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.
As with SS a simple approach is to increase the premium to the price point where it works. Problem is many Americans don't want to pay for someone else.
With wealth not income concentrated in the hands of so few ( top 30%) asking them to pay so much more than they currently do is probably not achievable.
An utterly logical solution.
Yet, I bet many here instead of understanding that the real problem with Medicare is that health care costs are increasing exponentially and that people are living longer than they did fifty years ago (thus requiring greater expenditures towards their health care needs).
We need solutions, but those solutions need to take the form of constructive ideas--like raising taxes--rather than looking for a bogeyman like "thieving politicians that steal our money".
Medicare fraud needs to be rooted out and prosecuted. I would also like to see price controls on the costs of prescription medication. We can start with those like insulin that are "life-saving" or mandatory.
When I looked at the plan I now pay $650 a month for, and changed my age to 64, the premium it gave me was $1030.00 a month with a $1500 deductible. Every year that would go up as I got older.
And this perfectly illustrates the fact that where someone lives can have a dramatic effect on what premiums do as customers get older.
In a pure-community-rated state of residence, what you describe is not allowed to happen. The only thing that can affect your health insurance premium is an across the board increase that will apply to every customer living within whatever region of your state you live in, regardless of their age or health status. So the 30-year-old and the 70-year-old and the 80-year-old will all get the same percentage premium hike if they all lilve within the same rating region. There is no age penalty.
Unfortunately there are only two states that prohibit age rating in any manner or form: New York (home sweet home!) and Vermont.
Which brings up an interesting scenario (bolding mine):
Here’s another major policy conflict between the House Republicans’ Obamacare replacement plan and New York State’s unusually draconian insurance laws. The GOP's plan icludes age-based premium tax credits, ranging from $2,000 for people under 30 to $4,000 for people over 60 – reflecting the fact, in most states, that older people must pay much more for health coverage.
But New York is one of only two states, along with Vermont, that bans insurance companies from charging different premiums based on age. In effect, this rule compels younger insurance customers to pay more so that older customers can pay less. The tax credits in AHCA, if they become law, would compound the inequity [in NY and VT] – giving less support to the younger consumers who are already overpaying, and a larger break to older consumers who are underpaying.
The Affordable Care Act allowed insurance companies to charge their oldest customers as much as three times more than their youngest, reflecting the fact that medical expenses rise steeply with age. AHCA would loosen that rule, allowing a five-to-one ratio. Under current law, however, New York and Vermont have strict “community rating,” meaning that insurers must charge the same premium to all customers buying a particular plan, regardless of age or health status.
When combined with AHCA’s age-based tax credits, the result is a lopsided generation gap: For a typical insurance policy costing $5,000 a year, a 20-something would have to pay $3,000 of the premium, while a 60-something would pay only $1,000. [in NY and VT]
In other states, the potential generational inequity runs in the opposite direction. A 25-year-old might pay $2,500 for a policy that costs $7,500 for a 62-year-old. After the AHCA tax credits, the 25-year-old would pay just $500, while the 62-year-old would pay $3,500.
If AHCA becomes law – which is far from certain – New York would face a choice between changing its rules or living with the perverse consequences.
The ban on age-rating of health insurance dates back to a law signed by Governor Mario Cuomo in 1992. That law mandated both “community rating” and “guaranteed issue,” which prohibits insurers from denying customers based on pre-existing health conditions.
Millennials also should be outraged. If Medicare falters, they will be choosing between sending their kids to camp and paying for Grandma’s hip replacement.
Anyone who equates the cost of summer camp with a hip replacement doesn't have a clue. Not worth reading this author... or this newspaper.
And this perfectly illustrates the fact that where someone lives can have a dramatic effect on what premiums do as customers get older.
In a pure-community-rated state of residence, what you describe is not allowed to happen. The only thing that can affect your health insurance premium is an across the board increase that will apply to every customer living within whatever region of your state you live in, regardless of their age or health status. So the 30-year-old and the 70-year-old and the 80-year-old will all get the same percentage premium hike if they all lilve within the same rating region. There is no age penalty.
Unfortunately there are only two states that prohibit age rating in any manner or form: New York (home sweet home!) and Vermont.
Which brings up an interesting scenario (bolding mine):
Here’s another major policy conflict between the House Republicans’ Obamacare replacement plan and New York State’s unusually draconian insurance laws. The GOP's plan icludes age-based premium tax credits, ranging from $2,000 for people under 30 to $4,000 for people over 60 – reflecting the fact, in most states, that older people must pay much more for health coverage.
But New York is one of only two states, along with Vermont, that bans insurance companies from charging different premiums based on age. In effect, this rule compels younger insurance customers to pay more so that older customers can pay less. The tax credits in AHCA, if they become law, would compound the inequity [in NY and VT] – giving less support to the younger consumers who are already overpaying, and a larger break to older consumers who are underpaying.
The Affordable Care Act allowed insurance companies to charge their oldest customers as much as three times more than their youngest, reflecting the fact that medical expenses rise steeply with age. AHCA would loosen that rule, allowing a five-to-one ratio. Under current law, however, New York and Vermont have strict “community rating,” meaning that insurers must charge the same premium to all customers buying a particular plan, regardless of age or health status.
When combined with AHCA’s age-based tax credits, the result is a lopsided generation gap: For a typical insurance policy costing $5,000 a year, a 20-something would have to pay $3,000 of the premium, while a 60-something would pay only $1,000. [in NY and VT]
In other states, the potential generational inequity runs in the opposite direction. A 25-year-old might pay $2,500 for a policy that costs $7,500 for a 62-year-old. After the AHCA tax credits, the 25-year-old would pay just $500, while the 62-year-old would pay $3,500.
If AHCA becomes law – which is far from certain – New York would face a choice between changing its rules or living with the perverse consequences.
The ban on age-rating of health insurance dates back to a law signed by Governor Mario Cuomo in 1992. That law mandated both “community rating” and “guaranteed issue,” which prohibits insurers from denying customers based on pre-existing health conditions.
So the moral of the story may be "move to either NY or VT if you're worried about skyrocketing health insurance premiums as you age", lol .
The downside being that very little in NY is cheap compared to elsewhere.
I don’t think Vermont’s a whole lot cheaper!
Edited to add, I think those laws may effect what companies offer health insurance there? I just went back to ehealthinsurance and this time put in the zip code for New Rochelle, NY. I did get cheaper plans, but there was only one company, some insurer called "Oscar". I never heard of that. I have Blue Cross now. Maybe they had to get their own state plan because insurers wanted to be able to raise rates on older people and would rather not even sell there if not?
We've been told Medicare and Social Security are in trouble for years. I need the SS but if Medicare would go away, I believe I can live without it as I take care of my own health and stay away from unnecessary doctor's offices. Medicare paid for a hip replacement which left me pretty messed up.
And this perfectly illustrates the fact that where someone lives can have a dramatic effect on what premiums do as customers get older.
In a pure-community-rated state of residence, what you describe is not allowed to happen. The only thing that can affect your health insurance premium is an across the board increase that will apply to every customer living within whatever region of your state you live in, regardless of their age or health status. So the 30-year-old and the 70-year-old and the 80-year-old will all get the same percentage premium hike if they all lilve within the same rating region. There is no age penalty.
Unfortunately there are only two states that prohibit age rating in any manner or form: New York (home sweet home!) and Vermont.
Which brings up an interesting scenario (bolding mine):
Here’s another major policy conflict between the House Republicans’ Obamacare replacement plan and New York State’s unusually draconian insurance laws. The GOP's plan icludes age-based premium tax credits, ranging from $2,000 for people under 30 to $4,000 for people over 60 – reflecting the fact, in most states, that older people must pay much more for health coverage.
But New York is one of only two states, along with Vermont, that bans insurance companies from charging different premiums based on age. In effect, this rule compels younger insurance customers to pay more so that older customers can pay less. The tax credits in AHCA, if they become law, would compound the inequity [in NY and VT] – giving less support to the younger consumers who are already overpaying, and a larger break to older consumers who are underpaying.
The Affordable Care Act allowed insurance companies to charge their oldest customers as much as three times more than their youngest, reflecting the fact that medical expenses rise steeply with age. AHCA would loosen that rule, allowing a five-to-one ratio. Under current law, however, New York and Vermont have strict “community rating,” meaning that insurers must charge the same premium to all customers buying a particular plan, regardless of age or health status.
When combined with AHCA’s age-based tax credits, the result is a lopsided generation gap: For a typical insurance policy costing $5,000 a year, a 20-something would have to pay $3,000 of the premium, while a 60-something would pay only $1,000. [in NY and VT]
In other states, the potential generational inequity runs in the opposite direction. A 25-year-old might pay $2,500 for a policy that costs $7,500 for a 62-year-old. After the AHCA tax credits, the 25-year-old would pay just $500, while the 62-year-old would pay $3,500.
If AHCA becomes law – which is far from certain – New York would face a choice between changing its rules or living with the perverse consequences.
The ban on age-rating of health insurance dates back to a law signed by Governor Mario Cuomo in 1992. That law mandated both “community rating” and “guaranteed issue,” which prohibits insurers from denying customers based on pre-existing health conditions.
So the moral of the story may be "move to either NY or VT if you're worried about skyrocketing health insurance premiums as you age", lol .
The downside being that very little in NY is cheap compared to elsewhere.
We pay a whole lot more for being community rated and not age based here in ny .....our F plans are very very high day one , so we likely end up paying more then age based states in the long run...
Yes you are correct: SS 2034, Medicare 2026, but again changes will come about to continue these programs.
Also, it's not that the programs will be out of money. There's a point at which the program starts paying out more than it is receiving. That's what the dates you mentioned are referring to.
I hope the solution is found before they reduce any benefits.
Are you going to summarize? Because I'm not into click-bait.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobspez
I don't know what will happen in 15 or more years. I don't think anyone does. Imagine those who lived in Europe, Japan, China and Russia in 1935. Could they have known what their lives would be like in 1950?
Actually, people do know.
Europe's in crisis mode. Their unfunded liabilities through 2040 are so high none of them can pay for it without massive tax increases couple with massive cuts in benefits.
Germany claims its unfunded liabilities are only 80% of GDP, but a number of independent sources, including the Market Economy Foundation and the EU Central Bank put it at 276% and 228% of GDP respectively.
That's unsustainable without massive tax increases and massive benefit cuts.
Americans only have to work 35 years to get 100% of their monthly average wage, but France increased it to 42 years and 43 years for those born 1973 and later.
A Frenchman earning 80,000 Euros/year at retirement would have gotten 40,000 Euros/year as pension, but not any more.
It was slashed from 50% to 37.5%, so now he only gets 30,000 Euros/year.
Cut you take a $10,000/year cut?
France still can't pay what they owe, so most likely that will be reduced to 32.5% and in the end probably 27.5%.
Instead of 40,000 Euros/year he'll get 26,000 Euros or 22,000 Euros.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpollen
I didn't read the article, but I have concerns about Medicare for All affecting Medicare. But who knows what hte effect would be.
I do.
Medicare-for-All bans all private insurance.
Your choices to pay for medical services are Medicare-for-All, pay cash out-of-pocket or don't get medical treatment because you are barred and prohibited from purchasing private insurance of any kind for medical services and insurance companies are barred and prohibited from selling insurance for medical services of any kind.
Well, not all. Insurance companies would be allowed to sell cosmetic insurance, in the event you think that you will need a face-lift or tummy tuck or nose job or Botox in the future.
The purpose of banning private insurance is expressly and purposely to prevent anyone with means from circumventing the system.
Whereas you could have a choice of waiting 3 years for a knee replacement under Medicare-for-All or using private insurance to get your knee replacement tomorrow, the People-Who-Know-Better-Than-You want you wait 3 years just like any ordinary Joe or Jane.
The current pending legislation eliminates all co-pays.
To understand the effect of that, I can tell you how it impacted the military.
I used to make the 1 hour and 10 minute trip with my troops to Landstuhl Army Regional Medical Center for sick-call.
Military personnel are supposed to receive priority treatment, meaning after all the soldiers are seen, only then are they supposed to see civilian dependents.
Army wives like to "pull rank" using their husband's rank and so it ended up with civilian dependents treated first, then military personnel and so we'd be there 5-7 hours.
Then, starting October 1, 1986, the government instituted a $10 co-pay for civilian dependents.
Now when we went, there were hardly any civilian dependents there and we were in and out in 60-90 minutes.
I point that out, because that's the problem with "free."
It gets ridiculously abused.
With free doctor visits, you're going to have one massive hell of a time getting an appointment to see your primary physician and also to see any specialists.
If you think ERs are bad now with wait times, just watch what happens with Medicare-for-All.
Edited to add, I think those laws may effect what companies offer health insurance there? I just went back to ehealthinsurance and this time put in the zip code for New Rochelle, NY. I did get cheaper plans, but there was only one company, some insurer called "Oscar". I never heard of that. I have Blue Cross now. Maybe they had to get their own state plan because insurers wanted to be able to raise rates on older people and would rather not even sell there if not?
I looked into Oscar the last year I was buying off the exchange before I became eligible for Medicare.
Jared Kushner's brother Josh is one of the founders of Oscar. One would think that the president's senior adviser would have familial reasons to advise the president against the repeal of Obamacare.
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.
