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.
And most young married couples with two children could not pay over $1000 a month for health insurance. That is why so many don't have health insurance.
Young people should pay very little because they are young.
Pooling may or may not decrease operating costs for the insurer.[/font]
I agree, but providing insurance to "65 and older" and the disabled is a trillion times worse than providing insurance to a pool with a lot of young healthy people.
Are you aware that the government spends about 600 billion dollars a year to pay for Medicare? Yes, you pay premiums towards it but that doesn't even remotely cover the actual cost of the care provided to everyone on Medicare. Only 13% of that comes from beneficiary premiums. See figure 6 here.
That is why they need to collect premiums from the young, folks that rarely use medical services.
BTW, the above Medicare age poster picked the Cadillac plan for Medicare because he is probably a heavy user of medical services. Some folks need not to pay as much.
Make money? So they'd have to set a competitive market rate to charge premiums and then make a profit from that? Just trying to understand what you are suggesting.
Medicare loses money by only insuring disabled people and folks over age 65. If they insured young healthy people Medicare would lose less money. However, this would decrease the profit margin of the private sector big time.
But, yeah, it's all ER based and everyone denies claims because it saves money. Lol
Denying claims and coverage, raising premiums, and lowering the payments to health care providers increases the profit margin of the private health insurance industry.
Medicare loses money by only insuring disabled people and folks over age 65. If they insured young healthy people Medicare would lose less money. However, this would decrease the profit margin of the private sector big time.
Medicare is not "insurance." It is a "pay-as-you-go" plan.
What if you as head of a family could buy a medicare policy for your whole fam?
I simply would like to see the private folks compete with medicare.
Medicare only insures old sick people. From an actuary point of view that is very bad business. However, if medicare also insured young healthy people they could actually make money. We all know private health insurance is a gold mine. And they make billions because they do not have to insure the OLD and the sick.
No, Medicare provides health coverage to all "old" people who have paid into (or had a spouse who did so) the system. You work enough qualifying quarters and when retirement age is reached you (and again or spouse) get Medicare. It has nothing to do with your health.
Medicare was created like Social Security to solve a problem particular to elderly at that time; lack of health insurance meant they would spend recourses (that many didn't have) or go without. That or rely upon charity care. Initially hospitals and physicians didn't mind that Medicare paid them less than their standard rack rates. This was because at least now they would get some sort of reimbursement for the charity care provided. Also Medicare provided a new source of funding to get butts in hospital beds that otherwise would be empty.
As to the OP's original query, expanding Medicare to include persons say young as their 20's would be *VERY* expensive. There was talk of opening up Medicare to those 50 or above but not yet at FRA, but again when the costs started coming in that was the end....
Medicare like Social Security provides a baseline, you want extra that is what the various gap insurance polices cover. Also like SS Medicare assumes persons will pay in for a longer period than they will be alive/drawing benefits. Unless other dedicated revenue sources are found you'd have to raise the payroll deductions sky high to cover twenty-somethings with Medicare.
Being as this may if you are too young for Medicare and or insolvent/indigent along with certain health conditions (transplants, etc.... ) you can get Medicaid at any age from an infant to someone in their fifties.
Medicare loses money by only insuring disabled people and folks over age 65. If they insured young healthy people Medicare would lose less money. However, this would decrease the profit margin of the private sector big time.
You are confusing Medicare with *Medicaid* and SSDI
The first is an entitlement program; unless you (or spouse) have paid into and otherwise qualify you don't get benefits. Medicaid and SSDI are essentially welfare programs paid for out of general tax revenue and in the case of the former shared costs with states.
Medicare actually is one of the most efficient "health insurance" plans in the USA. Yes, there is fraud, waste and abuse but it does the job intended better and for less cost than private.
Where you would see any fight in expanding Medicare would likely come from physicians and hospitals who are already moaning over the low reimbursement rates for providing care to seniors. Ask them to expand that "loss" to younger patients and there likely will be all out war.
My wife and I are older than 65 and both of us have been on Medicare for a couple years now, we love it and I would like to see it open to everyone but everyone, and I do mean everyone, would simply have to pay the same amount for their Medicare Insurance as my wife and I pay.
The cost for each of us:
Part B Premium: $104.90
Medicare plan G: $135.00
Medicare Plan D: $ 29.00
Total Each: $268.90
Monthly Total for Both of Us: $537.80
So now you know Medicare is not free, we pay for it now and we paid for it by working 50 years and paying taxes.
If you are married with two children you should be able to purchase Medicare for what we pay for it: $268.90/month for each member of the family for a total monthly premium of $1,075.60.
Don't get me wrong, I am not complaining for the cost it is the best health insurance you can purchase because it nails your cost so there isn't any surprises.
With Plan G my total annual deductible is $147.00.
With Plan G I do not have any co-pays everything is 100% covered and after I meet my co-pay, which usually happens in March, my wallet never, ever leaves my pocket for the rest of the year. Doctor, hospital or whatever it is all covered after I meet my deductible.
Plan D covers pharmacy and it generally isn't that expensive. Unless you are taking some serious meds total pharmacy shouldn't run over $200/year /person.
But here is the catch, everyone pays! I am sick and tired of having worked my entire life, my first W-2 was 1966, and there are to many out there that feel entitled to something for free that I paid for my entire life.
Actually,no you did not,especially if you factor in inflation.
Your 1966 dollars paid into Medicare do not compute to today's health care costs.
How would we cover them during a healthcare crisis?
Turn them away?
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.
