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.
Silliness. Practically not reversible over less than 8 or 9 decades.
I for instance would have been much better off without Medicare. Actually cost me a $1,000 a month. If if were not for medicare my employer would have paid all my medical expense once I retired. But they used Medicare to escape it.
At this point it is built in. You could discontinue it I suppose for the new born and in 80 years most of it would be gone.
pretty much absurd though.
Depending on your employer to pay is the same system as unions. Usually those that don’t like Medicare don’t like Union type retirement guarantees that place a burden on current profits and stability of the company (auto industry) for retired non-productive workers.
At least that is what I was told growing up, changed any?
SS is not an insurance program, and I dont think Medicare is either.
SS is not required by law to make payments to anyone. Its definitely not an insurance program. I know what an insurance program is. It doesn't qualify.
Medicare MIGHT be an insurance program, although I have never seen a Dec sheet for it....so I doubt its truly one either despite taking on some of the functions of insurance programs. I also don't think there is any legal requirement for Medicare to make payments or cover any particular thing. Real insurance policies exist under policy terms and insurance law. Medicare....bit harder to say but very little evidence exists to support the claim that it is truly an insurance policy or an insurance program based on insurance policies.
The Social Security Administration refers to SS as a Social Insurance Program:
Many of those people that hate socialism would be unwilling to give up SS or Medicare, they are most definitely socialist programs for the greater good.
My understanding is that once you hit 65, the only way you can have private health insurance rather than Medicare (with or without a supplement), is if you have health insurance through work.
One doctor who posts on CD wrote that he may continue to work part time after he turns 65 partly in order to have private insurance rather than Medicare because he knows firsthand that in particular situations, it might be preferable to be a 'private insurance patient' rather than a 'Medicare patient'.
I am aware of the post you are referring to. Private insurance typically reimburses healthcare providers at a higher rate than Medicare does. Thus, I can appreciate that there is a preference for private insurance. To say that those over 65 with private insurance get better care is an opinion and/ or perhaps how he runs his practice.
No MD is forced to accept Medicare. Reportedly 93-96% do, depending on source. Reportedly, Dermatologists and gynecologists are specialties most likely to decline Medicare. While the majority of MDs do accept Medicare, many cap the number of new patients. Conversely, Medicare patients represent the majority of some practice’s patients.
One can’t travel in Florida without observing the abundance of medical practices that invest in billboard, TV and print advertising for new Medicare patients.
Everyone can see how much they've paid in every year. It's mailed to you by the government. It's kind of interesting how little I made when just starting out but the cost of living was less, too.
DH had a project from his boss.
They took what he and the company paid in each year, put it into a safe investment. I couldn't do the arithmetic to figure the interest, stocks up and down, etc for each year for 35 years. Even those compounded interest calculators would be of little use to me. But he had a work group of really smart people who did the calculation.
They figured people my moms age got way more than they paid into, most people in DH generation would probably break even and those younger would really get screwed.
But, one does get the insurance. The final sum for us investing ourselves would have yielded more income at retirement. But how many would put away that much every month? All the young people I know are pretty good at saving at least 10% of their income every month.
That's already happening. Many medical practices won't accept Medicare patients unless they first pay an annual concierge (membership) fee of thousands of dollars per person (That fee isn't covered by medicare, it's out of pocket). That's much more prevalent in locations that have a high percentage of seniors. Think golf course heavy retirement locations.
This does not exist to any degree in my socialist liberal state (which I would NEVER move my domicile from) of MA.
But I am very familiar with what you are talking about and, in fact, I know people here in Florida that spend 10K or more per year for concierge medicine.
In a sense what I am talking about could be a good thing. We know that the very rich enjoy being fleeced in certain ways (think Kochs and fake vintage wines...look up the story), and if they can be sold a Bill of Goods then so be it.
Most really good docs won't touch this stuff...that is, a top surgeon wants to work at MGH (public hospital), not at faking out some wealthy folks.
Obviously the Luxe medical scene has to be heavily regulated....but if it, for example, only includes the normal medical procedures (think hernias, kidney stones, appendix, etc.), then the really luxe part may only be the rooms, the view, the food and an extra attendant or two. You already can get this (and more) for 1/4 or less the price by doing Medical Tourism.
I guess what I am saying is that the "6K per person per year" (we currently spend over 10K) is more than sufficient for 90% plus of the population, so that becomes the level of services we should have. Those who want witch doctors or surround sound in their rooms can go "concierge" and be relieved of their money.
As someone who was raised upper-middle (parents were upwardly mobile), it always amazes me how little extra one gets for a LOT of extra money. First hand example:
My parents had a condo in FL - cost 700K and 30K per year in taxes and condo fees. MIL had 2/2 condo in FL which cost 40K and 7K in taxes and condo fees. MIL had MANY more services (but not valet like my parents) for her condo (pools, tennis, activities, etc.)...
Hotel Rooms - for the middle price (say $130) you can find something really decent...IMHO, what you get for $250 or $300 isn't much better.
Cars - perhaps the ultimate everyday example. We buy cars to get from here to there, but some people spend 80K or more while others spend 20K. They both arrive at the destination at the exact same time.
There are many similar examples - clothes, fashion, food, etc.
I guess I am saying to Fleece the Rich, but it can be done largely voluntarily...and, perhaps, with some means and income tests. This way The Rich will enjoy being fleeced and can brag.
The question fails to address the law.
Under current law, those programs are based on VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION IN FICA.
As long as one can WITHDRAW from FICA, there is no need to abolish them.
“The Social Security Act does not require an individual to have a Social Security Number (SSN) to live and work within the United States, nor does it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one...”
- - - The Social Security Administration
That letter is dated 21 years ago. That letter is not from the IRS.
One needs to obtain a Social Security number for dependents if one intends to claim a dependent.
All employers are required to withhold Payroll Taxes and match for all employees.
Those employing qualified independent contractors have no obligation to withhold or match Payroll Taxes. They do however have to supply the contractor and the IRS with a Form 1099 on accumulative annual payments greater than $600. The contractor is responsible for paying the full Payroll Tax on reported AGI.
There are endless strategies to avoid Payroll Taxes, that involve a level of deception.
Many of those people that hate socialism would be unwilling to give up SS or Medicare, they are most definitely socialist programs for the greater good.
Let's do that for all government programs, including Food Stamps, Medicaid, etc. If you don't contribute for a minimum of 10 years, you don't get benefits. And you have to be age 65+ to qualify.
That's already happening. Many medical practices won't accept Medicare patients unless they first pay an annual concierge (membership) fee of thousands of dollars per person (That fee isn't covered by medicare, it's out of pocket). That's much more prevalent in locations that have a high percentage of seniors. Think golf course heavy retirement locations.
Think communities with seniors with deeper pockets.
They do not represent the majority of people over the age of 65.
Our family MD personally sees only those enrolled in the practice’s concierge program, regardless of age or type of insurance. Everyone else sees one of the many physician’s assistants who have practices larger than the MD. My husband is enrolled. I am not.
Concierge programs have been around for more than 20 years.
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.
But he had a work group of really smart people who did the calculation.
