurance premiums all of that time and getting little back, but she should have been shoved off the system when she finally needed some procedures later in life? Yes, I BOO you!
I agree with you. Also the option isn’t to just stay alive with good health insurance, or die. The more likely things that will happen are things such as a fall and a broken hip. So I guess if you’re 82 and you break your hip, they just send you home from the ER with your hip unoperated and you go home in agonizing pain and never walk again? Or alternatively, get the surgery but you have to pay $80,000 out of your own pocket because you no longer have insurance?

What that poster doesn’t realize, is that if the people over 80 don’t have health insurance, more of them will end up in nursing homes which cost taxpayers much much more than health insurance. This is the backward thinking in our healthcare system that I spoke about earlier. We really need to rearrange our priorities and start getting people healthy and taking care of people. It will be so much cheaper in the long run then what we’re doing now. And simply becoming cruel and cutting people off of healthcare is not a solution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 04:45 PM
 
333 posts, read 81,425 times
Reputation: 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCal_Native View Post
Hopefully all the refugees moving here will get high paying jobs and contribute to social security and medicare coffers. Even Japan is allowing non Japanese immigrants for that very reason.

Japan needs immigrants, but do immigrants need Japan?
So who pays for the immigrant's SS and Medicare? A larger follow-on group of immigrants?

I like this idea, we can all get rich on a perpetual increase in workers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 04:48 PM
 
333 posts, read 81,425 times
Reputation: 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOinGA View Post
Bankrupting the system is not a foregone conclusion for Medicare for All, since all of the money people are currently paying in private premiums would transform into taxes to pay for Medicare expansion.
I think that Medicare-for-all is something of a bankrupt notion (so to speak).

The implication is that the problem is insurance companies and the payment system rather than the cost of care combined with a certain degree of overtreatment.

For one thing, I would guess that Medicare is partly subsidized by non-Medicare treatment...which would go away.

...as a side note, if I were going for Medicare for all and really believed in it (and were Emperor), I would bump the qualifying age down every year and see how it went.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:28 PM
 
20,996 posts, read 16,836,403 times
Reputation: 39336
Quote:
Originally Posted by StrawberrySoup View Post
So who pays for the immigrant's SS and Medicare? A larger follow-on group of immigrants?

I like this idea, we can all get rich on a perpetual increase in workers.
Illegal immigrants donít get Medicare. https://www.kff.org/disparities-poli...ed-immigrants/.

ďUndocumented immigrants are not eligible to enroll in Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP or to purchase coverage through the ACA Marketplaces. Under rules issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, individuals with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status are not considered lawfully present and remain ineligible for these coverage optionsĒ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:23 PM
 
Location: SoCal
13,728 posts, read 6,525,875 times
Reputation: 10263
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOinGA View Post
Bankrupting the system is not a foregone conclusion for Medicare for All, since all of the money people are currently paying in private premiums would transform into taxes to pay for Medicare expansion.
So no private insurance then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:24 PM
 
Location: SoCal
13,728 posts, read 6,525,875 times
Reputation: 10263
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl View Post
I agree with you. Also the option isnít to just stay alive with good health insurance, or die. The more likely things that will happen are things such as a fall and a broken hip. So I guess if youíre 82 and you break your hip, they just send you home from the ER with your hip unoperated and you go home in agonizing pain and never walk again? Or alternatively, get the surgery but you have to pay $80,000 out of your own pocket because you no longer have insurance?

What that poster doesnít realize, is that if the people over 80 donít have health insurance, more of them will end up in nursing homes which cost taxpayers much much more than health insurance. This is the backward thinking in our healthcare system that I spoke about earlier. We really need to rearrange our priorities and start getting people healthy and taking care of people. It will be so much cheaper in the long run then what weíre doing now. And simply becoming cruel and cutting people off of healthcare is not a solution.
Not just cruel, I donít see a really good reason to add 55 and kick out 80.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:26 PM
 
Location: SoCal
13,728 posts, read 6,525,875 times
Reputation: 10263
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl View Post
Illegal immigrants donít get Medicare. https://www.kff.org/disparities-poli...ed-immigrants/.

ďUndocumented immigrants are not eligible to enroll in Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP or to purchase coverage through the ACA Marketplaces. Under rules issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, individuals with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status are not considered lawfully present and remain ineligible for these coverage optionsĒ
They get care in California. They just have to show up at the county hospital and they are taking care of. I went to one thatís how I know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:43 PM
 
2,379 posts, read 608,532 times
Reputation: 4174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
You do like your propaganda nonsense.
Wow. No foreplay; you've jumped straight to personal attacks. You sure do like to brand anything with which you disagree as being "propaganda nonsense."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
In a word: "Technology"
In a Bureau of Labor Statistics phrase: "hedonic adjustments."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
If you actually bothered to study the issue instead of perusing asinine websites you'd understand.
My oh my. You do like to jump to personal attacks and attempts to belittle people don't you? Does that make you feel better?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Annual healthcare costs are driven by technology (up to 65%) and consumer demand for healthcare (up to 36%).
What matters are total dollars actually spent and as a percentage of GDP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
That's a fact, Jack.
Oooh! Look at you! You made a rhyme!

Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post
Medicare spent 3.6% of gross domestic product in 2016, more than six times the share it consumed in 1967, the first full year it was implemented. The share of GDP consumed by Medicare will rise to at least 9% within 75 years — and that’s the best-case scenario. Other plausible forecasts show that Medicare could spend more than twice that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Yes, because of ...
Ah. You agree. Marvelous. You don't really need the "because of..." . "Yes" is a complete sentence and requires no explanation, let alone your imperfect one. What matters is that on the current vector Medicare expenditures will likely rise to at least 9% of GDP (best case) and possibly as much as 18% (a bad -- but not worst -- case) within 75 years.

And you've already stated you agree. Just leave it at that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post
Back in 1967, the average 65-year-old American was expected to live 14.8 more years. In 2016, 65-year-olds live 19.3 more years on average—a roughly 30% jump while the government has not adjusted the age required for benefits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
That's a great example of disinformation.
LOL. No, it is no such thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Where's the correlation between longevity and Medicare costs?
SMH. Seriously? You're asking for a coefficient of correlation between

(a) an elderly person living one incremental year, and
(b) that elderly person consuming health care in that incremental year of life?

Some things speak for themselves. Res Ipsa Loquitur. Next you'll ask for a statistical analysis proving that health care expenditures asymptotically drop to zero once a person is dead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post
The solution is to raise Medicare’s eligibility age incrementally so it once again provides for about 14.8 years of benefits on average.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Another disingenuous claim.
LOL. No, it is no such thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
He fails to mention the HI (Medicare) tax rate has only increased 1.1% in 35 years...That's because he doesn't understand 6th Grade Math. Social Security and Medicare use the same formula:

Revenues = #Workers * Tax Rate * Wages
The share of GDP consumed by Medicare has grown from less than 0.6% at inception to 3.6% in 2016 to a forecasted 9% to 18% of GDP before the century is out. You've already agreed to that.

It appears your 6th grade solution is:
  • Step 1: raise taxes.
  • Step 2: see Step 1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post
Second, there has been a fourfold increase since "the disabled" among working-age adults. We need to restore the original disability standard—which has become lax—so that people qualify for benefits only when they are “unable to work any job in the economy.”

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
More disinformation.
LOL. No, it is no such thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
... those receiving Social Security Disability are not eligible for Medicare until they have received benefits for at least 2 years.
Do you have an actual, you know, point?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post
Third, we need to raise deductibles and coinsurance premiums. The average beneficiary today consumes six times more medical services than in the previous generation, even without counting the drug benefit introduced in 2006.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Medicare Part D -- the, um, "drug benefit" -- has nothing to do with Medicare Part A.
True - as your 6th Grader knows, D is a different letter than A. In any event, your response is irrelevant. Do you have a point?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Medicare Part B has nothing to do with Medicare Part A, either.
True - as your 6th grader knows, B is a different letter than A. In any event, your response is irrelevant. Do you have a point?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Medicare Part A is strictly hospitalization.
Do you have a point?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
The author rails against people on disability...
False. There is no railing against people on disability.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Again, he tries to wow people with "six times more medical services" but shows no evidence that those medical services are being paid through Medicare Part A.
The share of GDP consumed by Medicare has grown from less than 0.6% at inception to 3.6% in 2016 to a forecasted 9% to 18% of GDP before the century is out. You've already agreed to that.

It appears your 6th grader solution is:
  • Step 1: raise taxes.
  • Step 2: see Step 1.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:45 PM
 
1,780 posts, read 625,082 times
Reputation: 3326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lola The yorkie View Post
Just a FYI....Medicare B premiums start at 135! Each year the IRS sends your AGI to Medicare, and your premiums can go up..
We are 75/79..hubby did well..I worked...now he is exercising his stock options...we are currently paying 430 a month each for Medicare! And together our supplemental is another 500 a month...all PPO....
That’s a lot in premiums per year...but well worth it...

We don’t know anyone our age or asset status that isn’t paying in the 300-400 plus a month for Medicare...

Again..yes we are lucky...

That's true.... I forgot that I'm posting in a forum that has a preponderance of high-income earners/retirees.

I was using the average retiree's Part B premium as the example. Even CMS states that "Most people will pay the standard Part B premium amount."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 07:03 PM
 
2,379 posts, read 608,532 times
Reputation: 4174
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOinGA View Post
Bankrupting the system is not a foregone conclusion for Medicare for All, since all of the money people are currently paying in private premiums would transform into taxes to pay for Medicare expansion.
In which case there are no savings, right? All the money people pay to private insurance companies would instead be paid to the Federal Government, right? This points out that on average across the nation we consume around $12,000 per person per year in health care. Therefore, as surely as night follows day, the insurance to pay for that must cost around $12,000 per person per year plus administration. One can argue if the private sector's administration is more or less efficient than the Federal Government's administration of health care insurance... but the average is the average is the average.

Proponents of "single payer" seem to assume their personal total costs will go down. I don't see any reason to believe that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


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