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.
Your mother's premiums are already going up. SS receive a .03% COLA IN OCTOBER 2016, effective in January 2017. In January 2017 a like percentage increase for Medicare Part B went into effect, cancelling out the cola. System requires 70% of expenses be met, so this is unavoidable as currently constituted.
Much of the problem whether discussing medicare, medicaid, obamacare is the fee for service model, which winds up being infinite in cost. Rather than a set fee for managing the health of the insured. This lessons the unnecessary or redundant tests, etc.
Vouchers or premium support models have been floated, but mostly demagogue by those who want to maintain status quo. I'd put my money where my mouth is and be willing to give it a try. We - my spouse and I - work hard to gain and maintain good health. It would b e nice to be able to have more shopping options. Do we know the result of that, in terms of quality of care and cost? No, but it does not mean that alternative should not be aired, debated and tried.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cassy Fae
Can someone explain to me how this will impact seniors on Medicare? I'm wondering if my mom's premiums will indeed go up. And would it help if she were to move to Massachusetts with me where we have Romney care, which is essentially Obama care/ACA
What people need to understand is that profit-based health care costs will always increase because these are publicly held companies that need to report a year over year revenue increase. Countries that provide health coverage don't have to deal with that. As long as we have health coverage via insurance companies, those insurance companies need to report stock earnings that are higher than the previous year.
You are aware that Obamacare did just that, right? Remember the greedy insurance companies who were deprived of $700B in reimbursements. The Affordable Care Act aimed to cut future Medicare costs by reducing payments to private insurers and hospitals, not beneficiaries, though this could indirectly squeeze beneficiaries.
While I do not quibble with controlling costs, this was demagogued by President Obama and Dems, as "greedy insurance companies" way back when.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose
It should have little to no direct effect on individual's Medicare premiums and coverage. If it leads to many more uninsured and sick 64 y/o patients, then that could raise overall Medicare expenses longer term. If they take away some future Medicare funding to fund the GOP plan, that might have some longer term impact.
A 3 person family exchange plans costs about $1,000/month or $12,000/year. Subsidies bring this down. A 30% penalty would be about an additional $300/month or $3600/year. Not an easy amount to manage for the average or below average income family.
The initial bill is out there for anyone to read. Someone even posted it earlier in this thread. It was Congresswoman Pelosi who famously said, We have to pass the bill to see what is in it.
Fail at you demagoguery attempt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAMS14
Remember all of those taunts by the right about the statement, "we have to pass it to see what's in it"? I wonder if any of them will show up in this thread complaining about that now?
I jest, of course. They won't care one iota. Just as when the debt ceiling comes up in a few weeks there will not be a whisper of concern about raising it. Because it's always DIFFERENT when they do it.
I fully support Trump's new awesome health care plan just so I can watch Republicans have to use it. Watching places like Kentucky lose their Obamacare for Trump's plan which they voted for is going to be very satisfying. And they should be happy because they voted for this.
I gotta wonder about the constitutionality of the Penalty provision.
In Sibelius (ACA case) SCOTUS upheld the individual mandate because it was characteristically a tax. This 30% penalty is not only called a penalty, but is not characteristically a tax because it doesn't go to the government. This isn't a valid exercise of Congress' taxing power.
well one thing is clear, the less you earn the more you are losing with RyanCare.
(and we should call it RyanCare, Trump had nothing to with this)
We know what will need to happen to get this bill passed, it will have to move further right and as such expect to see Fly Over voters get a huge spanking. They will lose so much more than they thought.
I find it stunning they are continuing to support Trump when he is supporting this bill that will strip away their healthcare security.
Yes. Apparently under this plan if you don't have continuous coverage, you will have to pay 30% more for the first year under a new insurance plan. So instead of a "mandate, it's a "penalty." And instead of the fine going to the government, it goes to for-profit insurance companies.
Many will not carry insurance until they become ill. This will have an effect of insurance premiums skyrocketing for all. I doubt the medical insurance companies will go for this.
So when do the town hall meetings start so the public can provide input?
What, there are none?
The Republicans want to fast-track this "Repeal and Reduce" plan through without facing the people.
Cowards.
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.
