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.
I'm a left-leaning centrist Independent but am totally against Medicare for All; and a Medicare Buy-In would need to have many more details clarified before I'd ever be on board with it.
What I'm afraid of is overall premium-creep, i.e., if either option were structured in a way so as to make it attractive at first but then when they start losing too much money the program will become more and more expensive (premiums and deductibles) for everyone across the board -- and of course the over-65s typically can afford such hikes the least. Either that or they will start cutting back on what Medicare will pay for, or the percentage. Maybe ultimately both. Bad news for us seniors any way you look at it, IMHO.
The best thing IMHO would be to establish a single-payer heath care system, which is what the feds already have for themselves. There are literally hundreds of different plans to choose from (national, statewide, regional and local), from near bare bones to a good (not great) level of coverage. The OPM establishes the level of benefits, premiums, and payments to the health care providers and pharmacies for services and goods. The government subsidizes these plans up to a point. There are co-pays and maximum out of pocket levels. It is by no means a Cadillac plan, but it is adequate. This way, everyone is still in the game-insurance companies, pharmacies, and so on.
The best thing IMHO would be to establish a single-payer heath care system,which is what the feds already have for themselves. There are literally hundreds of different plans to choose from (national, statewide, regional and local), from near bare bones to a good (not great) level of coverage. The OPM establishes the level of benefits, premiums, and payments to the health care providers and pharmacies for services and goods. The government subsidizes these plans up to a point. There are co-pays and maximum out of pocket levels. It is by no means a Cadillac plan, but it is adequate. This way, everyone is still in the game-insurance companies, pharmacies, and so on.
Ummm, no.
In fact, you yourself noted that there are hundreds of different plans (i.e., payers). That is the absolute antithesis of single payer.
If a federal employee has chosen Blue Cross for his health care coverage, then Blue Cross is the payer. If he has chosen Aetna, then Aetna is the payer. See how that works? The federal government, through OPM, is simply acting as the employer to subsidize the cost of the premiums that employees pay. It is no different than how any very large private sector employer subsidizes healthcare premiums for its employees.
It is no different than how any very large private sector employer subsidizes healthcare premiums for its employees.
The hyperbole aside...this brings us all right back to the beginning:
The paternalistic model with coverage related to employment is the problem.
And with good coverage related to good employment... is the deeper problem.
Yes but you also have to understand that since Medicare only covers mainly those over 65 their costs are going to be higher than if you included into it a younger population that should have less procedures and thus cost avg would drop.
Agree with that (as I already wrote in detail earlier in this thread) - that is probably why 2/3 of Republicans (along with most Democrats and Independents) support buy-in into Medicare by 50-64 year olds. It would mean a huge influx of insurance premium money into Medicare, by people that would be using much fewer Medicare resources - a maneuver that could in fact save Medicare.
Same principle for buy-in into Medicaid by people who do not have health insurance through employers (also supported by 2/3 of Republicans, ie, presumably economic conservatives). Right now, NONE of Medicaid recipients are paying Medicaid premiums. Inclusion of paying customers would surely lift some of the burden of supporting the massive US welfare population from the tired shoulders of the US taxpayers.
Since about 80% of the polled politicians across party affiliations support these measures, my guess is that they will probably proceed in some form. But I don't think they will move towards a single national healthcare system for everyone in the US - I still maintain that universal healthcare system is possible only in countries where almost everyone pays into the national healthcare insurance pool (the US, with its ENORMOUS welfare population that does not pay for any of its own benefits, is not one of such countries).
Totally lost on this political debate. Country is already running a huge debt, not sure how medicare could be offered at a reasonable price for those under 65. I was fortunate to be able buy into COBRA with employer at retirement. I had saved enough to pay the premiums until age 65.
Every first world country and many second and third world country has it and ALL find it cheaper than the United States, and usually a good deal better.
Obama sucked because even with a Democrat House and Senate he could not get private insurance companies fingers out of the pie.
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.
