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.
The fed government has set 65 at the age when the Medicare program offers eligibility. If anything, I've heard of more talk of raising that age than lowering it. If you can't work, there's supposed to be a safety net. If you can work, then you work....until you can "afford" not to.
Yes, there are plenty of people who keep working, just for their job's healthcare coverage. If they don't have the money to be able to afford health care without working, until age 65....then, they work.
You're not arguing that the government should come up with a way to subsidize more people under the age of 65, just so they can retire, are you?
The safety net misses many who do indeed work but are either self-employed or work for employers who don't provide coverage. They must cover their own health care nut regardless of their income, and are often overwhelmed by the high cost of insurance. ACA was supposed to address this.
The health care debate in this country is focused too much on how to achieve universal coverage while completely ignoring the reality that the cost of health care in this country, no matter how it's paid for, is exorbitant and way out of line. The entire rest of the developed world literally shouts at us that that is our problem. We're just too exceptional to listen.
The main problem is that the Health Care costs in this country are way higher than those in other developed nation. Unfortunately as long as we have for profit insurance companies as middle men nothing will change and I don’t see that changing anytime soon
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.
Honestly, it won't help Seniors but cannot see how it hurts them.
Hospitalization and Skilled Nursing is the most costly. Medical care overall is very low cost. Our friend owned a Doctors office years ago. Remember they've already purchased the equipment. As long as drugs are not included, and they do not lower the premium for the low income, I am pretty sure a BUY in would be the best. Considering it isn't a tremendous amount of money, maybe around $200-$300 a month.
Agreed, the most vulnerable in our society, Seniors, should not endure a rate hike.
Many are barely affording or not affording it already. Made just enough $$ to be over the line for free medical care.
The Younger ones in their 50's can work but need a proper level of medical care to remain healthy enough to do so.
When people don't work, they end up costing the taxpayers money. Whether it be clinical depression, a physical issue which is treatable, etc...something seems to happen. Another idea: Just like food stamps require people to work, maybe after six months, they can require the younger ones to work 20 hrs a week or volunteer. They need to be contributing to the kitty via tax dollars too.
Either way, they'd need to be offered Traditional Medicare only so no middle men (insurance companies) would be involved.
Another idea is expanding the VA or Indian Health Clinics. It is less care but it is less expensive too.
The main problem is that the Health Care costs in this country are way higher than those in other developed nation. Unfortunately as long as we have for profit insurance companies as middle men nothing will change and I don’t see that changing anytime soon
Exactly right. But even the insurance companies are feeling the squeeze from profiteering hospital groups, pharmaceutical companies, and benefit management companies, and passing those costs to us. It was originally supposed that market competition would to do its natural job of balancing cost, quality, and availability. That hasn't happened in the health care industry for a variety of deep-seated and long-established reasons. Those reasons can no longer be ignored or considered acceptable.
The main problem is that the Health Care costs in this country are way higher than those in other developed nation. Unfortunately as long as we have for profit insurance companies as middle men nothing will change and I don’t see that changing anytime soon
It’s not the insurance companies, it’s labor costs. Health care jobs are the highest paying sector in the economy. Other than Canada which has to pay to prevent all their workers from moving to the US, US labor costs are double the rest of the first world.
It’s not the insurance companies, it’s labor costs. Health care jobs are the highest paying sector in the economy. Other than Canada which has to pay to prevent all their workers from moving to the US, US labor costs are double the rest of the first world.
They're only getting that kind of money because they can. Fix it so they can't like we do with every other working stiff. Then they'll have to work for less.
It’s not the insurance companies, it’s labor costs. Health care jobs are the highest paying sector in the economy. Other than Canada which has to pay to prevent all their workers from moving to the US, US labor costs are double the rest of the first world.
Yes but as someone stated above there are many other issues such as the cost of pharmaceuticals in the US vs rest of the world, our system of paying for procedures rather than outcome and also the fact that in many cases Health Insurances have become monopolies with little market competition, I remember the days where my employer a big one, would offer different plan options to choose for, that’s gone away and now you have one so the only choice is are you going to take it or not. I was part of an employee group that sat with insurance bids to see which to choose as option. The truth there was only one realistic bidder and as I did more research it was obvious that the major insurers had split the jobs they were going to go after.
Sad but the reality is that we don’t really have a market base health system for the most part.
Medicare buy-in is a great idea for seniors who are not yet eligible. There are so many people like me that have a younger spouse. I can't retire, because her healthcare costs would be extremely expensive through my cobra insurance. I could go on Medicare today,but she can't. I would gladly retire and pay for my wife's Medicare, leaving my position and salary available to the next gen. Win-win.
Yes but as someone stated above there are many other issues such as the cost of pharmaceuticals in the US vs rest of the world, our system of paying for procedures rather than outcome and also the fact that in many cases Health Insurances have become monopolies with little market competition, I remember the days where my employer a big one, would offer different plan options to choose for, that’s gone away and now you have one so the only choice is are you going to take it or not. I was part of an employee group that sat with insurance bids to see which to choose as option. The truth there was only one realistic bidder and as I did more research it was obvious that the major insurers had split the jobs they were going to go after.
Sad but the reality is that we don’t really have a market base health system for the most part.
The "yes but..."
So.... True or False. Labor is the dominant health care cost.
This isn't a trick question. Everyone rushes to finger-point at things that aren't the root cause of the problem. It's expensive to treat people with chronic health problems. The US is the worst on the planet for behavior-induced chronic health problems. For reasons that don't make sense with respect to public policy, we provide few incentives for people to keep themselves healthy. The usual diet, exercise, nonsmoking, infrequent alcohol, etc behaviors. The chronic stuff is where all the money goes and much of it is labor dealing with avoidable health issues.
MFA sounds like little more than a euphemism for socialized medicine. Perhaps it will work if those on the receiving end actually paid something ... which was the shortcoming of AFA. The inevitable problem is that you quickly run-out of OPM! - Such is the case with so many programs designed to garner votes for the Dems., but, which have no viable payment method - except the usual tax and spend.
How about a healthcare program that is paid for by truly reducing spending (and waste) in other areas?
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.
