It's cheaper for them if we die (generations, CEO, maternity leave)
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.
People prepay 40 years of premiums for Medicare before they're eligible for benefits. It's the FICA reduction on your paycheck (FICA = Federal Insurance Contribution Act). After prepaying insurance premiums for 40 years, and then STILL having to pay monthly premiums, deductibles, and copays once one is eligible for benefits, why do you believe they shouldn't receive those insurance benefits?
We should structure Medicaid the same way. No benefits unless you've made decades worth of premium payments prior to eligibility, and then you must pay monthly premiums, deductibles, and copays.
The vast majority of the "FICA" is for social security - you do't need many math skills to figure out that 1.3% isn't enough to pay for millions of dollars of elderly medical bills. Oh, and the SS doesn't even pay for itself - the Medicare is less than 50%.....
So, to amend your statement "People who have paid less than 50% of their real cost (sometimes MUCH less) demand and enjoy having a vastly higher portion of it paid when the time comes...from more debt to their children and grand children.
As far as the "extras" that is simple corporatism since the insurance companies didn't like the idea of being cut out of their vast profits - so they lobbied the government to let them in on a small piece of the game.
In the 90's, the GOP Congress:
"gave those eligible for Medicare coverage more options on the private market through Medicare Part C – Medicare Advantage (MA). Originally known as Medicare HMOs or “Medicare+Choice” (among other names), the new private options ultimately offered add-on benefits such as prescription drug coverage for new enrollees."
The whole idea of these plans was to confound and confuse older patients so they can be ripped of better by the private insurers. The ACA attempted to make these plans responsible for their actions...but we can guess what will happen to that now. "Open Season on GrandMa" is the idea of Big Health Care.
How many Americans do you think pay into FICA for 40 years? What with all the "contractors", "freelancers" and bonues/dividends and other ways around it, you better believe very few. VERY FEW.
I just looked it up and 30 years seems more average. As you know, lots of jobs (Police, Fire, even Teachers) allow some good retirements after 20 or 25 years. Also, many older Medicaid beneficiaries pre-dated paying......
Example - someone who worked from 1950 for 30 years didn't pay for the first 11 years (medicare didn't exist so no taxes) , yet gets the full boat care.
You aren’t. They love Kefauver Harris. Now try googling Milton Friedman
Allowing drug companies to sell poison that disable and kill children and market it as "good for you" is absolutely disgusting. You're just pushing "experimental drugs" as a way to open up the market for poison and lethal drugs flooding the drug stores like we saw prior to drug corporations being regulated and held responsible. Who funds the people you vote for? Who funds the agenda you push? Getting rid of all drug safety regulations is definitely something lots of puppets in Congress support.
Give us ONE civilized country that does not regulate drugs entering the market. Just one.
The vast majority of the "FICA" is for social security
And most people LOSE money on that. Hardly a point you'd want to point out to everyone.
The point is that Medicare recipients prepay for 40 years and than also have to pay monthly premiums, copays, and deductibles when they're FINALLY eligible for benefits. Require that of Medicaid recipients, as well.
And most people LOSE money on that. Hardly a point you'd want to point out to everyone.
The point is that Medicare recipients prepay for 40 years and than also have to pay monthly premiums, copays, and deductibles when they're FINALLY eligible for benefits. Require that of Medicaid recipients, as well.
Most stupid idea ever. Requiring a child to pay for 40 years before getting that treatment they need.
And Medicare has ZERO cap on income subject to Medicare taxes. The well-off pay several millions into the system and dont get anything extra out of it, as it should be. Yet the "personal responsibility" folks love it as soon as they get it.
And most people LOSE money on that. Hardly a point you'd want to point out to everyone.
The point is that Medicare recipients prepay for 40 years and than also have to pay monthly premiums, copays, and deductibles when they're FINALLY eligible for benefits. Require that of Medicaid recipients, as well.
Well, yes. There are no free rides. Even on Medicare. The average married couple on Medicare in relatively good health could easily spend $7,000 - $10,000 a year on premiums and/or copays. And that doesn't count drugs. Given their usually reduced income, that means a good chunk of it goes for medical.
It does make one wonder though what the cost (premiums/copays) would be for a couple age 35 in a Medicare for all system.
People prepay 40 years of premiums for Medicare before they're eligible for benefits. It's the FICA reduction on your paycheck (FICA = Federal Insurance Contribution Act). After prepaying insurance premiums for 40 years, and then STILL having to pay monthly premiums, deductibles, and copays once one is eligible for benefits, why do you believe they shouldn't receive those insurance benefits?
But don't you see? Its a socialist system. Through and thru, its socialized. The sin of all sins. Akin to communism.
If its solid gold for someone age 65 though, why isn't it gold at age 63? Or 50? Or 30?
Well, yes. There are no free rides. Even on Medicare. The average married couple on Medicare in relatively good health could easily spend $7,000 - $10,000 a year on premiums and/or copays. And that doesn't count drugs. Given their usually reduced income, that means a good chunk of it goes for medical.
It does make one wonder though what the cost (premiums/copays) would be for a couple age 35 in a Medicare for all system.
WAY less. Risks are FAR lower.
If i were king I'd also make sure that the 35 y/o middle class couple got their 1/3 discount like Medicare.
And most people LOSE money on that. Hardly a point you'd want to point out to everyone.
The point is that Medicare recipients prepay for 40 years and than also have to pay monthly premiums, copays, and deductibles when they're FINALLY eligible for benefits. Require that of Medicaid recipients, as well.
No, that's a falsehood, not a point.
Medicare recipients pay for various numbers of years - a tiny minority of them for 40.
Saying it as fact...over and over...does not change the fact that it is simply untrue...
If you are talking about national policies you should use averages and/means.......
"one-earner couples in which the earner turned 65 in 2000 and was paid the average wage. Such a couple would have paid $39,000 in Medicare taxes but can expect to benefit from $306,000 -- a ratio of $7.80 in Medicare spending for every dollar the couple paid in taxes."
The very best - highest income - payers into Medicare "only" get back $2.50 for each dollar paid in.....
This isn't nitpicking. When you start out with a "conclusion" that is off by 100's of % you can't possibly end up with a proper outlook on the situation.
Medicaid is a different story. We can discuss the details of that one....definitely is far in the red just like your and my Medicare (I'm probably only getting back $3 for each $1).....
We could do away with all Medicaid and you'd still have that small item of giving a lower or mid-wage earner back 5 to 8X what they paid in.
Well, yes. There are no free rides. Even on Medicare. The average married couple on Medicare in relatively good health could easily spend $7,000 - $10,000 a year on premiums and/or copays. And that doesn't count drugs. Given their usually reduced income, that means a good chunk of it goes for medical.
It does make one wonder though what the cost (premiums/copays) would be for a couple age 35 in a Medicare for all system.
In a universal system you have to have similar costs for all ages...or various other ways of working that out. It is somewhat like car insurance. Years ago we paid vastly more than we are paying now. But since we moved to MA, the rates are 1/2 or less....for numerous reasons. Mostly because the state heavily audits insurance companies so they can't rip off people too badly..and the risk is spread. We've had 3 cars totaled (two by the kids, one not our fault) and our rates haven't gone up a penny.
Obviously there are various ways you can "reward" healthy medical "consumers" as well as doctors...this is already being done here (we have universal health care)...and that is one way to even out the age and health difference. But the DNA lottery still means some people are going to cost millions...and some almost nothing. Those are the breaks. The answers are fairly easy....
1. No 800 million golden parachutes, bonuses for sell more expensive drugs, etc. - profits can be made, but for work....not for predatory behavior.
2. Supplementals for those with money who want to guarantee certain comforts. For example, insurance could be offered to guarantee you a single room (many hospitals work this way now anyway)...
There isn't much benefit to "parellel" paid-for systems (private "high-end" hospitals, etc.) but if fools want to be parted with their money, these could exist and help subsidize the regular system. I just read a book by a NHS brain surgeon and he would see the horrible results of patients who went to "private" hospitals....because they, naturally, would have procedures done when a public health service would say "no, there will be no qualify of life if you do that"....but money talks.
Universal health care is possible and could be done here. But it won't be because we pray at the altar of the almighty buck. It's a strange society. We are OK with cutting out the distributor and big profits in everything we buy and every service we use, but for some reason we are OK with paying double for health care. That has to change which means a lot of people are going to take a hurting.
Pretty simple - if we spend 2.2 or 2.5 Trillion instead of 3.5, lots of people (mostly useless people) will be out of their jobs.
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.
